The term “Gerrymandering” has been the subject of a great deal of discussion this year throughout the nation. The term “gerrymander” (pronounced “Jerry-mander”) was introduced into the language more than 200 years ago, when this technique was used by then Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry to produce a voting district shaped like what news organizations compared to a salamander; they then began calling it a “gerrymander.”

The practice occurs when a state with weak laws regarding the power of the state legislature to set boundaries for both state legislatures and U. S,  Congressional districts, and the party with the majority uses their power to reshape those election districts to favor voters from that party, usually by “packing” (drawing district lines so that other party’s voters are all crammed into districts together often producing a 85-90% percentage of those party’s voters), or “cracking”, in which the not-in-power party’s voting districts are broken up and put in with districts where their voting power is overwhelmed or diluted by the in-power-party’s voters. Although gerrymandering has been going on for more than 200 years, the advent of computers which can assist in drawing these lines finely has made the practice nearly universal in those states whose laws give loose permission for the state legislature to draw district lines.  PA is one of them, and is considered one of the most-gerrymandered states in the nation.

This problem arises for two reasons:  there are only 435 seats in the U. S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. population increases and/or moves around.  So every 10 years we have the U.S. Census, which determines how many persons are in each state, and therefore how many representatives should be “apportioned” to each state.  PA las lost representative in the past 2 censuses (which have been gained by the Western and Southern U.S.), and it will probably lose one or two representatives in the 2020 census.  As a result each state affected must “reapportion” its voting districts to divide them up, so that each voting district within the state will have approximately the same number of voters. (Voters also move around in states, so this in-state migration also must be taken into account).  Within each state, the number of state legislators remain the same, but in states where the laws regarding how districts are weak, the state legislative district lines are often gerrymandered as well, as they apparently are in Wisconsin.

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently decided in challenges to election districts in Texas and North Carolina, that districts gerrymandered along racial lines are unconstitutional.  However, the issue about voting districts gerrymandered along political lines has so far not been seen by the U. S. Supreme Court as a question they could resolve. The Gill v. Whitford case, brought by voters who complained that gerrymandering of voting districts in Wisconsin has deprived them of their rights.  In a New York Times article on October 2, 2017, Michael Wines discusses the issues at stake.

The background of the Wisconsin case is that in 2010, after taking control of Wisconsin’s legislature and State Capitol, the Republicans used computer models and voting data to redraw political boundaries for the Wisconsin Assembly.  This map insured that Republicans would continue to control the majority of the seats in that legislature.  In 3 elections since the map was redrawn, Democrats have never won more than 39 of the 99 seats in that body, even though statewide the Democrats won a majority of the votes cast for Assembly candidates.

The theory behind the Wisconsin case is that in 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political districts must contain approximately equal numbers of people, thus dividing the districts unevenly violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The plaintiffs in this case, a group of Democrats represented by an advocacy group, the Campaign Legal Center, are hoping to expand that one-person-one-vote principle of partisan gerrymandering.  They argue that by banishing Democrats into gerrymandered districts that make their votes effectively useless, the Republican line-drawers have violated the 1^st Amendment (Equal protection clause), along with the 14^th Amendment, because it “punishes” Democrats for expressing their political views by their votes.

This is not a new argument; in the past some decisions of the Supreme Court have indicated that there might be some situations in which partisan gerrymandering could violate the Equal Protection clause, but also that some partisanship is unavoidable and therefore acceptable.   In his NYT article, Wise notes that that makes the real question – the one which has “tied the court in knots” for 3 decades—tougher: Can the justices devise a yardstick that reliably measures when a gerrymander oversteps constitutional bounds?  Or would that overstep the court’s own bounds and plunge it deeper into the political thicket of legislative duties?”

Opponents of gerrymandering, such as the Fair Districts PA organization in PA, believe that the answer is clear.  Among the 54 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in this case, the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law argue that “precisely because extreme partisan gerrymandering subverts normal politics, it cannot be addressed by normal politics.”  In another brief submitted by the Republican State Leadership Committee, they argued that a holding in favor of the Wisconsin plaintiffs “would politicize the courts and would go far beyond intervention in the ‘political thicket:’ it would impale the judiciary on its thorns.”

On the U.S. Supreme Court there are 4 justices who are likely to vote in favor of the Wisconsin plaintiffs, and four, including the new Justice Gorsuch, who are likely to disapprove of their position.  Justice Kennedy, the potential “swing” vote, has publicly stated his distaste for partisan gerrymandering, but has wrestled with the question of whether the Court could find a way to remedy it. Approximately 20 U. S. states, including PA, would be affected if the court found in favor of the Wisconsin plaintiffs.

Wise in his article quotes Richard H. Pildes, a professor of constitutional law and an election-law expert at NYU, who said in an interview, “I think this is a very important moment for the democratic system, in the United States. That’s not to say a court decision striking this gerrymander down is going to address all of the problems we’ve got, but in the absence of some sense of constitutional boundaries the pathologies of this process are just going to grow and grow.”

The question posed by anti-gerrymandering groups like Fair Districts PA is: “Shouldn’t the voters pick their legislators rather than letting the legislators picking their voters?” Many eyes and ears in the U.S. will be tuned in on the argument on this case at the Supreme Court. Much is at stake.

Although it sounds like the PA Supreme Court is the court that makes the final “call” on appeals in PA (and that is technically true), but its duties extend far beyond supervision of the outcomes of appeals decided by PA appellate courts.  The PA Supreme court is one of the oldest courts in the nation, having been established in 1722, when PA was a colony of Great Britain.  The “modern” PA Supreme court was established in 1864. There are 7 judges (called “justices”) on the Court, all elected in partisan elections for 10-year terms, and thereafter are subject to non-partisan “retention” (yes-no) elections by the voter every 10 years.  The current make-up of the court is 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans, three of the Democrats having been elected in 2015.  One seat is up for election this year due to the resignation of Justice Michael Eakin. Currently, interim Justice Sallie Mundy, a justice appointed by the governor and confirmed by the PA legislature after Eakin’s resignation, is serving until the election this November. The salary for 2017 (adjusted annually for the cost of living) for Justices of the PA Supreme Court is $206,054, and they are eligible to participate in PA’s generous defined benefit pension plan.

Although the PA Supreme Court can rule on appeals from the Superior and Commonwealth Courts, their acceptance of appeals is strictly discretionary (except for appeals of death sentences). Statistics published by the Supreme Court indicate that for the years 2008 – 2014, an average of 2,000 requests for appeals were filed each year. The highest number of appeals which the Supreme Court accepted for consideration averaged less than 125, and the number of appeals granted (reversing the ruling of a trial or appellate court) in any year during this period was 52 in 2012.

A substantial portion of the work of PA Supreme Court justices is administrative. Through the AOPC (Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts), they oversee the work of every court in PA, including the district judges throughout the state, Common Pleas and Appellate Courts, and traffic court.  They write and enforce the rules relating to judges’ conduct through the Judicial Conduct Board, and they admit, regulate, and discipline lawyers who practice in PA.  The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA enforces the Rules of Professional Conduct which all PA lawyers must follow, and they administer penalties, including suspension, disbarment, and fines.  If the Disciplinary Board recommends a punishment for a lawyer, the PA Supreme Court handles all appeals and makes the final decision on these punishments – sometimes they even increase the severity of the recommended punishment!  An annual fee paid by lawyers each year is put into a fund to cover client funds mishandled or stolen by lawyers, which is also administered by the Supreme Court.

A little-known fact about the administrative duties of the PA Supreme Court justices is that they write the PA Rules of Civil (and Criminal) Procedure, which provide the framework within which the laws passed by the PA Legislature are enforced, and to make sure that the procedure afforded litigants and defendants by the courts is constitutional.  In a case where there is a conflict between the court rules and the law, the PA Supreme Court has ruled that court rules override the law.  There is a statewide computerized case tracking system for both civil and criminal cases, although for now individual courts of common pleas determine how and whether the court filings in their courts is available to view online.

One of the additional roles of the PA Supreme Court relates to election districts for PA state senate and legislative districts.  PA law does require that they be fairly compact and contiguous, but crafty politicians still manage to gerrymander election districts to favor one party over another.  In PA, not only does the PA Supreme Court determine whether the redrawn election districts comply with the law, they have the power to appoint the chairman of the redistricting commission, which is otherwise divided evenly between the two parties. (This commission does not draw PA Congressional Districts, which are among the most gerrymandered in the nation.)

Dwayne Woodruff, a former Pittsburgh Steelers player and a judge of the court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County for a number of years, is the only Democrat seeking the nomination for Supreme Court Justice in 2017.  He is a person of color and has a history of strong advocacy for juvenile justice; if elected, he would only be the second minority judge elected to any appellate court in PA. Sallie Mundy, the interim justice currently serving, is running as the only Republican candidate for the office.  It seems likely that a substantial amount of money will be spent for the general election this November, since there is no limit on expenditures for judicial races.

Rocked by scandal and the resignation of two justices over the sharing of pornographic emails and videos in recent years, as well as the resignation of one justice after her conviction for public corruption, the PA Supreme Court would surely benefit from a merit-based system of judicial selection (which would require an amendment of the PA
Constitution), but as of now, there appears to be no move in that direction.  Until then, the voting public must rely on the ratings of the state and local bar associations to properly “vet” their choices.  For 2017, Judge Woodruff has been rated as “recommended” by the PA Bar Assn, and Justice Mundy has been rated as “highly recommended.”

“I’m going to appeal…” How often do we hear this declaration when a litigant is disappointed in the decision by a civil court or jury, or when a defendant is convicted in a criminal case in Common Pleas Court?   The good news is that there is a court which will automatically grant the disappointed litigant or defendant the right to appeal the decision they are complaining about.  The bad news is that the chances of being successful on appeal are slim.

The court with the widest jurisdiction for appeals is the PA Superior Court, which was created by the PA Constitution in 1895.  It is the general appeals court from almost all civil and criminal cases tried by Common Pleas courts in PA, including the Orphans Court (wills, estates, guardianships, adoptions, mental health commitments, trusts, and probate issues); criminal courts (cases brought by the district attorney against individuals who are accused of breaking one or more PA laws); and Civil cases (for money damages relating to contract disputes, auto or other accidents, landlord-tenant disputes, employer-employee disputes (except for unemployment compensation cases), and most other types of disputes between individuals or corporations who reside or do business in PA.  In addition, the civil docket includes divorce, support, custody, property division and alimony, and juvenile court cases.

Anyone who is unhappy with a final verdict or judgment in Common Pleas court has the automatic right to appeal to the Superior Court; all that is necessary is to file a “Notice of Appeal” with a copy of the docket (court listing showing the outcome for that case) and pay the required fee (usually less than $300) at the Prothonotary or court clerk office for that county in which the decision was made.  There will be additional paperwork to fill out to proceed with the appeal, and once the trial court has explained the reason for its judgment or verdict, the appellant will have to file a brief (legal argument giving the reason why the trial court’s decision was not in accordance with PA law or procedure.) Then argument will be scheduled before a panel of 3 Superior Court judges (there are 18 judges in all).  Superior Court sessions are usually held in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, but occasionally they are held in other parts of the state.

At the argument, a formal appearance before the 3-judge panel by the litigant, defendant, or his lawyer, and the opposing side (a District Attorney in criminal cases), the parties can argue ONLY matters of record, that is, testimony, evidence, and rulings made by the court on or before trial in the Common Pleas court.  This is often a surprise to the party taking the appeal – they want to put in testimony and evidence not contained in the original trial record.  Even the issue of credibility of witnesses cannot be argued, except in a few extreme cases, as the court rules specify that the trial court’s decision on credibility of witnesses cannot be disturbed on appeal.

What, then can be appealed?  Procedure, rulings on evidence or testimony, claims that the judgment or verdict was not proper under existing PA law.  Since our law consists both of what is written in our statutes AND on court rulings on these issues in prior cases on the same or similar issues, often the law is not as clear cut as it may seem.  And, unfortunately, this is an area where non-attorney litigants who try to represent themselves rarely succeed.  The legal standard for most appeals to Superior Court is “abuse of discretion,” that is, from reading the trial record and hearing the argument, the 3-judge panel finds that the trial court’s judgment or verdict is “manifestly unreasonable.”

It does happen now and again that there is a “rogue judgment” from a Common Pleas Court judge which needs to be corrected, or that a good judge has made a mistake of law. Not all appeals are rejected; however, the rate of success on appeal is poor.  In 2014, published statistics by the Superior Court indicate that 79% of the trial court decisions were affirmed, and only 13% totally reversed, with the balance some other type of disposition, such as being dismissed or partially granted.

Superior Court judges, like Common Pleas Court judges, are elected in political contests when there is a vacancy.  This year in PA, there are 4 vacancies among the 18 Superior Court positions.  Judges are elected in these partisan elections for a 10-year term, and at the end of their term face a non-partisan “yes or no” retention election to keep their seats on the bench.  Most of the candidates are unknown to the voters, who must depend on word of mouth, political party affiliation, or judicial rankings by a newspaper or local or state bar association.

Commonwealth Court, a very unique court in the U.S. state judicial system created in 1965,  is similar in almost every way to the Superior Court, except that they hear appeals from Common Pleas court cases in which the Commonwealth of PA or any of its political subdivisions, including cities, counties, townships, water districts, etc., are  litigants (other than criminal appeals); in addition they hear appeals from administrative courts such as workers compensation  and unemployment compensation decisions.  In some cases where the Commonwealth of PA itself is a litigant, Commonwealth acts as a trial level court. There are 15 Commonwealth Court judges; there are two vacancies which will be filled by voters this year.

Although it is technically possible to appeal Superior and Commonwealth Court decisions to the PA Supreme Court, the PA Supreme Court takes very few appeals, and even those almost always relate to public policy questions, rather than the facts and rulings in a specific case. This means that the “buck” literally stops with these appellate court judges. Their salaries for the year 2017 are $194,422, (most for administrative judges of these courts), along with health insurance and a defined benefit pension plan similar to that of Common Pleas Court judges, except that since their pension benefit is based partially on their final salaries, they will normally get a much larger pension than Common Pleas Court judges when they retire.

Although there have been some attempts over the years by groups trying to institute a merit selection system for appellate judges, so far, these efforts have failed to gain traction.  However, in a recent interview, one sitting PA appellate court judge indicated that with the U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision which allows huge amounts of money to pour into PA judicial races, the possibility of “stacking” our courts with judges who have strong connections to interest groups means that it is time to give merit selection greater consideration.