Object to Senate Map
First, I want to thank the Commission and its staff for all their work. I do have serious concerns about the draft Senate map, however. The population variances among the districts are very large. The most populous district (#1) has a population of over 303,000 and is more than 16 percent above the "ideal" while the least populous district (#50) has a population of just above 230,000 and is more than 11 percent below the ideal. The larger district is 30 percent larger than the smaller. A difference that large is just unacceptable. In all, 26 districts, more than half, diverge 5 percent or more from the ideal with 12 of those having a population that is 5 percent or more larger than the ideal and 14 having a population that is 5 percent or more smaller than the ideal. Moreover, the distribution around the state does not seem random. Most of the districts that have too many people are in SEPA, while most of the districts that have too few people are in central and western PA. Many people have remarked on how similar the draft Senate map is to the current map. That is related to the serious problem with the population variances. If you keep the district lines basically the same, you don't reflect shifts in population. So, areas whose population has grown faster have more people in what is basically the same district, while areas whose population has not grown as fast, or may have declined, have fewer people in basically the same district. This is the antithesis of redistricting. Having the districts remain basically the same may provide some relief to the incumbents in the districts and to their leaders, but the practical result here is that voters in SEPA, which has grown in population relative to the rest of the Commonwealth, will have less representation than they should and other places in the state will have more. I oppose the draft Senate map and think the Commission should scrap it and start over.