The Pennsylvania Supreme got it half right

Cranberry neighborhoods have been split in half by its new congressional district map, although it did have to un-gerrymander the state, argues Cranberry supervisor

Let me make one thing clear at the outset: I’m a Republican. I believe in the principles that have defined the GOP for generations, including free markets, low taxes, hard work and family values. And I strive to apply them in my role as chairman of Cranberry Township’s Board of Supervisors, all of whom are Republicans as well, even though local roads and sewers tend to be nonpartisan.

Pennsylvania’s General Assembly, which draws the lines for the state’s congressional and legislative districts, is also predominantly Republican. So you might think that Cranberry would applaud the Legislature’s awkwardly gerrymandered district lines which help to assure safe seats for Republican incumbents. But we don’t.

The reason we don’t is because those manipulated lines aggravate the political polarization and erosion of confidence in government taking place at every level today, even including local government for which, at least in Cranberry, there are no district lines.

The lines which are drawn for state and congressional districts were crafted to serve the majority party and its candidates, not the people they represent. That’s true for whichever party is in control. By locking in safe majorities, they offer voters fewer choices and less say on issues that matter to them. For example, in 2016, almost half the Pennsylvania House and Senate races, incumbents ran unopposed. So it’s hard to avoid being cynical when talking about government these days.

There are principles for drawing district lines embedded in the state’s Constitution, including compactness, contiguity and protecting local political subdivisions. But in practice, those principles are largely ignored. As a result, Cranberry isn’t alone in its displeasure with the commonwealth’s district map. Fortunately, a newly formed unit of the League of Women Voters, Fair Districts PA, has also been on the case. Last year, they took the matter to court, and they won.

After rejecting a series of maneuvers by state legislators to bypass the court’s decision, the Supreme Court drew up its own map, which will be the one in play for the May 15 primary elections. Its boundaries are more compact and contiguous than the one the court threw out, their populations are essentially equal, and we appreciate that. But there is also a major flaw.

The court’s map divides Cranberry Township into two separate congressional districts. Neighborhoods are split — sometimes along the middle of a residential street — into different districts. In fact, four of the nine voting precincts in the township have been arbitrarily divided between the 16th and 17th congressional districts.

Perhaps it was an oversight by the court or maybe something else. But in either case, the practical result is that our ability to present a coherent case to Congress for anything we need is greatly diminished. Who will represent us, particularly now that our voting influence has been effectively cut in half?

So it’s no surprise that Cranberry’s board was quite receptive to a recent approach from the Fair Districts PA organization regarding its proposal to change Pennsylvania’s Constitution, placing the authority for drawing congressional districts in the hands of an impartial citizens commission instead of with incumbent legislators.

I know that putting it in place is a lofty goal — one that will require patience as well as an uncharacteristic level of public spiritedness on the part of state senators and representatives. I even accept that Fair Districts’ proposal may not necessarily be the best, easiest or only way to achieve fairly drawn districts. After all, the impulse to serve one’s own political interests is hard to resist, and no system will be perfect. But it is a worthwhile proposal to solve a toxic problem corroding our political system, and it’s one that deserves a fair hearing.