80 A.3d 1073
Md.2013Background
- Maryland Constitution requires decennial reapportionment of 47 legislative districts after each U.S. Census.
- GRAC drafted recommendations; Governor introduced plan; plan became law February 24, 2012 as MD Code amendments.
- Petitions challenging the Enacted Plan were filed (e.g., Delores Kelley, James Brochin; Christopher Bouchat; Cynthia Houser et al.).
- The Court conducted a de novo review of the Special Master’s findings under Article III, §5 and federal/State constitutional standards.
- Key dispute centered on Article III, §4 due regard and the plan’s population equality, district contiguity/compactness, and potential race/partisan effects.
- Enacted Plan reduced total border crossings relative to prior plan but included a crossing between Baltimore City and Baltimore County and a cross-border District 44.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Baltimore City–Baltimore County border crossing violate due regard? | Kelley/Brochin: crossing unnecessary and used to preserve six City Senate seats; violates §4. | State: crossing needed for population equality; holistic approach appropriate. | Crossing justified; plan complies with due regard. |
| Does the Enacted Plan comply with one person, one vote and VRA constraints? | Houser petition asserts racial/party-based disparities; seeks §2/VRA relief and population equality concerns. | Plan substantially equal; no §2 violation proven; no intentional discrimination shown. | Plan complies with population equality and §2/VRA thresholds; no relief granted on these claims. |
| Should the court apply a holistic statewide review or district-by-district approach to due regard? | Holistic approach misapplied; individual incursions can violate §4 regardless of statewide totals. | Holistic approach appropriate to assess overall fairness and political considerations. | Court rejects purely statewide holistic rule; due regard may be violated by individual incursions; a single unjustified border crossing is relevant. |
| What is the burden of proof and evidentiary standard for establishing §4 violations? | Direct and circumstantial evidence may show due regard violations; expert testimony supports violations. | Need compelling evidence of constitutional violation; claims here insufficient. | Petitioners failed to prove compelling evidence of §4 violations; Special Master’s and Court’s rulings upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (establishes one-person, one-vote principle)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (federal judicial review of redistricting; political question)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (race-based districting invalid unless narrowly tailored)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (Gingles factors for §2 minority-district claims)
- In re Legislative Districting of State, 370 Md. 312 (2002) ( Maryland due regard / population equality analysis)
- Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574 (1993) (statewide vs district-specific due regard considerations)
- Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (2004) (districting evidence and the role of Gingles-like analysis)