Fletcher v. Lamone
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148004
D. Maryland2011Background
- After the 2010 census Maryland adopted an eight-district plan in 2011; plaintiffs, nine African-American Maryland residents, challenge the plan under the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and §2 of the VRA.
- MDP adjusted census data for prisoners to address prison-count distortions by counting inmates at their last pre-incarceration addresses or facility location.
- GRAC held twelve public meetings; the Governor proposed a plan substantially similar to GRAC’s, and the General Assembly enacted S.B. 1 in October 2011.
- The enacted plan retains two majority African-American districts (Seventh and Fourth) with VAPs around 53.7–53.8% and white VAP around 28–36%.
- Plaintiffs asserted (Counts 3, 4, 6) malapportionment under Reynolds and Article I, §2; Count 5 alleged a §2(VRA) violation for not creating a third majority district; Count 7 alleged partisan gerrymandering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three-judge court was properly convened | Plaintiffs | Maryland | Yes; court upheld en banc convening and denied dismissal on §2284 grounds. |
| Whether the No Representation Without Population Act withstands scrutiny | Act miscounts to dilute African-American influence | Act systematically adjusts data; not race-based purpose | Act not unconstitutional; adjustments systematic and nonarbitrary. |
| Whether the Plan violates Reynolds/One Person, One Vote or §2(VRA) | Adjustments cause malapportionment and dilute minority voting strength | Adjustments are permissible, supported by record, and not race-based | No Reynolds violation; no §2(VRA) violation found. |
| Whether the Plan violates Equal Protection by racial considerations | Racial considerations predominated in drawing lines | Race was considered among many factors but not the sole/prevailing factor | No EP violation; traditional principles not subordinated to race. |
| Whether the Plan constitutes a partisan gerrymander | Plan serves Democratic advantage; violates equal protection | No workable standard; political gerrymandering claims are not justiciable | No valid partisan gerrymandering claim under existing standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1983) (use of census data must be systematic and well-documented)
- Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1969) (best population data available; corrections allowed if systematic)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (one person, one vote foundational standard)
- Gingles (Thornburg v. Gingles), 478 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1986) (three preconditions for §2 voting rights claim)
- Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1993) (prevents racially polarized voting from controlling districts)
- LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (U.S. 2006) (compactness and communities of interest in §2 analysis)
- Thompson v. Easley, 532 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2001) (narrowly described standards for race in redistricting (Easley))