In re River Valley Sch. Dist. Appeal of Beverly Caranese, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 259 (Pa. Commw., December 17, 2024)(President, Jubelirer, J.)
This case relies, in part, upon the Freeders case Petition of the Board of Directors of Hazelton area school district 524 Atl. 2d. 1083 (Commonwealth, 1987).
Among the issues in this case is whether the one person, one vote principle is fulfilled for residents of River Valley School District (District) voting for school board (Board) directors based on the District’s existing apportionment plan (Status Quo Plan) that includes three regions, each of which elects three directors, but are admittedly disproportionate in terms of population. Stated another way, the weight of one vote depends upon the region in which the voter resides, with those living in one of the two less populous regions having greater weight and those living in the most populous region having lesser weight. To cure this disproportionate impact, the District proposed two new reapportionment plans: one still based upon regions that have been redrawn to more fully equalize population (Modified Regional Plan); and one in which directors are elected at large notwithstanding where they live (At-Large Plan). The Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County (common pleas), cognizant of the long history of differing factions in the District, ultimately determined the Status Quo Plan was unconstitutional, that the Modified Regional Plan did not violate the requirements of Section 303(b)(3) of the Public School Code of 19493 (School Code), and that, as between the valid, constitutional options, the Modified Regional Plan better suited the District’s needs than the At-Large Plan. On appeal, Appellants4 argue common pleas’ determinations are in error and the Court should reverse and direct the continued use of the Status Quo Plan. They further argue the Modified Regional Plan violates Section 303(b)(3) of the School Code because it splits election districts. After careful review and consistent with our “duty to avoid constitutional difficulties, if possible, by construing statutes in a constitutional manner[,]” Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 583 Pa. 6, 874 A.2d 623, 628 (Pa. 2005), and the principle that “the overriding objective [in redistricting] must be substantial equality of population among the various districts,” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 579 (emphasis added), we affirm.
Appellants contend that, on these facts, including the District’s characteristics, the Status Quo Plan meets that requirement because it is the only regional plan that will satisfy the other requirements of Section 303(b)(3) and Section 502. (Id. at 27 (citing In re Pet. to Reapportion the Sch. Dir. Regions of the Chichester Sch. Dist., 688 A.2d 1275, 1278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (Chichester II)).) According to Appellants, the greater population deviation found in the Status Quo Plan is “tolerable” and, therefore, constitutional, because it advances the rational governmental policy of maintaining election district boundaries and there is no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination. (Id. at 27, 29-30 (citing In re Pet. of the Bd. of Dirs. of Hazleton Area Sch. Dist., 105 Pa. Commw. 565, 524 A.2d 1083, 1086 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (Hazleton); In re Chichester Sch. Dist., 210 Pa. Super. 426, 234 A.2d 187, 190 (Pa. Super. 1967) (Chichester I); Spring-Ford Area Sch. Dist. Div. Case, 210 Pa. Super. 338, 234 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super. 1967)).)
