Letter To The Editor: Vitali Not Giving Clear Message On Redistricting

Representative Vitali has done a wonderful job of controlling the narrative on the issue of redistricting. While Rep. Vitali would like his constituents to believe his motives are altruistic, several factors call his current position in to question, and illustrate a singular focus on retaining his seat in the General Assembly.

Representative Vitali argues that the plan set forth by the Legislative Reapportionment Commission which moves Haverford Township's 1^st and 9^th wards in to the 163^rd legislative district violates Article 2 Section 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which states in part:

“Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.“

Representative Vitali fails to note that in 1992 the courts found “that dividing some political subdivisions was necessary to achieve equality of population and that the Commission had acted properly in making equality of population the overriding objective." [1]

Vitali argues that the redistricting is purely political and designed to “make the 163^rd a more secure Republican district” ³ yet in 2010, Representative Miccozie won with 57% of the vote in a three way race. This hardly seems like a district that is dependent upon redistricting to protect an incumbent and wouldn't bolstering the number of Republican voters in the 163^rd Legislative District, also lower the number of Republican voters in the 166^th Legislative District?

Coincidentally in 2010 with Haverford Township's 1^st and 9^th wards in the 166^th Rep Vitali won the township by 3,973 votes with a total of 59.4% of the vote yet he only won the district with by a margin of 4078 votes with a total 58.1% of the vote. Perhaps the 1^st and 9^th wards are more important to Representative Vitali than he cares to make public.

Furthermore in 2004 the US Supreme Court in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) the court addressed several questions including:

Can voters affiliated with a political party sue to block implementation of a Congressional redistricting plan by claiming that it was manipulated for purely political reasons?

Does a state violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment when it disregards neutral redistricting principles (such as trying to avoid splitting municipalities into different Congressional districts) in order to achieve an advantage for one political party?

The court found that there is “no workable standard for judging when something is bad enough to be unconstitutional or is simply politics as usual.”

I do however take note of Representative Vitali's new found respect for the Constitution of Pennsylvania, a respect that was absent when he voted against House Bill 1436 “providing for restitution for official oppression” Article I Section 26
“Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.” notwithstanding.

Representative Vitali also seemed to be indifferent regarding Article I Section 21 “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. “ when he voted against House Bill 40 which eliminated the “duty to retreat” and civil penalties for lawfully defending oneself.

In closing Representative Vitali's selective adherence to the Constitution of Pennsylvania is as transparent as his self serving interests in maintaining the status quo to remain in office.

Rick Van Luvender
Haverford Township

[1] In re 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 530 Pa. 335, 609 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. Walker v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 504 U.S. 921 ( 1992), and Pecora v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 505 U.S. 1207 (1992), and Loeper v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 506 U.S. 819 (1992)