State House Redistricting
In 2001 I along with six other Upper Dublin residents filed a challenge to the State House redistricting plan, asserting that Upper Dublin, then a community of 24,000, had been improperly divided into four districts as it was the smallest municipality to be divided into four in the history of the Commonwealth. The next closest was about four times the size of Upper Dublin. The argument was that this could have been avoided. I was the first oralist before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Although I lost that case, Albert v. Pennsylvania State Legislative Reapportionment Commission, by 4-to-3, the Court did establish some principles that supported our view. In 2011, when again our township, grown by a small amount in the intervening decade, was divided into three districts, I submitted on behalf of other Upper Dublin residents a proposed rule to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking the court to exercise its rule-making powers to require that any plan submitted by the Commission to provide for the minimum division of counties, municipalities and wards and, if that map was rejected, to explain why it should be accepted under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court, without explanation, denied the petition. This year, Upper Dublin is to be divided into two districts, with about 85% of our 27,000 plus population (now over 29,000 due to post-census growth, and soon to be more than 30,000), into the 151st, with the remainder in the 153rd. Although this division could have been avoided, it is an improvement. We would like to be whole, but recognize that this is not an easy task, and certainly two divisions is better than three and certainly four. Given this history, complaints from other communities of similar size (such as our neighboring Horsham) complaining about being divided between districts should, with all due respect, be given little weight. Jeffrey B. Albert, Esquire