Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strikes Down Congressional Map as Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymander

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules that the state’s 2011 congressional map violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s guarantee that “elections shall be free and equal,” striking down one of the nation’s most extreme partisan gerrymanders. The court finds that Republican-drawn maps allowed the GOP to win 72% of congressional seats while receiving only 49-55% of votes across multiple elections, demonstrating how gerrymandering can systematically nullify voter preferences.

The 2011 Gerrymander

Pennsylvania’s 2011 congressional map, drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature, was labeled one of the three worst partisan gerrymanders in the country and the most extreme in Pennsylvania’s history. The maps achieved remarkable efficiency in converting votes into seats: in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections, Republicans won only 49%, 55%, and 54% of votes respectively, yet captured 72% of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats (13 of 18) in each election.

The gerrymander employed sophisticated “cracking” and “packing” strategies. Democratic voters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were packed into overwhelmingly Democratic districts, while remaining Democratic voters across the state were cracked into Republican-majority districts. This created safe Republican seats even in areas with substantial Democratic populations, while wasting Democratic votes in either landslide victories or narrow losses.

The maps’ contorted district boundaries revealed their partisan engineering. Districts stretched across multiple counties, divided communities, and created bizarre shapes—all designed to maximize Republican seats rather than represent cohesive geographic or political communities. Some districts connected distant areas through narrow corridors, others split cities and towns with surgical precision.

The Legal Challenge and State Constitutional Grounds

The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Democratic voters filed suit in June 2017 challenging the maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. Importantly, they based their challenge on the Pennsylvania Constitution’s “Free and Equal Elections Clause,” which has no equivalent in the U.S. Constitution.

This state constitutional approach proved crucial. While the U.S. Supreme Court has struggled to find manageable standards for addressing partisan gerrymandering under federal law (culminating in Rucho v. Common Cause declaring such claims nonjusticiable), state constitutions can provide stronger voting rights protections. Pennsylvania’s constitution explicitly guarantees “free and equal elections”—language the state Supreme Court interprets as prohibiting extreme partisan manipulation.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Democratic majority rules 5-2 that the 2011 maps violate this constitutional guarantee. The court finds that by systematically diluting votes based on partisan affiliation, the maps undermine the fundamental principle of equal representation and effectively disenfranchise voters whose party affiliation makes their votes count for less.

The Court’s Remedy and New Map

The court orders the Republican-controlled legislature and Democratic governor to draw new maps by February 9, 2018, in time for the May 2018 primaries. When the legislature and governor fail to agree (Republicans submitted maps the court deemed still gerrymandered), the court adopts its own remedy map on February 19, 2018.

The court-drawn map, created by Stanford law professor and redistricting expert Nathaniel Persily, uses neutral redistricting principles: respecting county and municipal boundaries, creating compact districts, and avoiding partisan manipulation. The contrast with the 2011 Republican maps is stark—the new districts look like actual communities rather than partisan puzzles.

The implementation for 2018 creates immediate impact: in the November 2018 midterms under the new maps, Democrats win 9 of 18 congressional seats compared to their previous 5 of 18—much closer to their actual vote share. This demonstrates how extreme the 2011 gerrymander was and how much it had distorted representation.

National Implications and State Court Strategy

The Pennsylvania decision gains national attention as a model for challenging gerrymandering through state courts and state constitutions. While the U.S. Supreme Court moves toward declaring partisan gerrymandering nonjusticiable under federal law, state supreme courts can interpret their own constitutions’ voting rights provisions more expansively.

The decision proves particularly timely: the Pennsylvania ruling comes just months before the U.S. Supreme Court hears Rucho v. Common Cause (decided in June 2019). Pennsylvania demonstrates that even if federal courts abandon partisan gerrymandering claims, state courts can fill the void—but only in states with favorable constitutional language and state court majorities willing to enforce it.

The state constitutional strategy has limitations: it requires favorable state constitutional provisions, state courts willing to interpret them broadly, and typically Democratic-appointed state court majorities (since Republican-appointed judges have generally proven unwilling to strike down Republican gerrymanders). Pennsylvania’s Democratic state Supreme Court majority enabled this victory, but many gerrymandered states have Republican court majorities.

Republican Backlash and Federal Court Challenge

Pennsylvania Republicans immediately challenge the state Supreme Court’s authority, attempting to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court despite state court rulings on state constitutional questions being generally unreviewable by federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court declines to intervene, allowing the new maps to stand.

Republicans also pursue impeachment of Democratic state Supreme Court justices who voted for the decision—demonstrating the partisan stakes and Republicans’ willingness to attack judicial independence when courts rule against gerrymandering. The impeachment effort ultimately fails but reveals the intensity of Republican commitment to preserving gerrymandered maps.

Significance

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision demonstrates that state constitutions and state courts can provide stronger voting rights protections than the U.S. Constitution and federal courts. The “Free and Equal Elections Clause” offers textual grounding for striking down partisan gerrymanders that the U.S. Constitution’s more general guarantees apparently don’t provide according to the Roberts Court.

The decision proves that extreme partisan gerrymandering can be remedied through judicial action when courts have will and authority. The Pennsylvania ruling, followed by implementation of fair maps and more representative election results, shows that partisan gerrymandering is neither inevitable nor legally protected—when courts are willing to intervene.

The case exposes the scale of gerrymandering’s impact. That Republicans could win 72% of seats with 49-55% of votes demonstrates systematic vote manipulation, not random variation or legitimate geographic sorting. The gerrymander effectively gave Republicans 4-6 extra congressional seats they wouldn’t have won under fair maps—a massive thumb on the scale in a swing state crucial to congressional control.

The Pennsylvania experience also illustrates gerrymandering’s self-perpetuation problem. The Republican-controlled legislature that drew the 2011 maps benefited from its own previous gerrymanders, which helped Republicans maintain legislative control despite competitive statewide elections. Only intervention by an independently-elected state judiciary could break this cycle.

The decision demonstrates the importance of state supreme court elections. Pennsylvania’s Democratic court majority enabled the gerrymandering remedy, while Republican-controlled state courts in other states have upheld similar gerrymanders. This reveals how judicial elections and appointments shape democratic outcomes—making control of state courts as important as control of legislatures for partisan advantage.

Finally, the Pennsylvania case shows both the promise and limits of the state constitutional strategy. The ruling provides a model for challenging gerrymanders in other states and demonstrates that state courts can act where federal courts won’t. However, the approach only works in states with both favorable constitutional provisions and willing courts—leaving many gerrymandered states without effective remedies.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s willingness to strike down partisan gerrymandering and impose fair maps represents one of the most significant voting rights victories of the post-Shelby County era, demonstrating that state-level legal strategies can counter federal judicial retreat from voting rights protection.