Reapportionment should follow the Constitution.
The importance of following the Pennsylvania State Constitution in the Redistricting Process can not be done understated. Testimony before the Committee indicated the need to make the districts "equal" to the number of registered Republicans and Democrats in the Commonwealth. The stated goal was to achieve "equal representation" of Democrat versus Republican officials. However, there are several problems associated with this assumption. The idea of a roughly "proportionate" number of representatives per voter at the current voter registration assumes voters do not cross party lines when voting. Although registrations for the two parties are almost equal, having an equal number of representatives is not likely. The districts will not accommodate those registration changes when the registration numbers shift. Democrat voters typically live in highly populated areas. Because of the high concentration of Democrat voters, particularly in cities, it is difficult to draw districts with a near-equal split. If the districts are drawn primarily in cities, they lean heavily Democratic and, using the logic of some who testified before the Committee, would disenfranchise non-Democrat voters. Wouldn't this be considered gerrymandering? The number of voters in those districts results from living in those areas. It is not intentional gerrymandering but a direct result of like-minded people living in that area. Assigning districts weighted by race is indicative of the soft bigotry of low expectations. Why is a candidate of color not capable of winning based on qualifications alone? Getting on the ballot in Pennsylvania is the same for all candidates. Obtaining signatures on the required forms is not discriminatory. The redistricting plan should not focus on the racial makeup of the districts but instead should focus on maintaining free and fair elections for all people. Each citizen should have access to vote and be a candidate if they so choose, and if there are issues preventing people from voting, they should be corrected. However, the need to redistrict the Commonwealth based on color is another illogical fallacy. This assumes someone who does not look like the candidate would not vote for said candidate. That is not true in most instances. Most importantly, the plurality of Pennsylvanians make decisions based on whether or not the individual is a good candidate and would represent them as they desire. The proposed maps are, in my opinion, worse than the previously unconstitutional maps drawn by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We believe other alternatives would fulfill the Constitutional mandates and provide a fair solution. These maps certainly are not it.