Fact Check: Nordenberg’s Claims More Fantasy Than Reality
HARRISBURG – In an
interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer over the weekend, Legislative Reapportionment Commission Chairman Mark Nordenberg made a number of claims about the preliminary state House map based more in fantasy than reality.
Here is a fact check of some of his fantastical claims:
CLAIM: “Inevitably, then, the process was going to bring more of them together.”
In reality, five of the Republicans drawn into primary competitions are currently representing districts that grew significantly and did not need to gain any population. This includes two of the ten fastest-growing districts in the state, Districts 105 and 46, both of which had their representatives drawn into primary matchups against another Republican incumbent. In another instance, Districts 187 and 134 were drawn together despite each growing significantly faster than the state overall, and not having any need to gain population.
Despite what Chancellor Nordenberg contends, more Republicans from fast-growing districts were drawn into districts with each other than the total number of Democrats (2) who were drawn into primary challenges. This does not simply reflect population changes but instead demonstrates an active intent to harm Republican incumbents no matter their district’s demographic change.
CLAIM: “So our initial review… was not influenced by partisan data.” That included not having incumbents’ addresses.
In reality, the LRC approved map has a significantly and undeniably greater deference to Democratic incumbent’s interests than it does to Republican incumbents; in many ways, it betrays an intent to actively harm Republican incumbents, particularly those in competitive and growing seats:
Among only those incumbents who currently represent districts that have grown above the new population target, the average Democratic incumbent is drawn into a new district that consists of 70.13% current constituents.
The average Republican incumbent is drawn into a new district that consists of 62.75% current constitutions.
Among competitive districts only, these figures are 72.29% for Democratic incumbents and 57.82% for Republican incumbents.
No incumbent Democrat representing a currently competitive and growing district is assigned to a new district consisting of less than 55% current constituents; only one is assigned to a new district consisting of less than 70% current constituents.
14 Republican incumbents representing currently competitive and growing districts are assigned to new districts consisting of less than 55% current constituents; three are assigned to new districts consisting of less than 25% current constituents.
These discrepancies arise across all 102 current districts (50 Democratic incumbents, 52 Republican incumbents) that have grown above the new population target. The benefits to Democrats, and the harms to Republicans, are neither small nor random, but instead can only be the result of intentional and consistent choices to advantage Democrats and to disadvantage Republicans.
CLAIM: “This map, which continues to favor Republicans, could hardly be considered a political gerrymander. And I certainly was not a part of any effort to disadvantage the Republicans in any way other than to reflect, in the maps, the population trends that have changed the state over the last ten years.”
In reality, in addition to the above disadvantages inflicted on Republicans, the LRC approved map systematically abuses the population deviation to benefit Democrats and to harm Republicans. Among all Democratic-leaning seats on the LRC map, there is a collective population shortfall of more than 50,000. Among all Republican-leaning seats on the map, there is a collective population overage of more than 50,000. This combines to provide nearly two additional Democratic seats in the House, and further could not have occurred without consistent and repeated choices to benefit Democrats by drawing smaller-than-target districts in blue areas and larger-than-target districts in red areas.
CLAIM: On the 84th District: “It was drawn that way to accommodate the suggested draw that came from the Republican caucus in a nearby area,” he said. “I’m sure that draw could have been accommodated more gracefully. In fact, we had ideas about how to do that, but frankly we ran out of time, because we have not drawn things unilaterally.”
In reality, nobody from the House Republican team knows what ask he is referring to regarding this area. It is our contention that this district’s terrible shape resulted from the unnecessary splitting of State College. We have not received an answer as to why State College was split.
Also, as to timing, it was Chairman Nordenberg who wasted eight weeks of drawing time because he wanted to take on prisoner reallocation, which only helps Democrats. Then he demanded an expedited timeline in the hopes that his errors in judgement would not impact the primary. Any problem with timing lays squarely on his shoulders.
House Republican Caucus
Pennsylvania House of Representatives