All of Pennsylvania's Supreme Court justices have released opinions on the congressional map chosen by the judiciary in a 4-3 decision last month, revealing for the first time the differing perspectives on their role in the redistricting process and what constitutes a fair political map. 

Citing traditional redistricting criteria and partisan fairness, the majority opinion — written by Chief Justice Max Baer, a Democrat — outlines four reasons why the Carter map was chosen out of more than a dozen options.

Baer writes there's no such thing as a perfect proposal and that the court's job is to decide which "best abides by the traditional core criteria with attention paid to subordinate historical considerations" and partisan fairness.

Spotlight PA and Votebeat report one dissenting justice disagreed with parts of that mission statement, while the other two worried the methodology outlined by Baer could lend itself to perceptions of political bias.

Read more about the opinions for and against the selection here. 

CENSUS COUNT: Seven months after the release of 2020 census data that guided redistricting work in Pennsylvania and beyond, the Census Bureau says the count missed some 18.8 million people nationwide.

The bureau says the data is still accurate enough for redistricting purposes. An analysis reviewed by the American Statistical Association agreed. 

The undercount disproportionately impacts Black, Latino, and Indigenous residents who were omitted at higher rates, with some civil rights leaders blaming the Trump administration for cutting the count short.

State College, for one, was already disputing its population tally, which shrank over the past decade, a conclusion locals say strains credulity.

In Pennsylvania, the census data showed a state becoming less white and more concentrated in and around cities.