Ryan Costello v. Carol Ann Carter, et al.

The Elections Clause provides that “the Legislature” of each state must prescribe “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. Yet sometimes the state judiciary must draw a congressional map in response to a constitutional violation or legislative impasse. When state courts impose a congressional map in these situations, they often act as though they enjoy the prerogative to impose a map of their choosing, unconstrained by the requirements of Elections Clause or 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c), a federal statute that establishes a default regime when the state legislature fails to enact a congressional map in response to the decennial census. The state of Pennsylvania lost a congressional seat in the most recent census. Its Republican-controlled legislature passed a reasonable, non-gerrymandered map that would have created a 9-8 majority of Democraticleaning congressional districts. But Governor Wolf vetoed this 9-8 Democratic map, calling it “unfair” and insufficiently “bipartisan.” In response to this impasse, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania — which has a 5-2 Democratic majority — imposed a more partisan Democratic map backed by the Elias Law Group, overruling the recommendation of its special master that had urged the adoption of the legislature’s plan. The question presented is: Do the Elections Clause and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) constrain the remedial discretion of courts when they impose congressional maps in response to a constitutional violation or an impasse in the state legislature? (i)