Matthew Haverstick, Managing Partner and a member of the Firm’s Litigation Department, discussed the Supreme Court’s redistricting decision in The Legal Intelligencer.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided, in a 4-3 vote, on the “Carter Plan” as the prevailing proposal. Although the Court’s reasoning for the decision has not been shared, the article notes that argument in support of the map primarily hinged on the idea that it was the most similar of the proposals to the map that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court drew in 2018.
“It could have the tendency to institutionalist what a good map is,” said Haverstick, who argued in support of U.S. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, and Republican intervenors in the Feb. 18 arguments on redistricting. “Without an opinion, it is too soon to comment on the justices’ reasoning. But, the notion that the map’s strength lies in its similarities to a separate, court-determined map is problematic.”
To read the full article, click here.