HARRISBURG – A group of Pennsylvania Republicans has withdrawn its legal challenge to state officials surrounding the recent selection of a new congressional map, without prejudice.
On Tuesday, plaintiffs Aaron Bashir, James Bognet (themselves congressional candidates in Luzerne and Philadelphia counties, respectively), Susquehanna County Board of Elections member Alan M. Hall and voters Howard Gartland, William J. Hall, William C. Toth Jr. withdrew their case without prejudice, according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
In Pennsylvania, those challenging the “Carter Plan” map chosen by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania last month argued that under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, any state supreme court does not have the power to select a congressional map.
On Feb. 23, a 4-3 decision from the state Supreme Court confirmed the selection of a congressional map proposed by Democratic Party-aligned voters which features 17 congressional districts – meaning Pennsylvania will lose one congressional seat from its current total of 18, as a result of sluggish population growth detailed in federal census results.
According to the map, known as the “Carter Plan”, Pennsylvania will be separated into eight districts which lean toward Republican voters, six districts which lean toward Democrat voters and three highly-divided districts.
Currently, Pennsylvania has nine Republican congressional representatives and nine Democrat congressional representatives, but the new “Carter Plan” map will combine an area represented by incumbent Reps. Glenn Thompson and Fred Keller, and creates two districts in Metro Pittsburgh where no incumbents will be running for re-election.
Though the state Supreme Court modified the schedule pertaining to nomination petitions, it retained May 17 as the date of the primary election in Pennsylvania.
The Court’s 4-3 decision largely fell along political lines, with Democrat Justices Max Baer, Christine Donohue, David N. Wecht and Kevin M. Dougherty in favor of the “Carter Map” selection, with Democrat Justice Debra Todd and Republican Justices Sallie Updyke Mundy and P. Kevin Brobson dissenting from the choice.
Earlier proceedings in the matter had been pending before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, a Republican-majority body, where Judge Patricia McCullough indicated a ruling was imminent in early February.
But the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s action took the matter out of the lower court’s hands via its King’s Bench provision, and the high court held arguments on Feb. 18. McCullough served as special master for those proceedings.
Challengers to the “Carter Plan” map also lost an attempt for the issuance of a temporary restraining order on Feb. 25.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court recently refuted a call from Pennsylvania Republicans to involve itself in the contested political battle surrounding the state’s newly selected congressional map.
On March 7, justices from the nation’s high court issued an unsigned order which referred Toth v. Chapman to a federal district court comprised of three judges, and that the parties would be permitted to appeal when that court granted or denied a request for interlocutory injunctive relief.
In a March 16 opinion from a three-judge panel comprised of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit judges Kent A. Jordan and Patty Shwartz, and U.S. District Court for the Middle District Jennifer P. Wilson, the plaintiffs lost claims which they argued violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they have standing to pursue these claims because they have not shown that they have suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of the Commonwealth Defendants’ actions. Because we conclude that plaintiffs lack standing to pursue Claims One and Two, we in turn lack subject-matter jurisdiction, which renders us unable to pass on the merits of these claims,” the three-judge panel stated.
“We therefore have no occasion at this juncture to consider the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision adopting the Carter Map. Our decision with respect to plaintiffs’ lack of standing to bring Claims One and Two should not be read as expressing any view with respect to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the underlying state court proceedings.”
Not two weeks later, the plaintiffs withdrew their case without prejudice.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:22-cv-00208
U.S. Supreme Court case 21-A-457
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com