Vieth, Richard, Vieth, Norma Jean & Furey, Susan v. Jubelirer, Robert (PA Senate Pres.) (04/28/2004)

Questions presented: (1) Whether the District Court erred in effectively concluding that voters affiliated with a major political party may never state a claim for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, thereby nullifying the Supreme Court opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986)? (2) Whether a state presumptively violates the Equal Protection clause when it subordinates all traditional, neutral, districting principles to the overarching goal of drawing a congressional redistricting map that achieves maximum partisan advantage for one political party? (3) Whether a state exceeds its delegated authority under Article I of the Constitution when it draws congressional district boundaries to ensure that candidates from one political party will consistently capture a supermajority of the state's congressional seats even if those candidates win less than half the popular vote statewide?

BY TAMIKA D. HAWKINS, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Ideally, America is a land where all voting citizens, their votes and their representation in Congress, are created equally.

But there are some who argue that their constitutional civil liberties, along with their rights to obtain voting power in Congress, have been diluted.

Among them is a group of Democrats from Pennsylvania who allege that the Republican-led state legislature has used partisan gerrymandering tactics to draw Congressional districts.

Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who support Democratic candidates and believe that the lines mapped by state officials are discriminatory. The Vieths reside in Lebanon County, Penn., while Furey lives in Montgomery County, Penn.

Every ten years, the government issues a national census report, and with shifts in population, come shifts in Congressional seats. Therefore, redistricting -- a Constitutional requirement -- usually occurs around census time and is the process of redrawing district borders to ensure relatively equal representation.

The newly-drawn district boundaries are created by state legislators and governors; however, Congress has the right to regulate and modify state plans.

Political gerrymandering occurs when it is believed that one political party, and often the majority party of that state, has manipulated district boundaries to gain more seats in Congress.

Following the 2000 census, it was found that Pennsylvania would lose two seats in the House of Representatives due to population decreases.

New redistricting legislation was introduced on Nov. 16, 2001 and passed with amendments in the both state legislative bodies. The bill was signed into law by Pennsylvania's Republican governor on Jan. 7, 2002.

The new districting plan, called Act 1, was initially challenged by Vieth for several reasons, including gerrymandering violations of the 14th Amendment, violations of the principles of one person-one vote and violations of Vieths right to political association pursuant to the 1st Amendment.

In Vieth v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, known as Vieth I, a special three-judge panel in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed all of Vieths claims except for the one person-one vote infringement allegation.

The one person-one vote principle refers to the constitutional mandate in Article I that requires members of Congress to be chosen with equal representation for an equal number of people, and "that as nearly as is practical, one mans vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as anothers."

On April 8, 2002, the court granted the Pennsylvania General Assembly three weeks to submit a plan that would remedy the constitutional deficiencies incurred via Act 1. Consequently, Act 34, a revised zero-deviation plan that allowed district populations to vary only by one person, replaced Act 1.

Again, Vieth challenged the validity of the redistricting plan, citing that the revisions in Act 34 were essentially the same as Act 1 and that the revised Act was a clear example of partisan gerrymandering.

The district court said there was not enough evidence to prove gerrymandering claims and ruled in favor of the State that Act 34 was not unconstitutional.

In rendering its decision, the unanimous three-judge panel utilized the Bandemer standard, the benchmark used in such cases, that derives from the 1986 Supreme Court opinion in Davis v. Bandemer.

Under Bandemer, those who allege partisan gerrymandering must show that there was intentional discrimination against an identifiable group and that the discrimination had an effect on that group.

The Vieths and Furey sought review directly from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Their attorney, Paul M. Smith, concedes that under Bandemer, they must "not only show that a map thwarts majority rule but also that they have been shut out of the States political processes, in the sense of being prevented from organizing and campaigning."

In urging the Court to review the case, Smith argued that if the standard in Brandemer is not relaxed to enable incumbents to be taken on fairly, incumbents who draw the maps won't have to worry about reelection.

Until Bandemer is at least reviewed and revamped, winning a gerrymandering case will be virtually impossible, Smith said, adding, "Thats what this case is about."

On June 27, 2003, the final day of the Court's 2002-03 term, the Court accepted the case for review during its 2003-04 term, noting probable jurisdiction in the case.

It is believed that the outcome of Vieth could affect Congressional redistricting throughout the country, as states like Texas, Georgia and Colorado fight similar districting battles.