*1 reason, we shall judgment reverse the Special Court .of Appeals and direct it to remand this case the Circuit Court for further consideration.
JUDGMENT THE OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO COURT THAT WITH DIRECTIONS TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COUNTY, CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY AND TO REMAND THE CASE THE TO CIRCUIT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH OPINION; THIS RESPONDENTS TO PAY' THE COSTS IN THIS THE COURT AND COURT OF SPECIAL AP- PEALS.
OF STATE. 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
Nos.
30, 31, 34, Sept. Term, 2001. Appeals Maryland.
Court of
Aug. complainant damages any actual punitive damages that court appropriate considers if the any court finds that defendant know- ingly wilfully fully failed to disclose public to disclose a record complainant that the inspect entitled to under this Part III of this subtitle.”). *5 Block, (Kali Washing- Bracey, Hirsch N. of Jenner
Sam D.C.) al., 20, September ton, Curry Misc. No. Wayne et for Term, 2001, petitioners. for (Alan Abramowitz, E. Stawin- D. A. Michelle
Paul Raschke Baltimore) ski, Brush, Eugene E. for Golden of Bouland and 22, Term, al., Sept. et Misc. No. 2001. 23, se, Parkville, Sept. No.
Barry Asbury, pro Misc. Steve Term, 2001. (Saul Baltimore; K. Phoe- Ewing, John Figinski
M. Albert 24, Crisfield) al., Sept. Misc. No. bus, et for J. Lowell Stoltzfus Term, 2001. Baltimore) (Saul for Norman R. Figinski Ewing,
M. Albert Term, Stone, al, 2001. Sept. Misc. No. Jr. et (Richard Levan, Colaresi, Colaresi, T. Robert H. Levan Columbia) PA, Mayor for and Council of Ferguson and Levan Term, Park, 27, Sept. No. 2001. City College Misc. Bethesda) (Abrams, PC, Storm, for Harry & C. Storm West Term, Schofield, Sept. No. 2001. Gandal and Misc. Ellis, Jr., Henson, Lee T. (Amy
E. Mark Braden Matthew Dolan, Hostetler, III, Blasey, S. of Baker & Wash- Ralph G. DC) Term, Steele, Sept. for S. Misc. No. ington, Michael 2001. se, Dembrow, M. Misc. No. pro Spring,
Dana Silver Term, 2001. Sept. (Alan A. and Michelle E.
Paul D. Raschke Abramowitz Baltimore) LLC, Stawinski, Brush, Kathari- of Bouland for & Term, al., 31, Sept. na No. 2001. Eva Dehaas et Misc. (Alan D. A. and Michelle E.
Paul Raschke Abramowitz Baltimore) Stawinski, Brush, Small- Rayburn of Bouland & al., Term, 32, Sept. No. wood et Misc. 2001. (Charles MacLeod, Blomquist L. D. L. Cynthia
Jefferson Baltimore) Bolton, PA, McCann of Funk & for John ColeW. al., Term, No. Sept. et Misc. *6 se,
Joseph Getty, 34, M. No. Hampstead, Sept. Misc. pro Term, 2001.
(Gail Wallace, se, Mills) pro M. Owings Keep for Coalition to al., Term, Tow Owings et Misc. No. 2001. Sept. (J. Shepard, Curran, M. Deputy Atty. Joseph Carmen Gen. Jr., Gen., Atty. Dove, Gen., M. Maryland, Maureen Asst. Atty. Sullivan, Gen., Baltimore; M. Atty. Steven Asst. Robert A. Zarnoch, Atty. Rowe, Kathryn Atty. Asst. and M. Gen. Asst. Gen., Annapolis) respondents. for C.J., ELDRIDGE,
Argued BELL, RAKER, before WILNER, CATHELL, BATTAGLIA, HARRELL and JJ.
BELL, C.J. A majority concurring, the Court by Order dated June 11, 2002, concluded, for we reasons be set forth in an filed, opinion later to be that significant portions of the Redistricting Governor’s 2002 Plan were not consistent requirements III, 4,§ of Article of the Constitution of shall, Maryland legislative that “[e]ach district consist ad- joining territory, form, compact substantially and of equal population” and that given “[d]ue shall be natural boundaries and the of political boundaries subdivi- and, reason, sions” that for “the Plan [wa]s violation of the Order, Constitution and invalid.” In that [wa]s we parties advised the that “this will Court prepare endeavor plan.” constitutional parties We invited the to recommend one more technical consultants to assist us in that endeav- or.1 considering
After parties, by recommendations of the 17, 2002, Order dated June this appointed Court A. Nathaniel redistricting This is not the first time that this Court has declared a promulgated Legislative unconstitutional its own. In In re Aro, to assist the and Karl S. as technical consultants Persily redistricting plan complied with preparing Court 21, 2002, law.2 On consistent federal and state June applicable Order, adopted promulgated 11th we with our June compliance is in with both redistricting plan that statutory requirements. and federal constitutional state 11th give now our reasons the June Order. We
INTRODUCTION
very heart
fairly apportioned legislature
A
lies at the
democracy.
message
That
is the
behind the
representative
Twilley
Districting, 271 Md.
cert.
nom.
317 A.2d
denied sub.
Md.,
(1974),
95 S.Ct.
Supreme Court’s landmark decisions
369
Sanders,
186,
691,
v.
(1962),
Gray
U.S.
82 S.Ct.
be disabled of developing the Court’s work in a constitu- plan. tional
821
(1974).
upheld the
Instead, however, Legislature chose to mandate territory, com- adjoining consist of be that districts form, substantially equal population, and pact be the boundaries given to natural boundaries and due That was a fundamental deliber- political subdivisions. that, People, political upon decision ratification ate Along organic law of the State. part became to those standards applicable requirements, federal adherence any redistricting plan. prerequisite is the essential that, redistricting say is preparing This branches, As political the Governor General plans, the factors. sembly, constitutional may only consider stated hands, because, part contrary, process in their On the factors, one, may other political they consider countless ones, they including partisan and narrow broad Thus, so as the may pursue range objectives. long wide criteria, does not contravene the constitutional *9 in may attempt have an to preserve been formulated commu- interest, promote regionalism, help injure to to nities or political parties, incumbents or or achieve other or social political objectives, validity. will not affect its hand, notwithstanding necessary
On the that there is other flexibility in applied how the constitutional criteria are —the exactly equal perfectly districts need not be or they absolutely prohibited compact crossing and are not from boundaries, they natural subdivision since must do so if for necessary population parity non-constitutional —those the criteria cannot override constitutional ones. We made this Specifically, clear both our 1984 and 1993 decisions. we acknowledged importance the of natural and subdivision rejected argument boundaries and things that such promotion regionalism protection and non-official could requirement. communities of interest overcome that Legislature apparently acquiesced understood ruling, attempt intervening as no in the made decades to and, thereby, amend the any Constitution include those or other factors in the constitutional framework. plan adopted Legislature
When the the Governor or challenged, it lot becomes our it for constitutionality. review face, first look on plan light challenges, We at the its whether, extent, and to legal see what federal state When, requirements petitions have been met. from the alone, perceive the answers we do appear deviations that permissible, may but for which there explana- be some them, tion that justify could serve to have appointed we master, special affording thus petitioners the State and the opportunity present argument to supply evidence and explanation. Following proceedings, those if we conclude that permissible the deviations are within or for range permis- purpose, plan. hand, approved sible we have the On other that, if despite proffered we are satisfied explanation, constitutionally impermissible, deviations are we have but one choice: declare the unconstitutional void. The for- and, exemplified by mer is majority, as held indicated, Plan unconsti- plans. As we declared substantive, tutional, than default. procedural, albeit rather *10 us, in addition to re- Maryland requires Constitution relief— plan, provide remedy appropriate a viewing the to — Although it is invalid. to be plan when the determined do not it—when prohibit the constraints possible, when time imminent, as was the case legislative no election there is political opportu- branches another give 1972 and 1992—to the allowing the plan, a or thus nity produce new amended political or Legislature and the to continue to seek Governor develop- have for objectives, opted we other non-constitutional now, When, legislative elections are ing plan ourselves. the imminent, is no to return the matter to the simply there time political branches. plan, may drafts into
When the Court take Governor and political account the same considerations as the Judges partisan politi are forbidden Legislature. cians. Nor can stretch the constitutional the Court criteria judgments, such give order to effect to broader as the promotion regionalism preservation of of communities basic, it is of More not for the Court to define what interest. are, community is and its and it interest where boundaries regions is not which for the Court determine deserve special consideration and which do not. legal Ac- only guideposts requirements.
Our are the strict consultants to cordingly, drafting plan, our we directed the any from incumbents lived. Our remove even view where our prepare instruction to the consultants was to consider- redistricting plan ation a that conformed to federal constitu- Act, Voting and requirements, Rights tional the Federal III, § requirements Maryland 4 of Constitution. Article
I. III, provides: § Article 5 of the Constitution “Following each of the States and decennial census United prepare plan shall public hearings, after Governor districts for setting forth the boundaries electing of members of the Senate House of Delegates.
“The shall present plan Governor to the President Speaker Delegates Senate the House of who shall joint introduce as a plan the Governor’s resolution to the Assembly, not than day regular General later the first of its census, year following every session the second and the may special call a presentation Governor session for the plan prior regular plan his to the session. The con- shall Following form Sections 3 and 4 of this Article. each Assembly may by joint decennial census the General resolu- adopt plan setting tion forth the legisla- boundaries tive districts for the election members the Senate Delegates, the House of which shall conform Sec- tions 4 of If a plan adopted this Article. has been *11 by Assembly by day the General the 45th opening after the regular of the session the Assembly of General in the census, year following plan second every adopted by the the Assembly shall plan General become law. If no has been Assembly adopted purposes by the General for these the day of opening 45th after the of regular the session the Assembly in year every General the following second cen- sus, plan presented Assembly Governor’s to the General shall become law. voter,
“Upon petition
any registered
of
Appeals
the Court of
original jurisdiction
shall have
legislative
to review the
relief,
districting
may
of the
grant appropriate
State and
if
it finds that
of
districting
State
not consistent
requirements
with
of either the Constitution of the United
America,
of
Maryland.”
States
the Constitution of
section,
census,
Pursuant
to this
after each decennial
prepare,
public input
public
Governor must
via
hearings,
apportionment
2,3
an
plan
§§
conforms
provides:
2
Section
(47)
membership
forty-seven
"The
of the Senate shall
of
consist
membership
Delegates
Senators. The
of the House of
shall consist of
(141)
forty-one
Delegates."
one hundred
325
5
of
8,4
boundaries
III and sets forth “the
and 4 Article
Senate
electing of
members of the
districts for
legislative
con
In
to these
Delegates.”
addition
and the02 House
straints,
constitutional
comply
also must
with federal
Consti
statutory requirements. Under the United States
houses
tution,
both
required
apportion
are
states
basis,6
assure that
an
legislatures
equal
their
on
to that of
approximately equal weight
one citizen’s vote is
citizen,
supra,
Districting,
every
Legislative
other
see In re
Sims,
435,
v.
citing Reynolds
Md. at
475
A.2d
Representation
Fair
v.
Committee
supra; Maryland
for
(1964),
Tawes,
more of the for the members districts (3) delegate Delegates single-member into three House (1) (1) single-member delegate districts or district and one multi one delegate member district.” provides: 5. Section territory, adjoining be "Each district shall consist of com- form, pact substantially equal population. and of Due shall given boundaries subdi- natural boundaries visions.” *12 seen, compactness contiguousness principles we have while
As and 1972, mandating predate provision respect for' boundaries the the of political the a subdivisions natural boundaries was result of consti- amendment, by year. passed the tutional voters that person, principle, 6. this Otherwise as the “one one vote” re- known quirement Equal in the Clause of Fourteenth rooted Protection the Constitution, provides the Amendment of United States which that deny jurisdiction any person equal ... the “[n]o State shall to within its Reynolds Sims, supra; Gray protection of laws.” also v. the See v. see Sanders, 368, 801, (1963). 83 9 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 821 7. the to United Both Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments the States Reges- v. prohibit Constitution such invidious discrimination. See.White addition, Rights prohibits the Voting denying Federal Act an to equal opportunity minorities in participate political the process and to of elect candidates their choice.8
Obviously,
purpose
redistricting
the
the
is to
State
the
in
changes
population.
reflect
shifts
the state’s
See
Cases,
578,
Legislative Redistricting
supra, 331 Md. at
A.2d at 648.
5 of Article III requires
Section
the
to
Governor
submit
apportionment plan
of
President
the Senate
Speaker
of Delegates
of the House
for introduction as
in
joint resolution
not
Assembly
General
than the
later
day
regular
first
of
Assembly
that
session of
General
occurring in
year following
the second
at a
census or
ter,
(1973).
412 U.S.
93 S.Ct.
Amendment of of the States to “[t]he citizens United abridged by by vote shall not any be denied or the United States or race, color, previous State on account of or condition of servitude.” Congress Rights 8. Voting enacted the Act of 1965 to enforce York, Fifteenth Amendment. See v. New NAACP U.S. 93 S.Ct. (1973); Cases, Legislative Redistricting L.Ed.2d 648 see also supra, 331 Md. Voting Rights at 629 A.2d at Section Act, case, only provision generally prohibits this issue in states political enforcing practices voting subdivisions from that under- amended, voting minority strength. provides mine As it in full: "(a) standard, voting No qualification prerequisite voting or or practice, procedure imposed by or shall applied any be or State or political abridge- in a in a subdivision manner which denial results or right any of the ment citizen of the United States to vote on color, guarantees account race or or in contravention tire set 4(f)(2) 1973b(f)(2)], in § forth section provided [42 USCS (b). subsection "(b) (a) if, A violation subsection is established on the based circumstances, totality political processes is shown leading political nomination election the State or subdivision equally open participation are members a class citizens (a) protected subsection its opportunity that members have less participate than other political members electorate to in the process representatives and to elect of their choice. The extent to protected which members of class have been elected to office State or may subdivision is one circumstance which Provided, nothing right considered: That in this section establishes protected equal to have of a members class elected in numbers proportion population.” their in the § 42 U.S.C. 1973. *13 regular Assembly prior to that special session of the General purpose presenting plan. called of session to, adopt its may, required not Assembly but is The General dis- redistricting legislative plan for the of the State’s own like adopt plan, plan, If it that the Governor’s tricts. does §§ 2- requirements of to the plan, must conform constitutional to the passed by joint prior resolution 4 of Article III and be session, event, plan in which thereafter day 45th plan, so adopt its own or does will become law. If does not session, becomes 45th of the Governor’s day after the law. voter, this event, petition any registered
In either on given jurisdiction to review the original is Court relief, “if districting plan grant appropriate and to State districting consistent it finds the State the Constitution of the United States requirements of either Const, America, art. Maryland.” Md. the Constitution of III, § 5.
II. III, receiving § Pursuant Article after the results census, Glendening, Governor Parris N. decennial redistricting plan setting forth the develop undertook To legislative districts. assist him with this boundaries responsibility, appointed constitutional a five- the Governor (hereinafter Redistricting “the Advisory member Committee Committee”).9 meeting organizational its The Committee held according meeting, on June 2001. At that to a Declaration Chair, to the of the the Committee was briefed as Committee legal applicable Equal work: “the Protection standards its of the to the States Clause Fourteenth Amendment United Willis, Secretary of were: John T. members of the Committee Jr., State, Chairman; Miller, Thomas V. President of the Senate 27; Taylor, Legislative Casper Speaker R. from District Senator 1C; Legislative Leggett, Delegate Mont- from District Isiah House Councilman; Gulyas, gomery County L. Worcester Louise Commissioner. Constitution, Act, § 2 of Voting Rights concepts and the *14 contiguity, compactness, population equality, and due for natural of boundaries the boundaries subdivi- sions, expressed III, Maryland § in Article 4 of the Constitu- Thereafter, 6, 2001, September tion.” between June public held 12 each meetings, the Committee advertised advance, in newspapers and on the of websites the Department Planning, Secretary State, of the and the Assembly, throughout as well General as various locations to, did, state. the Citizens were invited attend these fact, In public meetings. than more one thousand citizens meetings, nearly testified, actually attended the three hundred public thirty-eight party and members of the submitted third plans to the Committee. preliminary released Committee its recommendations Maryland’s legislative
as to the boundaries of districts on 21, 2001, 2001. On a public hearing December December was held that the people Governor over two hundred making changes attended. After several to the Committee’s to, preliminary recommendations, pursuant and consistent with, III, 5,§ Article timely plan the Governor submitted the to the Speaker President the Senate and to the of the They, turn, of Delegates. January House introduced it on 9, 2002,10 day session, Assembly the first General the Senate Joint By Resolution and House Joint Resolution 3. . session, day regular 45th Assembly the its the General had adopted plan its own for the districting of the Therefore, plan State. submitted the Governor became (hereinafter February law on “State’s Plan” or “Plan”). joint describing print- 10. The resolutions received a "second ing.” According Legislative to a letter from Governor’s Chief Legal Special Officer and Counsel President Senate and technical, Speaker Delegates, of the House of "several nonsubstan- drafting necessary report tive corrections to were errors” "because the generator legislative districting plan used to draft the at times incorrect- assigned ly wrong precincts.” tracts and to the census blocks George’s County Executive Prince Curry, K. Wayne 25, 2002, a Court, February in this on County, having filed Plan and the validity of challenging the petition challenges would General, that other such Attorney predicting promulgate Court forthcoming, having that this requested be challenge brought all actions procedures govern such it, March any dated part the Plan or Order validity of setting In dead- just did that.11 addition the Court thereto, the Order petitions and filing lines for the answers Plan validity facial of the State’s hearing on the scheduled to be to a may need referred any and to define issues proceedings be- Special anticipation Master. that further dates required, it also set Special may Master fore the Master, filing his for the hearing Special before the *15 to Court, the filing exceptions the of report with this for exceptions. hearing on Report, Master’s and for a Special to for candidates That also extended the deadline Order 5, 2002 May from their residence in a new district establish 1, 2002, July 2002 to July July and from extended filing candidacy for seats the for of certificates of deadline the as some Delegates and of as well the Senate House State State Central Committees. all, who were dissatisfied registered voters of the State challenging Plan, its petitions
with the State’s filed fourteen Plan for to review the validity, requesting each the Court the constitutions and consistency requirements with the of Maryland grant appro- and to of the States and laws United petitions various priate alleged by violations the relief. The prescribed petitions the of as follows: 11. The Order content the plan, petitioner's objection the petition set the "The shall forth the be particular part parts plan claimed to unconstitutional or of the law, legal and Maryland the factual under the Constitution or federal claims, including sought, any particular for the relief basis such and request- configuration may suggested or which alternative district petitioner.” ed the invited, legal parlies to "file a memoran- require, It did not the also but III, (a) validity §§ 4 addressing of under Article dom the facial the law, (b) Maryland or and issues that and the Constitution federal 5 of Special Master.” should be referred to a gamut ran the from equal population requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth and Amendment Maryland Rights and Voting Rights Declaration Act components compactness, to the constituent (contiguity, sub- equality population, stantial and due and boundaries) III, § Maryland natural of the Article Consti- tution. 20, Wayne
In Misc. No. Curry, K. Executive African-American, George’s County Prince joined by and an registered other African-American and residents voters of George’s County, Prince contended that the Plan Afri- denied can-American, minority Latino and other generally voters throughout State, but specifically George’s Prince and Counties, Montgomery opportunity “an equal participate in political process and to elect candidates their choice Maryland Assembly,” in Equal General violation of the Protection Clause the Fourteenth Amendment the Unit- Constitution, Voting Act, ed States Section Rights 2, 7, Articles 24 of Rights, I, and Declaration and Article § of Maryland Constitution.12 2, 7, Rights
12. Articles of the provide, Declaration of respectively, as follows: Constitution, "Article 2. laws treaties of United to be States supreme States, law of State. The Constitution of the United made, made, thereof, pursuance Laws or which shall be all made, made, Treaties which authority shall be under the *16 are, States, State; Supreme United and shall be the Law of the and State, State, are, Judges People the of this the and all of this shall and thereby; anything bound in the or Constitution Law of this State contrary notwithstanding. right "Article frequent; 7. Elections to be and suffrage. free That right People participate Legislature of the in the is the best Government; security liberty and the of all foundation free for this purpose, elections'ought free frequent; every to be and and citizen having Constitution, qualifications prescribed by ought right suffrage. have the process. ought “Article 24. Due That no man to be taken or freehold, imprisoned or privileges, disseized of his liberties or or outlawed, exiled, or, manner, any destroyed, deprived or in or of his life, liberty property, by judgment peers, by or but his Law of the land.” registered and other 22, Eugene No. E. Golden In Misc. Districts, joined Legislative 7th 31st in the former and voters of the Leopold, R. members and John by Jacob J. Mohorovic 44, a district that District complained Delegates, House of County, and District City and Baltimore shared Baltimore County and Anne Arundel by Baltimore a district shared III, they Plan, § in that were Article County, in the violated regard give and did due compact contiguous nor neither political subdivisions. and boundaries of natural boundaries asserted, the Plan Baltimore Moreover, they under because and Baltimore legislative districts Coun- City controlled seven Maryland five, Plan violated Article ty that the only Amendment, and Rights and the Fourteenth Declaration redistricting punishe[d] “the also that Governor’s representation and reduced County voters Baltimore representation,” City in the with increased voters rewarded] propor- regard principle for the evincing thus “a feckless representative government defiefd] tionality, central both law and reason.” Asbury,13 registered voter Barry
In No. Misc. Steven of subdivi- County, generally decried the number Baltimore crossings that the Plan sanctioned boundary sion natural and, therefore, Maryland the Plan contended that violated Constitution. political subdivision due for natural and
Lack of boundaries, primary contiguity were compactness, Stolzfus, registered Misc. No. J. Lowell focus of filed voter in and member Somerset Tawes, registered Senate, also a voter Somerset John W. registered Riley, R. Wicomico County, and voter Lewis that, Plan, particular, they maintained under County. County from separated Districts 37 and which Somerset Shore,” its traditional alliance with Worcester the “Lower compact part County, Wicomico were not County Asbury exceptions Special to the Master’s recommenda- filed no Mr. tions, hearing. present exceptions We will argument oral at the but did challenge. Asbury’s not further address Mr. *17 not configured giving regard were due to the boundaries of addition, political they subdivisions natural boundaries. just “the ‘happened’ observed Governor’s Plan gerrymand two Republican er14 incumbent newly Senators into the ordained 37th District.” Stone, Jr., Senate, R. a
Norman member of the Minnick, Joseph S. Arnick and John J. members of Delegates, joined by County regis House other Baltimore voters, 25, 7, 34, challenged 44, tered in Misc. No. Districts being and 46 the Plan as compact contiguous. neither nor They that given also contended due to natural political boundaries and the boundaries subdivisions when configured. petitioners the districts were Like the Misc. 22, petitioners gave these asserted the Plan “peculiar and preference City clear for the which deroga lost tion County gained which population” Baltimore and con many County tended Districts that Baltimore shared with other subdivisions under the Plan —twelve in all—reflected the “balkanization” of County and the dimi nution of representation County Baltimore voters.15 26, Wallace,
In Misc. No. Gail M. registered a voter County, Calvert claimed that Subdistrict 27A in the Plan "gerrymandering” generally term defined practice as "[t]he districts, dividing a geographical area highly into electoral often irregular shape, give political party advantage by one an unfair diluting opposition’s voting strength." Dictionary Black’s Law (7th ed.1999). Legislative supra, Districting, In In re 299 Md. 428, writing majority, Judge A.2d for the Murphy Chief discussed the word, origin noting given following that it "was birth in 1812 drawing cartoonist’s of a Massachusetts district that he appearing described like a 'salamander.' sug- An astute observer gested might properly that the ‘gerry- district more described as after then Eldridge Gerry mander’ Governor of Massachusetts who had one, role, albeit a minor construction Id. district.” 8, citing Hardy, fn. 475 A.2d at "Considering fn. Gerrymander,” (1977). Pepperdine L.Rev. 15. The State's Plan included five shared districts between Baltimore County City, and Baltimore as well as four additional districts that Howard, Harford, Carroll, Baltimore shared with each of Anne Arundel Counties. *18 and compact not because it was violated the State Constitution regard of give due to boundaries also it failed because asserted that because Cal- political subdivisions. She further 9% of the County comprise would less than vert residents George’s, district, of Anne which included residents Prince Counties, Arundel, would be denied effective they and Charles representation. 27, of Brayman
In A. and other residents Stephen Misc. No. Park, registered College incorporated municipality of Plan George’s County, complained that the voters in Prince failing and City Districts 21 thus divided the between political of subdivisions. give due to the boundaries Schofield, in voters registered Gabriele Gandel and Dee contended, in Misc. No. that Dis- Montgomery County, that compact, tricts and 20 not had boundaries were were product gerryman- and political of reasons impermissible regard to configured giving and were without due dering, political of natural boundaries or the boundaries subdivisions. that, They in violation of Article alleged further Maryland Rights, Equal Declaration the Federal Protection Clause, Act, Voting Rights and 2 of the the Plan Section voting strength in minority undermined diluted District 20, which, reasons, again, impermissible political like due gerrymandering, substantially was not in equal also in to other districts. proportional Montgomery size registered No. Michael in Misc. S. Steele voter George’s County, Prince Chairman Re- African-American, publican party, challenged and an the Plan entirety grounds. in on He alleged its several diluted voting minority rights, violating Voting thus Section 2 of the Act, Rights racial gerrymander that discriminated minority in against voters violation of Fourteenth and Amendments, legislative districts which Fifteenth created contiguous were nor that also compact neither failed give regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of due III, § in violation of violated subdivisions Article guarantee Equal person, “one one vote” the Federal Clause, partisan Protection was a gerrymander that discrimi- against in Republican nated violation the Fourteenth voters Amendment, penalized Republican voters violation First Amendment. invalid, Dembrow,
The Plan was asserted Dana Lee registered Montgomery voter County and member No. Delegates, House Misc. District 20 was because form, compact changes boundary to its with District implemented process, boundary were without due and the disregarded boundary natural Hill Randolph/Cherry Road, precincts “splitting along and dividing residential communities, well neighborhoods, streets established addition, homeowners’ associations.” In he maintained *19 Plan implemented the was without process due and that right undermined of opportunity minority representa- the of tion to of Montgomery County by the citizens “gerrymander- boundary ing of the District with an extension to the from place west its southern ... to particular end a Caucasian district, incumbent out his existing of District and into District 20.”
Katharina Eva DeHaas County and other Anne Arundel registered argued, by creating voters in Misc. No. that 23A, new Subdistrict “which the and crosse[d] Patuxent tiny, carve[d] out a segment County, isolated of Anne Arundel consisting precincts, of formerly part two that were District,” Legislative they thereby 33rd were denied effective representation, required by Equal as the Protection Clause of the Fourteenth and of Maryland Amendment Article 24 Rights.. They Plan, Declaration of complained also that the them, III, the Constitutional “flout[ed] mandates of Article 4,” by § failing give regard due to natural boundaries and political the boundaries of subdivisions. 32, Rayburn
In Misc. No. Smallwood and other Arun- Anne County registered del They voters voiced similar concerns. complained that the Plan placed tiny, portion “a isolated County, consisting Anne Arundel full precincts three one partial precinct, part that were formerly of the 32nd District,” principally in District which Legislative that, so, argued doing They County district. Howard or regard due natural boundaries give Plan failed it deprived that them subdivisions and political boundaries any representation. real Cole, Prettyman and John Franklin W. In Misc. No. W. registered in, County Lagater, voters also the John S. of, County, that the State’s Caroline asserted Commissioners that legislative it: created districts because Plan was invalid regard due contiguous and that lacked compact were subdivi- and the boundaries for natural boundaries sions; concept proportionality representation violated the Rights; limited 7 of Declaration of embodied Article and 11 on Eastern to three senators Shore counties and, Delegates; House of created Subdistrict delegates Equal minority district in violation of the majority 38A as a Protection Clause.16 34, Joseph Getty, M. of the House of
In Misc. No. a member registered voter that Delegates from Carroll ground Plan on the that certain County, challenged entire counties, Carroll, including populations have that exceed that (112,691 legislative required persons), for an ideal district but Plan to include a district within boundaries. failed their Plan further failed observe state He asserted district requirement constitutional each be given to the compact that due boundaries *20 political subdivisions. issue, petitioners improp- Cole another whether Plan
16. The raised the (1984, 2-201(d)(2) Repl.Vol., erly repealed § Md.Code State Gov’t delegates Supp.). required 2-201 from an inter- Section that the separate petition- jurisdictional come from counties. The Cole district joint by adopted the ers claimed lhat the resolutions which Plan was provision unconstitutionally § that 2-201. we have invali- deleted of As Plan, joint by presented the the resolutions which it was to dated Legislature longer they part no effective of a the are because are process. plan adopted legitimate promulgated The constitutional and joint any preexisted the by not delete statutes that this Court does Moreover, adopting resolutions the State’s Plan. our Order this and (d)(2) Mary- § specifically Plan that in the Court’s noted 2-201 remains Code. land hearing validity what, on the facial Plan the any, if should Special issues be referred to the Master April on 2002.17 Following hearing, by held that order date, having the same “that concluded sufficient evidence presented preclude finding been to a that ha[d] the Governor’s Legislative law,” Plan valid Redistricting as a matter of [wa]s petitions responses the Court to Special referred the the taking Master “for the of further evidence and the of a making report Court in the conformance with this the Order of Court March 2002.” Addressing entered the burden proof Master, hearing Special the the before while allocat issues, it to ing petitioners respect the to the federal we ordered: challenges
“with respect upon III, based Article Section Maryland Constitution, shall State have the producing burden of sufficient evidence to show: “1. Legislative that the districts the Governor’s Redis- tricting contiguous, Plan are they
“2. compact, that are preliminary hearing Such unprecedented a is not the modern 17. history districting jurisprudence. Although not occurrence, precautionary prelude a common assignment such to districting challenge special aof to a master is not unlike in function Legislative Districting, supra, what Court did 1974. See In re Then, challengers Md. A.2d to the Governor’s redistricting plan, filing petitions raising addition to myriad issues, summary judgment filed with the Court asking motions for on, summarily the 1973 reasons, among Plan be declared invalid based other required public hearings the Governor’s failure to conduct 31, 1973, prior preparation plan. July As the Court’s order of clear, (1) makes the Court: considered memoranda and affidavits by parties opposition submitted for and in to the motions for (2) summary judgment; stipulations by par- considered submitted ties; and, (3) order, arguments. heard In the same the Court "cured” procedural by declaring, pursuant the Governor’s error to its constitu- relief,” power "grant appropriate tional the 1973 Plan as nonetheless duly adopted considering purpose remaining challenges for the petitioners, mounted special referred matter to master evidentiary hearings for further report taking and a written before final procedure, action. This all purposes, substantially intents and 11,2002, followed scheduling April similar hearing Court in its present in the case.
337 and given to natural due “3. that subdivision boundaries.” 2002, the Court earlier, April dated days by order
Two Karwacki, former L. the Honorable Robert appointed had Master, designating Court, the Special as Judge this taking hearing the of further of the for the date Order for his May 24, deadline the setting evidence and report the Court. 25, 26, April and hearings on Special Master held
The Thereafter, Special Master Report his of the he filed 2002. May 21, (hereinafter 2002. Court on “Report”) the with the con- initially the Master reviewed Report, Special In the the conten- Distilling those petitioners. of the tentions of each equal alleged violations the tions down three issues— of the Amendment requirement the Fourteenth population Article Maryland Constitution States Constitution and United Act, Voting Rights III, alleged § violations require- component one or more of alleged violations of Constitution, III, § 4—he dis- Maryland Article ments cussed each turn.18 equality and respect population
The contentions
rejected by
all
Voting Rights
on
Act were
premised
those
we do likewise.
Master, who
Special
recommended
20,19
former,
Misc. Nos.
included
Special
to the
Master
As
III,
Maryland
§§
34.
and 3
As Article
districts, from each of
provide
for 47
Constitution
elected, and
delegates are to be
which one senator and three
single
delegates
large,
from
election
districts,
multiple
whether there
member
member districts
upon
equal
problem depends
is an
forming
required
number
its
population and
distribution
had
Maryland
The
data indicated that
of districts.
census
Curry’s
summarily
rejected petitioner
claims
Special
Master
States Constitution and
on
First Amendment
United
based
2, 7,
Rights.
Declaration of
Articles
Curry
review
he
a claim
denies that
made such
19. Petitioner
did
petition in
confirms that he
not.
petition
Misc.
his
and amended
*22
population
5,296,486residents,
in 2002 of
which translates into
112,691
containing
persons,
“ideal”
districts
“ideal”
37,563
single
containing
member subdistricts
persons, and
containing 75,126 persons.
“ideal” two member subdistriets
From
population
the evidence as to
among
deviation
subdistricts,
found,
Special
citing
districts
Master
Cases,
Legislative
594, 600-01,
at
Redistricting
Md.
656, 656-60,
A.2d at
all legislative
“[s]ince
that
districts and
±
plan
range
subdistricts under the
fall
a
within
5%,
population disparities
sufficiently
are
minor so as not
to require justification
the State under the Fourteenth
III,
or
Amendment
...
Mary-
under Article
Section
Although,
land
quoting Legislative
Constitution.”20
Redis-
Cases,
therefore,
tricting
and,
Both petitioners Curry and challenges Steele mounted rely- ing on Voting Rights petitioner Section of the Act and Steele also offered claims that relied on the Fourteenth and Fif- addition, teenth Amendments. petitioners the Cole brought a Voting Rights 38A, claim related to Subdistrict a majority-minority district for which they claimed State had any not established need. The Special recom- Master petitioners, only petitioners, dispute The Cole Cole this finding. contrary, they To the spread maintain that the or 10.4%, dispersion largest between the smallest and districts is rather 9.91%, than spread dispersion and that the between the smallest and 11.0%, largest single member districts is instead of the 9.89% as the Special petitioners Master determined. The Cole submit that the dis- exhibit, parity Special using stems from the a Master State rather than joint the tables to the attached Plan or the resolutions that introduced Assembly. in the General issue, We need not we resolve this however. As have declared the promulgated
Plan unconstitutional and a new that one meets both state standards, and federal issue moot. With each of these claims. reject the Court mended Steele, petitioners Curry he reasoned: satisfy challenges fail since the Petitioners cannot “These require by Gingles21 conditions mandated the threshold identify geographically plaintiffs in the instant case voting by that minority polarized compact pattern community. The minority surrounding as the white well 60% of showed that than before me more evidence offered population is Maryland’s African concentrated American subdivisions, City and Prince Baltimore two Thus, that African County. the contention Ameri George’s upon clearly is not based cans have suffered vote dilution *23 minority population. compact’ Like specific ‘geographically wise, by challenges supported not these statewide are evi racially polarized voting by minority of both the dence It is surrounding population. population and the white general racial enough pattern polarization to show a that drawn to maximize the number require district lines be districts, majority up black at least to a number constitut that African Americans constitute ing proportion the same population. total Fair Marylanders Repre state (D.Md. sentation, 1022, F.Supp. Inc. v. Schaefer, 1994).” Special respect petitioners’ challenge,
With to the Cole concluded, it was contrary argument Master to their that burden, proving the burden of a vote dilution Voting plaintiffs. Act Rights claim under was the More- over, plan 38A he noted that “Subdistrict under the State’s substantially similar to Subdistrict 37A the cur- under [wa]s plan” rent and that was created as a result of a decision finding Court as a result of the United States District Rights Voting Act violation. claim, No.
Only petition raising one a state law Misc. Stoltzfus, by Riley Lowell R. and filed Senator J. Lewis John Tawes, by any merit, Special W. was found Master to have 49-51, Thornburg Gingles, 106 S.Ct. v. 478 U.S. (1986). L.Ed.2d 46-47 only but as it Eastern related Shore districts that were principal petition its focus.22That challenged configuration III, § 38 as violating of Districts 37 and 4’s Article admonition compact districts be' in form and pay due petitioners subdivision boundaries. The argued longitudinal for the “traditional division the Eastern district, Somerset, consisting Shore” into a Lower Shore Counties, part Worcester and of Wicomico a Middle Shore district, Dorchester, Talbot, consisting of all of and Caroline part of Wicomico an County, Counties Shore Upper They district. maintained: traditional,
“Separating from its Somerset territorial ‘close Wicomico, union’ with Worcester and “(a) facially contrary to previous [wa]s this Court’s dis- compactness; cussion of
“(b) contrary configuration [wa]s to the recognized ...; Maryland’s Department Planning “(c). disrupted] Tri-County Council for Lower ...; of Maryland Eastern Shore “(d) demean[ed] the historic fact that Somerset (created 1666) an Order in Council in originally com- prised Worcester and Wicomico Counties—with Worces- being ter in 1742 and being created Wicomico carved out Somerset 1867.” Worcester districts, configuration As to the petitioners *24 argued:
“The Plan concocted Governor the for the 37th and 38th Legislative and, District contemptuous geography [wa]s a map, appearfed], weirdly, on as ink In- blots worse. deed, the 38th District contrived in the Plan Governor’s Cambridge from to Salisbury meander[ed] and then spread[] through part County of Wicomico all and petition petitioner 22. The "generally, assuredly, also stated that the but Plan, whole, gives claim[ed] that the Governor’s as a regard no to disregard in cavalier subdivision boundaries for the strictures § 4 Maryland III of the suggests Article Constitution.” This clear, they challenged grounds. Plan the as a whole on due It is however, Special challenge. that the not Master did credit this description, configuration defie[d] This County. Worcester 3] form.”[2 symmetry having nor neither solution, simple, requiring was petitioners proposed The the delegate District 88A proposed the movement of no more than Plan, Legislative district included Somerset the Stoltzfus 23. Prior to the County. By County, County portions of Wicomico and Worcester district, from the reconfiguring that the Plan extended the district County portion of Wicomico Coun- into southern border Somerset River, boundary the line ty, then the Wicomico and then across across County County, the Nanti- and Dorchester across between Wicomico point, half of Dorchester at its and into the southern coke River widest Chesapeake Bay proceeded to County. west the The district then River, Choptank wraps land area where its on to shores Plan) (38A pro- majority-minority district around river, separated by majority- up point appearing at ceeded one (although readily minority apparent, we have been district it is past takes it assured that this includes some land that district comprise contiguousness princi- majority-minority so distrid as not ples). Next, managed majority- skirt around the after its fast land district, minority Choptank encompass River to it crossed the Talbot boundary County, Ihereby crossing tire subdivision between Dor- also boundary chester and Talbot Counties. It then crossed the subdivision portion to take in a of Caroline between Talbot and Caroline Counties County. separated by majority- from its other area Because it was district, minority line then the district crossed Caroline/Dorchester County boundary just majority-minority district. Its line east arrangement geographical impossible was to describe in terms. almost face, non-compact. clearly, It on its district, Plan, contemplated in the ran from Delaware Virginia Chesapeake Bay, and from to north of the middle of the County. process, por- northerly boundaty it Talbot In the took Wicomico, Somerset, Dorchester, Talbot and Caroline Counties. tions of 'boundary County between Caroline It crossed the subdivision (because district), County wrapped another Dorchester twice around boundary between Caroline and Talbot Coun- crossed the subdivision ties, boundary between and Dorchester crossed the subdivision Talbot Counties, Dorchester and Wicomi- the subdivision line between boundary County, and the subdivision between Wicomico co County crossed process, County. In the it crossed over the and Somerset point, the Nanticoke River its Wicomico River at its widest over point, Choptank point. widest River at its widest From over Shelltown, County, to approximate- of Somerset southeast corner vicinity Bridgetown, ly point County, in the the farthest in Caroline roads, approx- approximate mileage, using points, all between the the imately miles, Highway according Map. Official Using easterly major highways possible, where the distance between the *25 back into District 37 proposed and the movement of delegate District 37A into back District 38. Special Master found as fact that following plan by petitioner Stoltzfus,
submitted
would not
popula-
affect the
tion equality
118,193
Districts 37 and
which would have
118,326residents,
respectively,
range
within the
of accept-
able deviation from
ideal district.
He also determined
Somerset,
that the shore counties of
part
Worcester and
Wicomico had
been
the same
district since In re
Legislative Districting,
Rejecting, therefore, the State’s reason for designing such noncompact split districts —the “more favorable of the voters County in Wicomico City Salisbury and in the so that those enjoy voters would supposedly a better electing chance of senator Special of their choice—the Master was not persuaded that the State proof carried its burden establish that Districts 37 complied and 38 with the require- constitutional ments of compactness and regard due subdivision boundaries. He recommended that the petition Stoltzfus granted, reasoning as follows:
“Furthermore, proposed by District 38B the State includes portions Caroline, Talbot, of five Dorchester, counties: Wi- comico Worcester Counties from stretching the Atlantic County. Ocean Caroline I do not believe that this configuration of 38B District demonstrates its drafters gave due to the boundaries of political subdivisions. configuration The State’s of Districts 37 and 38 divides County Somerset from part Worcester of Wi- boundary of County, City, Tilghman, Somerset at Pocomoke in Talbot County, approximately 125 miles. *26 aligned been in one Those three areas have County. comico acceptable reason has 1966. No legislative district since view, from the my justify divergence in to presented, been including shore counties tradition of the longstanding lower in district.” one claims, Master remaining Special law the
As the state being reject we them as without merit. recommended that 44 and that Districts 31 and Special Master noted The 38A, 37B, by 34A, they were divided because Subdistricts 44, in case of Districts 31 and the Patapsco rivers —the the Wicomico, rivers, Nanticoke, of Choptank the case 37B, the of 38A and Patuxent the case Subdistricts No. Misc. No. alleged, Subdistrict 34A—were Misc. noncontigu- No. and Misc. No. Misc. No. Misc. ous, i.e., consisting Tracing adjoining property. of the phrase, “adjoining property” proposed the 1968 Constitu- tion, floor Special Master reviewed the debate on the the and, subject determining meaning as an from that aid its review, preclude that intent was to a district concluded the Chesapeake by Bay, by but not intersected one intersected a river. reported he that an amendment offered to
Summarizing,
“adjoining property”
“adjoining
substitute
land area”
Legislative
on
of
Committee
prompted
Chairman
prohibition
that
a
Branch
conclude
“we can’t use
about
crossing
Report
Special
a
of the
body water.” See
Master
6315-16,
Proceedings at
(quoting
at 18
Minutes of the
6332-
35).
prohibited
Another amendment
that would have
of a
crosses
of the
creation
district “that
the center
Chesa-
Bay,”
(quoting
Proceedings
at
peake
id.
Minutes
6525-
31, 6439-42),
withdrawn,
id.
(quoting
was
Minutes
6541-42),
Proceedings
might
it
also
appeared
at
when
Susquehan-
prevent the
that crossed the
creation
district
na
expressed
River.
Committee Chairman
concern that
The
tributaries, estuaries,
“if
adding
start
and other bodies of
we
id.,
stand,”
know
... we won’t
where we
and stated that
water
support
only if it
limited to
he would
the amendment
6529-31).
Bay.
at
(quoting
Proceedings
Id.
Minutes
placed
Committee
Whole
the Convention
on the
record
statement of its intention: “that
interpre-
under the
adjoining
compact
tation of the words
a redistricting
...
district,
commission or the
Assembly
General
could not form a
by
a Delegate
either
Senate district or
district
crossing the
Id. at 19 (quoting Minutes of the Proceed-
Bay.”
Chesapeake
6574-75).
Anne
addition,
Arundel
v.
ings
citing
Annapolis,
(1998) (under
City
352 Md.
Having reviewed our cases discussing concept the of com pactness and the Legislative Redis regard requirements, due Cases, tricting re 590-92, 331 at In 654; Md. 629 at A.2d Legislative Districting, 681, 440, Md. at at A.2d and districts,24 challenged found facts as to Special the Master Special 24. The County gained Master found as a fact that Baltimore 62,158 population, years, gain over the ten residents last but that the Thus, throughout evenly was not County. distributed the southeastern County, County joined Baltimore where Baltimore with Baltimore City County, respectively, and Anne Arundel to form Districts 44 and population, lost County grew. whereas northern and western that, result, Special Master portion concluded ‘‘[a]s county's population share must districts with residents another county, County because Baltimore too has much six legislative enough legislative districts and not for seven districts.” This conclusion redistrictings was consistent with other from 1966 determined, present, County he in which the shared districts with Carroll, and, beginning Harford and Howard Counties City. Baltimore explained He preserve further that the Committee had decided to County core of most Baltimore contests, districts and to minimize incumbent keeping crossings which meant the same number of between County City. Finally, Baltimore although and Baltimore he noted that crossings County there were more between Baltimore and other subdi- plan, visions in Plan territory this than in the 1992 there was less and percentage County’s population smaller of the involved. Preserving minimizing the core of districts and incumbent contests recurring throughout Special were fact-finding, themes Master's as many these were crossings. the reasons found for of the subdivision Report Special (discussing findings See of the at Master of fact as to each. pertaining dispositive factors discussed separately first, Master Special regard provision Addressing the due 1) of ‘due requirement premises: two proceeded “[t]he on and boundaries natural boundaries regard’ for goal,’ a ‘rational may subordinated to achieve subdivisions legislators, loss of senior avoiding the additional such ‘achieving contests and reducing of incumbent the number ” districts,’ re (quoting Legislative among the racial balance 2) 445), balancing 299 Md. at A.2d Districting, requirements of Article conflicting various constitutional drafting districting III, § 4 in the of discretion. required the exercise Nos. 22 and petitions, Misc.
As the Stone and Golden plan leaves Master found effect of the State’s Special “the districts, minimizes incumbent existing undisturbed the core conflicts, for its African-American voters the preserves Crediting the candidates of their choice.” opportunity elect therefore, Secretary State, he testimony determined underlying compactness as well as all other principles that the applied fairly had been considered constitutional concerns Moreover, pointed he out designing Districts Balti- boundary that no more districts crossed the between Plan than under City and Baltimore under this more Legislative in 1993. See plan approved the Court *28 Cases, 574, addition, A.2d 646. In Redistricting 331 Md. by noting Special support Master found for the Plan the the in as well as petitioners’ plans, the alternative weaknesses testimony represented a who a relying on the senator that such districts worked well and the testimo- shared district 31, 13). Maintaining within as well as District districts to District given percent district was another reason to ten ideal tolerance or, least, crossings, justify that work well at that was shared districts representative shared had there was no evidence that a district respond to to Yet another was that failed the concerns that district. enhanced, boundary preserved, African- breach of subdivision or representatives elect of their choice. opportunity American voters’ 31, 38-40, 27, Report (discussing 22-23 Special See Master 38, 22, findings of fact as District District Districts 44). District ny potential candidate such district that his he would do represent best the district if Plan was approved. Having already found that the population of Anne Arundel County too large districts, was for four but too small for five and, thus, had to subdivisions, share districts with other Special placement found that Master of Anne Arundel (Misc. 31) County 23A, in Subdistrict residents No. which encompassed part George’s County, of Prince justified, was reiterating population to the “[d]ue Anne Arundel County, it all possible not residents of [wa]s Anne Arundel placed to be entirely districts within County.” Anne Arundel also He observed the absence of any evidence that representative of a shared district had failed to address concerns raised residents of a subdivi- sion within the River, district or that the Patuxent a natural boundary, posed any representa- obstacle travel or effective tion. finding
A similar was with respect made to the Smallwood petition) Misc. No. challenged which propriety District, 13, shared between Anne Arundel and Howard Coun- Noting ties. testimony the absence of that the evidence resident of a shared district had not been concerns aof addressed and that the District 32 boundary line 13/District boundary, followed a natural Baltimore-Washington Park- way, Special Master concluded:
“The on appropriate criteria, was based includ- ing preserving existing the core of the districts in Anne County, recognizing Arundel the population pre- restraints sented District which is close the maximum deviation, allowable diluting the African American population District 13.”
Rejecting petition, Cole Misc. Special No. Master pointed County, out that Caroline has which shared a district other counties considerably since below the ideal for a single Moreover, member district. recognizing petitioners the Cole conceded that either *29 County Caroline or Talbot to split had between District 36 37, that decision as District he reasoned the Committee’s and, therefore, discretionary did not to was split to which give political subdivision to due establish the failure boundaries. or natural 29, Special No. the petition, Steele Misc. rejecting the 22, 32, on relied the
Master, in Misc. Nos. as he did in which identify instance an petitioner failure concerns of residents representative responded had not the In addition a shared district. political of a subdivision within partisan, aim was the petition’s that the Steele suggesting justified, by had petitioner Master found that the Special evidence, long-standing to abandon “the State’s need districts.” multimember Getty petition, having No. conceded Misc. Counties, Carroll, including had to
five Western and, since they districts had Freder- share neighboring ick and Carroll Counties shared districts with failing counties, merit for also was found to be without had not identify representative an instance which a re- political sponded to concerns of residents of a subdivision Special Master further deter- within a shared district. The crossing County and that the of the Carroll Baltimore mined necessary splitting Hampstead line and the were requirement. population equality the substantial He due to plan responded also observed: “The State’s recognized municipalities when created dis- changes Getty petitioners in the That the City trict Frederick. legally no valid alternative present claim confirmed their interests, area, but not plan partisan for that which advances requirements.” constitutional
Concerning complaint Brayman petitioners, Misc. give regard to natural No. State did not due because, subdivision boundaries and the boundaries Plan, City College Park was located both under every noted first that Special Master Districts submitted, except partial one submitted alternative That Brayman split College Park. petitioners, *30 consistent, asserted, redistricting he with the for the Prince Council, County George’s similarly split College which Park Furthermore, reasoned, between districts. he because the City in is located an area there are a of where number adjacent municipalities and of substantially equal the creation required that of split, districts the boundaries some of them be it of to was a matter discretion which divide that and choice be should not disturbed. Special Brayman petitioners’ proposal found the Master City College
to unacceptable, unite the of Park believing that City precincts of of the relocation three Laurel from District 23, District and would have had the of splitting effect subdivision, Laurel, City among another the those that, despite complaints, districts. He also observed their the Brayman nothing petitioner’s plan rectify the sharing “d[id] 21 among District Prince and George’s Howard Counties. Brayman petitioners’ Under the plan, District 21 would still cross Patuxent River into County. the Howard This [wa]s because, recognize[d], population as the State lan from How- ard needed make District 21 substantially [wa]s equal population.”
Despite petitioners Schofield, testimony Gandal and and Delegate Sharon Grosfeld that the Plan split neigh- Rollingwood, placing part borhood of of it in District 18 and part of District leaving entirely instead of it within 18, as formerly, relying Delegate District on Grosfeld’s further testimony that the repre- residents both districts be would by incumbent representatives, sented senior “in of both terms Annapolis tenure in leadership Assembly” the General lack of evidence those elected “would could not responsive Special be to the of Rollingwood,” needs Mas- ter that Rollingwood’s ability found participate political process adversely not would affected the Plan. give The districts did due to natural boundaries subdivisions, event, of political boundaries in any he boundary concluded. District 20’s eastern Montgom- was County line, ery/Prince George’s the bottom of district Montgomery County/District line, of Columbia and most of lines, consisting precinct remaining its boundaries were natural boundaries. Like District District roads and other determined, natural Special Master also followed boundaries, roads, major bound- although all the entire said, explained, by the That decision was he need ary. latter population equality. maintain Perceiving petition, alleging Misc. No. the Dembrow thoroughfare Randolph/Cherry recognized the “well dividing Districts 14 Hill” should have been the line between splitting about complaining addition *31 neighborhoods, commu precincts dividing and well established nities, along and associations residential homeowners’ streets,25 Randolph that Road had Special Master denied pointed line for District 20. He dividing been the sole ever that, fact, following Plan closer to out the State’s came had Randolph any past plan. Road than
III. scheduling In with initial Order of accordance this Court’s 1, 2002, petitioners most March the State and filed Report Special of the Master. We held a exceptions hearing exceptions on on 2002. As we have those June seen, majority concurring, of the Court Order dated June on the Committee submitted to the Governor December 17, 2001, Redistricting Advisor)' Committee recommended that Randolph Cherry boundary along 20's run Hill District Roads, northern and fairly straight thoroughfare already that divides the surround- However, presented ing precincts. plan the Governor to the Gener- Plan, Assembly, ultimately the al State’s did not follow this recommen- Plan, Rather, drawn in the District 20's northern dation. as State's boundary beyond Cherry Randolph stretched and Hill Roads three locations, separate dividing precincts resulting to the north and irregularly outgrowths. alleged shaped Dembrow that "[t]he Petitioner gerrymandering boundary of the for District 20 an extension deliberately designed particu- place from its end west southern n existing Caucasian of his district and into District lar incumbent out Although express opinion legitimacy allega- 20.” tion, we no on the of this that, drawn, agree regard boundary we for showed no moreover, and, compact requirement that districts be in form that its mandatory require- design justified any basis cannot be on the other ments. 11, 2002, Plan, invalidated the our indicating we State’s that doing so opinion reasons would be set forth an later filed, that we would “endeavor to prepare a constitutional plan,” and that we to appoint intended one or more technical By consultants to assist. Order dated this June consultants, appointed Persily Court technical Nathaniel A. 21, 2002, Karl Aro. On and promulgated S. June we adopted a legislative redistricting plan compliance that is with both statutory state federal constitutional and re- quirements. already findings
We have set out the and recommendations Special regard petition. Master with It to the Stoltzfus findings is to those recommendation to which the exceptions are surprisingly, directed. Not the State denies that it failed to meet its to prove burden the compact- ness of Districts 37 38 or they demonstrate were regard drawn with for political due subdivision boundaries. former, says With to the the State that considerations minority opportunity important electoral were in shaping districts, submits, the Districts. As to those the Plan had important objectives: two
“First, Plan a Somerset County-oriented creates Dis- *32 37A, only trict which not opportunity enhances electoral for African-Americans, but will also serve the interests of all Somerset by helping residents to redress anomaly the delegate supposedly to represent elected Somerset County delegate resident in the 1998 did not election voters, receive most cast County votes Somerset but effectively was elected residents other counties who Second, combined defeat choice of Somerset voters. by combining with portions Worcester of Dorchester and 38th, Wicomico counties in places existing the new minority subdistricts in a Democratic Legislative district with two delegates senior Democratic incumbent and no Senator, incumbent and with other communities where con- minority populations successfully siderable have elected mi- nority candidates to office.” asserts, minority elec- will enhance objectives, the State
Both in future. now and opportunities toral require- that the latter, maintains the State Concerning the was boundaries subdivision of due ment shared violated, being no more there nor implicated neither under the split on the Eastern Shore or counties districts Moreover, plan. in split Plan than were 691, 475 A.2d 299 Md. at Districting, citing Legislative In re may be regard claim that a due argues the State case, in “the Governor’s goal, rational this trumped by a of minori- stability growth issue of attempt to address the to com- district.” As in Democratic a new ty representation “geographic shape, asserts pactness, the State by the boundaries estab- contours,” is dictated of the districts challenges, which cannot Rights Act by prior Voting lished event, that, they any in boundary non-compact and render that the also contends oddly shaped.” The State are “not decision, inappropriateness Special of the Master’s ground County from Worcester Wicomico of separating Somerset nor a allies, compactness Counties, is neither its traditional rather, regionalism of a but, acceptance an regard” issue “due Redistricting rejected Legislative argument that this Court (acknowledging that Cases, A.2d at 666 331 Md. at districts cross of interest —where on “communities reliance share group communities that lines and jurisdictional local intra-regional through the “regional interests interests” formulating City/Baltimore of districts” in sharing “improper plan constituted use region of the Governor’s criteria.”).26 non-legal support petitioners memorandum filed a
26. The Stoltzfus which, others, they among raised the Report, Special Master’s Governor’s, compact at a plan, following points: their unlike the and the preserved the former district glance; plan the core of their decades; preserved for three their configuration that had existed by the federal district court majority-minority created district incumbents, 1994; Republican incum- pitting albeit plan avoided their *33 out; other, bents, they pointed and their could against also each affecting districts. implemented without other indicated, exceptions most of petitioners As the filed to the Special Report. Although the exceptions certainly Master’s issue,27 single primary were not confined to a the focus of most them, in Special as it was the Master’s was on Report, those findings respect and recommendations with to which this Court’s 11th that had April provided Order the State III, pertaining to proof: burden of those Article Section 4’s requirements compactness, contiguity, regard. and due As exceptions, to those consistent theme that State did burden, carry placed April its on this Court in its Order, prove constitutionality challenged of the were, districts, i.e., fact, that compact the districts and and, districts, was, as to contiguous regard shared that due fact, given natural and political subdivision boundaries in configuration. their that has Some assert the State offered no valid explanation the excessive number subdivision (Misc. 20, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34) crossings Nos. and and, further, plans touting alternative that have been offered they crossings contend contain such fewer while also satisfying statutory and constitutional state federal re- quirements, any claim crossings necessary that the were (Misc. 20)'s Curry exceptions findings No. Petitioner were to concerning alleged Voting Rights recommendations Act violations boundaries; regard and due for natural and subdivision Golden, (Misc. 31, 32) petitioners DeHaas and No. Smallwood Special challenged findings Master's conclusions to com- pactness, contiguity sustaining regard and due and for the use of Plan; ''regional” principles upholding petitioners the Stone 25) (Misc. excepted essentially grounds; petitioners No. on the same 28) (Misc. exceptions, Gandal and Schofield No. filed which in addition Special challenging findings respect compact- Master’s regard, equality population ness and due raised an as to the issue (Misc. County; 29) Montgomery between districts the Steele No. exceptions Voting Rights compo- involved the Act and the constitutional III, 4, compactness, contiguity § regard; nents of Article and due (Misc. 30) petitioner excepted regard Dembrow No. on the basis of due (Misc. 33) compactness; petitioners exceptions the Cole No. filed claims, Special equality Master’s conclusions as the due Act; regard, compactness, contiguity Voting Rights petitioner and the 34)’s (Misc. Getty exceptions compactness No. are to the and due (Misc. 27) regard Only findings. Brayman petitioners excepted No. only ground. on the due
353 (Misc. 20, Nos. requirements disingenuous is satisfy federal to 34). 29, 32, 33, 27, 28, 31, and accuse State 22, Some mandatory requirements under State Constitu- sacrificing (Misc. Nos. regionalism nonlegal to considerations such tion (Misc. 33) 25, 29, 31, 32, 22, political gerrymandering and and 34). 28, 29, 30, 38, and Nos.
IV. significant portions that We have determined and, “due III, particular, § 4 Article Plan violate Plan that we held the unconstitutional. regard” provision such must, begin with the State Constitution analysis, our as we We itself. clear, outset, do not tread
At we make “We rather, thicket’; proceed we unreservedly into this ‘political knowledge judicial wholly ... is unavoid intervention (D.S.C. Sheheen, 1329, 1338 F.Supp. Burton v. 793 able.” (footnote 1992) omitted), other and remanded on vacated v. Advisory Comm. Reapportionment Statewide grounds, 2954, Theodore, 968, 113 125 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. (1993). III, Maryland express § Article 5 of the Constitution upon responsibility, proper to this Court ly entrusts constitutionality districting plans petition, review the political government and enacted branches of prepared plans are duty provide appropriate and the relief when to violate Consti determined the United States duty words, it is tutions or other laws. In other this Court’s requirements and to to the constitutional enforce adherence with those redistricting plan comply that does not declare with a state Non-compliance standards unconstitutional.28 permitted only is when conflicts requirement constitutional contiguity, specific The United States Constitution does contain compactness, political re- or for subdivision boundaries due in the quirements. of such factors in the federal cases is The discussion a "rational basis” context of whether such matters constitute deviating person, from the one one vote mandate. requirement with a important Mary- federal another more requirement. land constitutional political
Courts have recognized that when the branches government exercising duty are prepare their constitutional a constitutional redistricting plan, politics political deci- impact process. sions will Gaffney Cummings, v. 412 U.S. (1973) L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (“[politics political inseparable considerations are from districting apportionment.... reality district- ing inevitably has and is intended have substantial *35 consequences”). This does not automatically necessarily or process, or process, render the of the result unconstitu- tional; rather, only product will be the result when politics or political considerations runs afoul of consti- tutional mandates. In re Legislative 299 at Districting, Md. 685, at 475 A.2d different, however,
It is
judiciary
when the
is required
promulgate
to undertake to
districting plan.
In that circum
stance,
politics
political
play.
considerations have no role to
(5th
Wyche
265,
v. Madison Parish Police
769
Jury,
F.2d
268
Cir.1985); Johnson, Miller,
(S.D.Ga.1995),
922
1556,
v.
F.Supp.
1561
Johnson,
v.
Abrams
521 U.S.
117 S.Ct.
aff
'd
(1997); Burton,
“Discharge duty upon requires thrust this court us to strictly adhere more than legislatures state to those consti- redistricting governing the statutory standards tutional and and in a 'circumspectly, act court must A federal process. or discrimina- any from taint of arbitrariness manner “free ’ ” tion.” (citations omitted). Similarly, Burton, F.Supp. at for the Fifth Appeals the United Court Wyche, States opined, part: Circuit relevant not a at 8C is
“However, argument, as defendants conceded by the master special one devised legislative plan, but subject is plan court. A order court-ordered plan. legislative Many is a stringent standard than more incumbents, that are protection as the factors, such apportion- an development in the appropriate by the plan in a place ment have no formulated courts.... the guidelines
“Plan 8E established as modified adheres diluting minority voting It opinion. in our 1981 avoids contigu- ‘compact, strength fixing boundaries are while natural, political rep- and traditional preserve ous and that in this duty of the federal courts matter resentation.’ complete.” added, And the [emphasis omitted]. F.2d at 268 citations *36 District for the States District Court Southern United Georgia, explained: uncon- Georgia’s current the Court is not limited
“Since cases in task akin those plan, stitutional the Court’s Thus, devising the reme- plans. had no when which states applica- by guidelines dy, the Court was bound the stricter guidelines person- the one plans. These include ble court districting and state’s traditional requirement one vote principles.”29 maintaining: political redistricting principles were
29. Those traditional districts,” subdivisions, majority- “corner an urban four traditional area, protecting incum- cores and district in the Atlanta district black others because was subordinated the latter bents. court Johnson, Miller, “inherently F.Supp. at 1564- political.” v. 922 more 356 Johnson, Miller, 1556, (S.D.Ga.1995), v. 922 F.Supp. 1561 aff'd Johnson, 74, v. 1925,
Abrams U.S. S.Ct. 138 L.Ed.2d (1997). recently, Supreme More Court of Hamp New opined, political shire “While considerations are tolerated in legislatively-implemented redistricting plans, they have no place plan.” Chandler, in court-ordered Burling v. 804 A.2d 471, (2002). Eu, 707, See v. Wilson 1 Cal.4th 4 Cal. (1992). Rptr.2d 823 P.2d III, Constitution, §
Article
4 of the
as we
seen, requires
have
that each
district shall be
i.e.,
contiguous,
of adjoining territory,
compact
consist
form,
substantially
equal
and
population, and
that
also
due
given
regard be
to natural
boundaries
the boundaries of
political
requirements
subdivisions. These
mandatory
are
“suggestive,”
as
Legislative
asserted
the State.
In re
Districting,
Although exclusively a state provision, constitutional underlying rationale component Article Ill’s requirements is recognized well and stated Supreme the United States Sims, Court. v. Reynolds supra, having held Equal Protection requires Clause state legislatures to make an good “honest and faith effort” to construct nearly districts “as id., of equal population as is practicable,” 377 U.S. at 1390, 12 acknowledged S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at the Court legitimate there are reasons for states to deviate from creat ing equal districts with perfectly populations, them, among maintaining integrity of political provid subdivisions and ing compact contiguous districts. Reasoning that “[s]o long divergences from a strict population standard are legitimate based on considerations incident to the effectuation of a policy, rational equal- state some deviations from the population principle constitutionally permissible,” are explained: Court
“A may legitimately State desire to maintain integrity subdivisions, various possible, insofar as pro- *37 for compact vide districts of contiguous territory design- in ing legislative apportionment a scheme. Valid consider- may ations such aims. underlie districting, Indiscriminate or natural or any regard political for subdivision without lines, an boundary open more than may be little historical partisan gerrymandering.” invitation to Id., at 537. The at 12 L.Ed.2d 377 U.S. at S.Ct. according respect provided specific Court a rationale boundaries, stating: subdivision to be more substance appears
“A of consideration represen- justifying population-based deviations from some insuring legislatures is that some voice tation state subdivisions, Several fac- political as subdivisions. a can make claims that State tors more than insubstantial in- rationally subdivisions some according political consider body of the state dependent representation in at least one equality as the basic standard legislature, long govern- Local population among districts is maintained. charged with various frequently respon- are mental entities operation government. sibilities incident to the state activity much involves the many legislature’s States only to legislation, enactment local directed of so-called a political subdivisions. And State particular concerns of along political may legitimately to construct districts desire gerrymander- possibilities subdivision lines deter the ing.”
Id.,
580-81,
at
at
12 L.Ed.2d
Our
have
tective of subdivision boundaries. Political subdivisions
governance
critical
played,
play,
and continue to
role
Fair
Maryland,
structure
this State. See
Committee for
411-12,
Tawes,
Representation
supra,
v.
229 Md. at
A.2d
Committee,
717-18;
also
v.
Md.
Hughes Maryland
see
(Barnes,
471, 498-509,
J., dissenting),
289-295
A.2d
denied,
1569,
Although requirement reversed a mandatory because for county, regardless each of population, to have one senator man, violated principle, the one one vote what the Court said Tawes, in Maryland Committee Fair Representation v. supra, important to the play role counties in the governance scheme remains accurate:
“The counties of Maryland always integral have an been part of government. the state St. Mary’s County was contemporaneous established in 1634 with the establishment of proprietary government, probably on the of model Indeed, English shire.... Kent had estab- been lished Marylan- Claiborne before landing ders have that eighteen ----We noted there were counties at the adoption time of the Constitution of 1776. They always possessed have and retained distinct individu- alities, possibly because diversity terrain and occupation.... While it is true the counties are not bodies, sovereign having only status of municipal corpo- rations, they traditionally governmental have exercised wide education, in powers welfare, the fields police, taxation, roads, sanitation, health and justice, the administration of with a supervision minimum of by the State. the diversi- ty their interests and their local autonomy, they quite are states, analogous to the in relation to the United States.” [Citation omitted.]
Subsequently, Hughes, dispute rather than or debate the extensive Maryland’s discussion about the importance of politi- cal in Judge dissent, subdivisions Barnes’ “con- majority postulates” cede[d] discussion. 241 Md. at And, A.2d at dissenting Legislative Redistricting Cases, at Md. 629 A.2d at Judge Eldridge offered following point: elaboration on this states, many
“Unlike other Maryland has a small number political basic twenty-three subdivisions: counties and Balti- Thus, occupy a far Maryland City. ‘[t]he counties more than do similar divisions important position more other the union.’ many states recognizes the critical itself Constitution
“The very govern- our in the structure of importance of counties 54; IV, See, 5; Ill, §§ Art. I, § Art. e.g., Art. ment. 45; V, 7,11, 14, 19, 21, 25, 26, 40, 41, 41B, 44, §§ Art. §§ XI-B; 1; XI; XI-A; Art. Art. XI- 12; VII, § Art. Art. Art. 2; XV, 2;§ C; XI-D; XI-F; XIV, § Art. Art. Art. Art. *39 2, 3, XVI, 4, 5; XVII, 1, 5, 3, §§ 6. After the §§ Art. Art. whole, governing a are basic units the counties State organized political system. Maryland government is in our and county-by-county basis. services re- on a Numerous now, been, organized have sponsibilities historically are and county at the level. political significant
“The boundaries subdivisions are reason: legislative redistricting concern another States, Maryland, many other of the laws enacted as in laws, Assembly year public local General each are Sims, Reynolds v. 377 applicable particular counties. See 1362, 506, 533, 580-581, 1391, 12 L.Ed.2d 538 U.S. S.Ct. (1964) (“In activity many legislature’s much of the States legislation, of so-called local directed involves enactment subdivisions”). particular only concerns of not established local Many Maryland’s counties have bodies, (for counties, rule” legislative these “non-home In Assembly legislature.) is the local General from Assembly the General such practice, members (the legislation county delegation) upon the county decide legislature. are local Home county for the and the de facto Constitution, which Art. XI-A of the rule counties under bodies, subjects may local laws on legislative have enact (1957, Act, Express in the Powers Code enumerated 25A, 5, 4, § Art. and Art. Cum.Supp.), Repl.Vol., 6, Maryland. § of Public Local Laws On Code grants powers, subjects express not covered these however, county Assembly delegation in the General body county. for a rule serves as even home addition, Assembly In regularly excep- General makes tions to in public general and variations laws on county- addition, by-county basis. In Budget the State’s annual frequently on appropriations county-by-county makes ba- sis.” 499, (quoting Hughes, 290,
Id. 241 Md. at turn, at 217 A.2d quoting Maryland Geological Survey, Counties Maryland, Origin, and Their Boundaries Election Districts 419 (1907) (footnotes omitted)). component requirements
We have considered each of the
III,
Cases,
4. Legislative
§
Article
Redistricting
N.E. requirement Our consideration of the compactness detailed, much consisting analysis more of a review various court subject. concluded, decisions on the We
“that the state constitutional requirements §of in work with combination one another to ensure the fairness of they constitutional representation. [state That practical application to conflict their tend requirements] viz, is, fact, apportioned could be however, plain for the territorial re- exactness if not with mathematical easily more compactness could be achieved quirements, and and due substantially equal population apportionment if required.” were not regard for boundaries at 440. Md. at 475 A.2d Districting, Legislative re case, claims rejected compactness raised We explaining follows: as which essentially agreement with those cases are
“We
union of
requirement
as
a close
compactness
view
(conducive
constituent-representative communi-
territory
cation),
dependent
which is
requirement
than as a
rather
being
any particular shape
size. Of
upon a district
course,
compliance
has
there
been
determining
whether
requirement, due consider-
mandatory compactness
with the
afforded,
uniformly
as the cases almost
ation must
factors
recognize, to
‘mix’ of constitutional and other
unavoidable,
degree
noncompactness
which
make some
features,
i.e.,
geographic
conve-
people,
concentration
access,
communication, and
means of
the several
nience
restraints,
including contiguity and
competing constitutional
boundaries,
well
political
for natural and
as
due
requirement that districts be
predominant
constitutional
substantially
population.”
comprised
equal
acknowledged
also
that the
Id. at
“The
regard’ provision
intent of the ‘due
preserve
fixed
those
and known
which
features
enable vot-
ers
an
to maintain
orientation
their
own territorial areas.
compactness
Like
and contiguity,
regard’
the ‘due
require-
mandatory' application,
ment
is of
although
very
its
verbiage
appear
would
to be the most fluid of the consti-
components
§
tutional
outlined in
4.... Thus it is that the
requirements
§
state constitutional
of 4
work
combination
with one another to ensure
of legislative
the fairness
repre-
they
sentation. That
tend
practical
to conflict
their
application is, however,
fact,
plain
viz,
population could be
apportioned with mathematical exactness if not for the
requirements,
compactness
territorial
and
could be achieved
easily
substantially
more
if
equal population apportionment
regard
due
required.”
boundaries were not
In re Legislative Districting, 299
atMd.
petitioners
pointed
also
Redistricting
the
districts as drawn
the Chair of
the
Advisory
“[rjecognize
Committee:
communities
inter
jurisdictional
group
lines and to
est—where districts cross
regional
support
communities
interests” and “[t]o
that share
intra-regional sharing of
Id.
through the
districts.”
interests
613-14,
reiterating
rejection
Despite
at
In were there shared senatorial districts. County them, was Baltimore involved seven of for the first time, boundary its City being Baltimore crossed on five (Districts 8, 10, 46, 47), occasions as its boundaries well (District 6) (District 12), with Harford Howard Counties County once each. Harford also shared a district with Cecil (District 35). County County’s boundary And Howard times. breached three addition to the Baltimore *43 crossing, County it shared districts with George’s Prince 13) (District (District 14). Montgomery and County Prince (27) George’s also County shared district with both Anne Counties, which, turn, Arundel and Calvert shared another (District 29). Mary’s County district with St. On the Eastern Shore, Somerset, Counties, Caroline, Wicomico and Worcester Dorchester, Counties, Caroline, Talbot and Wicomico and Ce- Kent, cil, Counties, Queen Anne’s Talbot and all shared dis- tricts. Four of the shared districts two consisted more than (Prince Calvert); 27 George’s, counties: Anne Arundel and 36 (Caroline, (Caro- Cecil, Kent, Queen Talbot); Anne’s and 37 line, Dorchester, Wicomico) (Somerset, Talbot and and 38 Worcester). Wicomico and Plan for twenty-two State’s 2002 had inter-jurisdiction-
al, shared, districts, an senatorial increase four. While by the number of districts City shared Baltimore and Balti- (Districts County static, 43, 44, more remained five 46), the County’s number times Baltimore boundary was two, Thus, crossed increased from seven to nine. counting wholly districts, its contained County Baltimore inwas twelve In senatorial districts. sharing addition district each with (District 12) (District 7) Counties, of Howard and Harford Plan, County under the State’s also would have shared (District 31) (District district with Anne Arundel and Carroll 5) Moreover, Counties. County’s whereas Anne Arundel boundary breached once under this Plan it was (Districts breached five times 31 and 13 County, with Howard George’s County, 23 with Prince and 27 George’s, with Prince Counties). Calvert and Charles The number of dis- shared County increased, tricts involving Howard also from three to
365 21) (District and Balti- George’s In to Prince four. addition County Counties, as would have shared Howard more (District 9). and Carroll Counties with Arundel a district Anne County in And, only a district with Frederick shared while 2002, Washington County Plan under State’s districts, with Frederick two the one would shared have (District 3) and Allegany as another with as well 1). (District Counties Garrett consisting of more than districts
Similarly, the number of one, Plan as the two counties increased Garrett, (Allegany, such Districts included five districts: Calvert, Counties) (Anne Arundel, and Charles Washington Counties) (Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Coun- Anne’s Dorchester, Somerset, Talbot, ties), (Caroline, and Wicomi- (Dorchester, Wicomico, Counties), and 38 Worcester co 36) (Districts one, two, than Counties), rather (District addition, 37), consisting of four counties. in 1992 College Park between two City Plan split the State’s districts, 21 and 22. Districts indicated, exceptions to petitioners
As filed most *44 conclusions, challenging findings Master’s and the Special Noting that and natural boundaries. breach subdivision counties, in case District they of four the one consisted cycle, than in the and crossed natural bound- more last two Creek, aries, Curry the River and the Mattawoman Patuxent delegate its district component maintains that and District regard provision. prima facie violative of the due The were Golden, argue that petitioners DeHaas and Smallwood the “regional” principles Special Master to the detriment of used County/Baltimore County the to sustain Baltimore Baltimore districts, the City noting particular that four of five shared notwithstanding City, districts controlled the its were 100,000 than population being more than residents smaller County’s They also contend that Anne Arundel population. counties, heavily most was one of the divided into sharing four of seven districts which was divided and, instances, other in two 23A and counties Subdistrict 31, supplying District so hardly few residents “as to merit the legislators.” attention of non-resident exceptions Petitioner to Stone’s are similar effect. He argues that Districts 31 and “both defied a natural bound- ary Patapsco and [the River] crossed subdivision lines.” The Brayman petitioners they maintain that have demonstrated viable alternatives for splitting City Park, of College reasoning Special rejecting Master their information, plans alternative is flawed and based on false that the City unnecessary division is both and unconsti- exceptions tutional. Petitioner Steele’s state that the Plan significantly increased the number of split subdivisions pieces of subdivisions created over the numbers and that Special Master failed to address these increases. Complaining that Plan neighborhoods pre- divided cincts, thus, failing to preserve fixed and known features that enable voters maintain an orientation to their territorial areas, petitioners dispute Gandal and neigh- Schofield that the Rollingwood borhood of a political They subdivision. “[p]recincts assert that ... legislatively recognized are ‘subdi- regulated ‘political’ boards,” visions’ that are by very also established under the Election Code. Petitioner Dembrow’s exceptions objection include his unjusti- the irrational and cause, fied without split, good precincts numerous several residential subdivisions. III, State describes the requirements Article
§ 4 “secondary requirements,” “relative,[ that are must ] yield mandatory requirements of population equality and compliance Act, Voting Rights with the Federal tend con flict with one another in application, and can be subordinated legitimate goals.” achievement rational It asserts language, further that “the history and purpose of the due *45 regard provision previous and of decisions this Court demon that application strate its of necessity must be the most fluid and give way important must to more considerations.” Fur ther, the State maintains that “[t]his Court has also said that regard due can be sacrificed to rational goal, achieve such as City experienced legisla- of Baltimore avoiding additional loss contests, and tors, of incumbent achiev- reducing the number “crossings that ing among balance the districts” and racial overlap’ within one coun- that involve ‘minimal or subdistricts the will not disturb.” The ty are ‘safe harbors’ that Court challenged crossings that of the was neces- argues State each protect op- or enhance sary population equality, to achieve minority representation,-to preserve for the core portunities districts, existing or to accommodate a combination of these Otherwise, challenged claims that the factors. the State overlap involve minimal or the creation subdis- crossings single jurisdiction. tricts within arguments findings are consistent with the and Master, Special premise of the as as the
conclusions well findings, avoiding those that additional loss of underlying the legislators, reducing the number incumbent contests senior achieving among balance are discre- racial districts tionary required decisions to which deference rational goals trump provision. Accepting the the due testimony Secretary respect State with the reasons districts, indicated, Special as for the Master offered drawn, justification many for of the districts as the mainte- districts, thus, existing perpetuating nance of core of contests, plan adopted the minimization incumbent opportunity of African American to elect preservation explicit representatives their That was the ratio- choice. districts, City/County nale for the Baltimore and the Anne districts, 31, 23A and and the Arundel shared addition, implicit Special rationale for the others. testimony Master on that the districts worked relied shared any contrary. Addi- well and the absence evidence for support tional the districts was found the flaws plans petitioners; of the various offered weaknesses all of the raised none them resolved issues basis, an con- petitioners acceptable Special Master cluded, justification deferring to the Plan. Yet another accepted acceptable for the Plan was need to maintain population variances.
368 seen,
As we have when we referred the Plan to the Master, on Special placed proof we the burden of the State regard justify the Plan with to state constitutional require- By doing, we clear that Plan ments. so made the raised respect with requirements sufficient issues to those as to explanation. require further We hold the State has failed constitutionality to meet its burden to of Plan establish and, formulation, in in particular, its due given political natural boundaries and the boundaries of subdivisions. out, Judge Eldridge pointed prior legislative
As
has
redis
tricting
1992
plans,
being
exception,30
considered
coun
in
City
primary
apportion
ties and Baltimore
“the
element
ment,” only crossing
subdivision lines to achieve
Cases,
equality.
619,
Md. at
Legislative Redistricting
629
J.,
(Eldridge,
dissenting)
Report
A.2d at 669
(citing
to the
Maryland by
Study
Governor of
the Commission to
Reappor
1964)
Assembly
31,
tionment of the
(January
General
Report
Final
on
Equitable Represen
Committee More
15,
in
Assembly Maryland
tation
the General
(January
1960)). There is
an
simply
political
excessive number
this
crossings
redistricting plan
subdivision
such that the
Special
presented
justify
evidence
Master did not
it and
justified
necessary
cannot be
as
to meet federal constitution
statutory
al
requirements.
holding
This
is consistent
our
decisions of
states with
provisions
sister
constitutional
III,
regard provision
See,
§
similar to
due
e.g.,
of Article
4.
In Re
Reapportionment
Colorado General
Assembly,
(Colo.2002) (“A
P.3d
accountability
direct line of
citizens,
city
between
their
county
elected
councils and
com
Indeed,
State,
Legislative Districting
supra,
To of the is act, to if it initially, Legislature ultimately, chooses responsibili districts. of that draw the Fulfillment balancing of the of discretion ty involves exercise well as other consider requirements, various constitutional as ations, requirements. do they to the extent not undermine one, partly a process political And because the is entrusted branches, political political judgments considerations are, may be, as this balance brought and often bear in a judgments, Such considerations and reflected struck. be, muster, districting will not plan that meets constitutional be, indeed, guessed by the Court. cannot second political But nor neither discretion considerations judgments may be utilized in violation constitutional words, discretion, standards. if in other the exercise of political judgments considerations and result which non-contiguous; districts: compact; are are not with substantially unequal populations; or with district lines that unnecessarily boundaries, cross natural or subdivision that plan plan may cannot be That sustained. been the have discretion, result of exercised the one with entrusted responsibility of generating plan, will not it. save “trumps” political constitution considerations. Politics or non- constitutional considerations never “trump” constitutional re quirements. said, being reject
That flatly we the State’s char acterization of provisions the due and other of Article III, § that, 4 as “secondary requirements.” itWhile is true consistent Article Declaration of Rights, -8, supra n. state requirements constitutional necessar ily yield to requirements, federal require state constitutional *48 mandatory, ments are nonetheless as In Legislative re Dis 681, 439, tricting, Md. at 475 A.2d at on which the State so heavily opposite conclusion, relies for expressly states. Thus, the State’s assertion that regard provision the due is suggestive mandatory, rather than relying its comparison on of III, § 4 comparable Article to provisions of other state constitutions,31 interpretation, courts, by other of the term provisions The subdivision boundaries of constitutions other III, 4, differ many using § States from Article mandatory more terms: Const., II, (“Unless Pa. absolutely § Article necessary county, no town, city, incorporated borough, township or ward shall be divided District”); forming Representative either Senatorial or Ca. Const. XXI, 1, 1(e) ("the § geographical Article integrity any Section city, of county city county, or any geographical region or of shall be respected possible violating requirements the extent without of any section”); V, 47(2) other subdivision § of this Co. Const. Article (“except necessary when equal population requirements meet the of 46, part county section no part one shall be added to all another districts”); county forming 4, 1, ("Each Me. 2§ Const. Article Part Representative contiguous District compact shall be formed of territory and shall cross subdivision lines the least number of contexts, other and the used in regard,” “due as just wrong. history provision, plain proceeded, Special Master premise on which the may be subordinated regard requirement due argument that the goal,” and the State’s achieve a “rational considerations,” important give way must to “more provision on our discussion wrong. rely, inappropriately, Both also are 691-92, at 475 A.2d Districting, 299 Md. at in In re Legislative applied as to the district requirement compactness may sought in the City. Support also ing of Baltimore case, 475 A.2d at characterization, in that id Court’s as fluid of the regard provision the most the due III, components. § 4 Article that, Districting, noted due
In In re we Legislative loss, City’s districts were reduced Baltimore eleven nine, which, decided, to lie would continue all the State the massive entirely Recognizing City’s within the borders. been, had com- undertaking redrawing of the lines we mented: lose two seats in the City thereby Baltimore would
“Since Delegates, rational and six in the House Senate seats legislators by avoiding loss of senior goal of additional incumbents was reducing the number of contests between of racial balance adopted, legitimate as achievement Organizations among the districts. See United Jewish nine (1977). 51 L.Ed.2d Carey, v. U.S. S.Ct. required adjustment of dis- Necessarily goals these careful geometric trict some sacrifice ideal lines and resulted necessary nearly practicable equally populated as times to establish districts"). Constitution, provision of the however The due *49 power clearly was to on the phrased, meant be limitation nevertheless redistricting process Legislature in the the the Governor and/or Maryland. protection Given to afford the subdivisions provision, Maryland fact that the importance in of counties and the the mandatory though regard,” is constitutional phrased in terms of "due interpretation of which rests provision, responsibility for the Court, responsibility abdication of the Court's would an interpret provision proposes. State compactness regard boundaries, and due for natural al- though requirement for equality substantial of popula- tion among the districts was in no way compromised.” 691-92, re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at at A.2d comment, Despite this we nonetheless held City in districts Baltimore “were in ‘compact light form’ upon geometric the constraints form imposed by other consti- tutional commands and geography the city itself.” Id. Conspicuous by A.2d at 445. any its absence is acknowledgment that any the decision was dictated of the political considerations that went drawing into the of the Thus, light boundaries. of the reference to constraints commands, imposed which, constitutional one of subdivision boundaries, significant determining was factor in the scope constraint, of the the achievement of goals” these “rational obviously did not result in non-compactness. unconstitutional
Nor can solace be
from
obtained
the Court’s characteriza-
tion of the
regard provision
due
as “the most fluid.”
theAs
context of that
language,
itself,
language
indeed the
comparison
confirms the
was
the other “constitutional
components
§in
point
outlined
4.” That
emphasized
earli-
§
er
the discussion
when
acknowledged
we
that the
component requirements “work in combination with
an-
one
other to ensure
representation”
the fairness of
“tend to conflict
practical
in their
application,” illustrating the
by speculating
latter
that “population
apportioned
could be
with mathematical
if not
exactness
for the
require-
territorial
ments, and compactness could be achieved
if
easily
more
substantially equal
apportionment
and due
boundaries
not required.”
were
Id. at
While we validity, we also have presumption is a stated entitled to “may compelling when presumption be overcome the has subordinated manda evidence demonstrates improper alter tory requirements substantial constitutional Cases, considerations,” Legislative Redistricting native when, having Md. at A.2d at or been allocated id.; it. carry fails See see proof, burden of State 299 Md. at Districting, also In re A.2d Legislative situation, least, very At the latter is the here. Special persistent Report theme Another Master, goal” justification as “rational offered as touted and, particular, for drawing some of district lines boundaries, disregarding preservation subdivision \vas course, may existing core Of while it an districts. that consideration also is appropriate goal, and even laudable Therefore, it although may requirement. a constitutional drawing long the lines so be considered and used as factor mandates, preserv as violation of the constitutional there no not, seen, ing may have a constitu district cores we excuse Moreover, preserving core a district tional violation. will, may, and often be in conflict with regard provi- the due and, compactness sion perhaps, requirement, in that tends perpetuate quo. By the status incorporating goal this in districting plan, crossings already subdivision in existence likely continue, will compactness, the case of non- compactness may be petitioners inevitable. The Golden have *51 they that, it right suggest when existing to use an as a plan constraint, especially if that constraint were allowed over- requirements, ride constitutional a dictate continuation of plan. deficiencies in the such regard, old Due under an approach, undermined, certainly would if completely not existence, as to already nullified shared districts as the City/Baltimore Baltimore County districts in the State’s Plan demonstrate.
We have declared State’s Plan unconstitutional its entirety, having that there concluded were substantial viola- tions of the provision. declaration, due With that we promulgate undertook to a constitutional districting plan. Our obligation that undertaking under was to a promulgate plan pass would Consequently, constitutional muster. we do exceptions; address the other since promulgated we have plan constitutional and did so political without consider- ations, grounds likely those other have been addressed and resolved. consultants,
With the assistance of technical previously as indicated, promulgated we have that we believe to be constitutional address all of the issues raised parties. It adopts the Special Master’s recommendation to implement plan. the Stoltzfus Accordingly, the excep- point tions on that are overruled. The Court’s Plan differs considerably from Plan we declared unconstitutional. Containing many fewer shared senatorial many districts and fewer crossings, subdivision it acknowledges the importance of giving subdivisions due regard, as the Consti- demands, tution to their boundaries.
All five of City/Baltimore the Baltimore County shared eliminated, districts have with becoming solely been two Coun- ty solely City Districts and three Districts. The result is that districts, con- City fully has six self-contained Baltimore now six its while Baltimore has population, sistent with three, and shares one with each fully within its borders Thus, Baltimore Harford, Howard and Carroll Counties. nine, only compared with twelve senatorial County is three, only its boundaries have been crossed districts and County, nine times. Anne Arundel rather than Whereas Plan, districts, four we have reduced that under shared sharing than Districts with Balti- to one. Bather number County, 23 with Prince County, more with Howard County, George’s, 27 with Prince Calvert and George’s Counties, Prince only District Charles will share George’s County’s three shared George’s County. Prince two, 21 with Anne District districts have been reduced Charles, District 23A and District 27 with Calvert Arundel George’s County. having entirely absorbed Prince been Thus, county from a four district District has been reduced county County’s shared districts three district. Carroll (District County, 5 with Baltimore number three District *52 Frederick), with Howard District with the same (District Plan, under while Harford with Balti- the State’s County) more and District 34 with Cecil and Howard 9) (District twenty-two 12 and District share two. And the in Plan have proposed shared senatorial districts the State’s by eight, been fourteen the Court’s Plan. reduced addition, substantially Plan the Court’s contains districts still fact, equal population remaining, percent within the ten — compact that are more than those in the deviation—and Plan, regard to con- having State’s been constructed without to the Fi- requirements. siderations extraneous constitutional nally, City College single of Park has the been united district, necessity any City or splitting without the other subdivision.
V. that, foregoing pursuant It is for reasons to the authori- III, by § ty in this Court Article of the Constitution vested we Plan invalid as inconsis- Maryland, declared State’s requirements tent with the the State Constitution. costs, including expenses fee and Nathaniel A. consultants,
Persily, paid one of Court’s technical are to be Maryland. the State of RAKER, J., dissenting:
“Despite the reality redistricting always is now almost through resolved than litigation legislation, rather we are emphasize redistricting moved to the obvious: remains an inherently political judicial and legislative —task. —not upon perform are, Courts course, called redistricting is, judicially legislating, writing law rather than it, which is not interpreting usually their usual—and their proper Redistricting political determines the —role. landscape ensuing for the public policy decade thus years beyond. The framers in their wisdom this entrusted legislative decennial exercise to the branch because the give-and-take process, involving as it does representatives people elected to make precisely policy decisions, these sorts preferable any other.” Bd.,
Jensen v. Wisc. Elections 249 Wis.2d 639 N.W.2d (internal (2002) omitted). citations respectfully I from dissent Court’s Order. I would adopt Special Master, Report attached hereto as an appendix. Although might I made have different than choices those set out in the 2002 redistricting plan, is not for my me to judgment substitute for that of the Governor or the unless, Legislature, only when, submitted violates constitutional criteria.
As this explained Court in Legislative Redistricting, *53 (1993), Md. A.2d 629 646 requirements “the constitutional for districting tend to conflict with one another.” 615, at Id. A.2d 629 at 667. redistricting Successful requires planning careful and preparation detailed in navigate order to the narrow waters between two competing often sets of re- quirements: those of Maryland Constitution and those Voting (“VRA”), the federal Act Rights of 1965 42 U.S.C.
377 (1994).1 asserts, description majority its 1971 The § legisla- “a promulgating that the Court undertook process with both state compliance redistricting plan that is tive maj. at op. statutory requirements,” constitutional federal partisan 350, account same did not take into that Court and the General the Governor political considerations “only guide- also that its Assembly majority The claims can. that it eliminated legal requirements” were “strict posts” only op. 323. If considerations, incumbency. Maj. at such as however, is Unfortunately, there possible. such feat were redistricting plan as accomplishment promulgating no such political without considerations. policy and discretionary a host of
Redistricting involves
many competing
reconciling
for
interests
political choices
respect for
as
power,
such
political
at stake
the allocation
interest,2
district and
existing
maintenance
communities of
incumbents,3
mi-
enhancing
lines,
protection
precinct
not to consider
nority voting opportunities.
decision
The
or
of interest
itself
incumbency, regionalism,
communities
experienced commentator noted:
decision. As one
indicated,
statutory
are to
subsequent
references
1. Unless otherwise
all
(1994),
seq.
§
42 U.S.C. 1971
et
previously
We
interest as "identifiable
2.
have
defined communities of
inter-
population
one more common
which share
concentrations
21,
658,
Districting,
686
475 A.2d
Legislative
Re
Md.
n.
ests.” In
428,
299
(1982).
442 n. 21
recognized specifically
protection
Supreme
has
3.
Court
Vera,
legitimate
objective.
redistricting
See Bush v.
incumbents as a
1954,
952,
1941,
(1996);
964-65,
248
U.S.
116 S.Ct.
135 L.Ed.2d
517
2653, 2663,
725, 740,
77 L.Ed.2d
Daggett,
S.Ct.
Karcher v.
462 U.S.
(1983)
equality
(permitting
from ideal
states to deviate
incumbents);
avoiding
purpose
see also
for the
contests between
610,
646,
(1993)
A.2d
Legislative Redistricting, 331 Md.
(recognizing
drawing
so
to minimize contests between
districts
more,
incumbents,
finding
did not mandate
that the
without
unconstitutional);
Legislative Districting, 299 Md.
Re
(1982).
673-74,
protection
even extends
475 A.2d
This
/.<?.,
incumbents,”
legislature
have
who
members of the state
“functional
Vera,
congressional
open
See
run
seats.
declared an intention to
“Redistricting ... thoroughly relentlessly political.” Nichol, Jr., Gene R. in Challenges Voting: New the Practice (2001). Redistricting, 72 U. Colo. L.Rev. 1033 The of Supreme United States Court has concurred that senti- ment, opining: political “Politics and insep- considerations are districting.... arable from reality districting The is that inevitably has and is political intended have substantial consequences.” Gaffney v. 412 Cummings, U.S. 2321, 2331, (1973).
S.Ct.
relevant including application of objec the VRA’s ensuring minority tive of voters are not denied the chance effectively to political process. hand, influence the On the one capable the State must of withstanding construct districts on challenges compactness, the basis of contiguity, and due political for natural and subdivision boundaries. See III, hand, § 4. art. On the other the State must Const., Md. potential § avoid liability § under of the VRA. See 1973.4 however, Unfortunately, for the purposes compliance, of VRA “[mjinorities always are not perfectly located in compact, contiguous Guinn, al., locales.” David M. et Redistricting provides: Section “(a) standard, voting qualification No prerequisite voting or or practice, procedure imposed or applied by any shall be State or political subdivision of United States to vote on account race or (b) (a) color.... A violation subsection this section is established if, circumstances, totality on based is shown that political processes leading to a nomination or election in the State or political equally open participation subdivision are not mem- (a) protected bers class citizens subsection of this section in opportunity that its members have less than other members of the participate political process represen- electorate to and to elect tatives of protected their choice. The extent to which members of a have class been in the elected office State or subdivision is Provided, may one circumstance which nothing be considered: That right in this section protected establishes a to have members of a equal proportion class elected in numbers their population.
§ 1973. Between the Narrow Channel Navigating Beyond: 2001 and Act, 51 Voting Rights Protection Clause Equal Baylor (1999). L.Rev. Districts Population Equality
I.
Between
*55
the law
requirement
fundamental
Perhaps
the most
as
population equality,
is
redistricting
on
imposes
legislative
Reyn
vote”
See
person,
“one
one
standard.
reflected
1362,
533,
5.
that "no State shall
Protection Clause
any person
jurisdiction
equal protection
its
of the laws.”
within
XIV.
U.S.
amend.
Const.
III,
adjoin
§
requires:
6. Art.
4
"Each
district shall consist
form,
substantially equal
territory,
compact
population.
ing
and of
be
given
and the boundaries of
Due
be
to natural boundaries
shall
political subdivisions.”
Equal
requires
legislatures,
Clause
that a
As to state
"the
Protection
districts, in
good
State make
honest and
faith effort
construct
both
an
legislature,
nearly
equal population
practica-
as is
houses
its
577,
1390,
533,
1362,
Sims,
Reynolds
S.Ct.
12
v.
377 U.S.
84
ble.”
(1964).
equal
permits
from the
L.Ed.2d 506
The Court
some deviations
principle
respect
apportionment of
two houses of
population
legislature,
long
divergences ...
as the
are
"[s]o
a bicameral state
legitimate
to the effectuation of a
on
considerations incident
based
policy.”
84 S.Ct.
deviation from
“ideal”
which is
by dividing
voting
the entire
population by
formulated
Guinn,
al,
persons
number of
supra,
elected. See
et
263. A
percent
top-to-bottom
with less than
ten
prima
Equal
deviation is
constitutional under the
Protec
facie
Clause,
tion
which means that
it
generally
“is
considered
any justification
Hebert,
acceptable without
at all.” J. Gerald
Era,
Redistricting in the Post
8
Geo. Mason L.Rev.
(2000).
Quilter,
See Voinovich v.
U.S.
S.Ct.
(1993);
Thomson,
II. Requirements Constitutional Although grants Constitution this Court the *56 “grant to review power appropriate petitioners, relief’ to may so it only do if first “finds that districting the of the requirements State is not consistent of either the Consti America, tution of the United States of or the of Constitution III, Maryland.” however, § art majority, 5. The Md. Const. put seems to cart have before the horse in its review of the Plan, by jumping straight State’s 2002 imposition of its “remedy” engaging without first in analysis a serious of whether, how, why or the State’s violates State federal found, Special law. subject Master to a in single change Shore, the lower Eastern that the 2002 State’s Plan satisfies 8. this not question Mary- Court has reached the While whether the impose may land Constitution equality a more lenient stan- Clause, III, Equal dard than the Protection we have held that Article § impose 4 percent does a stricter standard the ten than rule imposed Legislative the Fourteenth Amendment. Redistricting See Cases, 574, 600-01, 646, (1993). 331 Md. 629 A.2d 659 that, Special plan, 9. The Master found under the maximum districts, among legislative total among deviation was 9.91% 9.89% subdistricts, single-member among and 7.12% two-member subdis- tricts.
381
therefore,
is,
valid.
requirements
constitutional
finding.
Const.,
III,
agree
§ 4. I
with that
art.
See
Md.
compactness,
single practical
There
no
measure
terms,
generally
social scientists
accepted by
that is
geometric
and, likewise,
has
provide
this Court
failed
definitive
as
^
majority
jurisdictions
vast
of the term.10 The
definition
compactness requirement,
have concluded that
redistricting, is a relative standard.
context of state
87,
Elections,
Bd.
88 Ill.2d
58 Ill.Dec.
v. State
Schrage
See
451,
(1981);
v.
528
Kirkpatrick,
430
483
N.E.2d
Preisler
422,
(Mo.1975);
426
Davenport
Apportionment
v.
S.W.2d
(1974);
Comm’n,
v.
A.2d
Schneider
65 N.J.
319
718
889, 293
67
Rockefeller,
N.E.2d
31 N.Y.2d
N.Y.S.2d
(1972);
Assembly,
Pa. Gen.
Reapportionment
In Re:
Plan for
Governor,
(1981);
Pa.
Opinion
A.2d 661
(1966);
203, 221
Dis
Legislative
101 R.I.
A.2d 799
see also
tricting,
compactness
Md. at
“As so plainly indicate, the cases compactness re- quirement in state constitutions is to prevent intended political gerrymandering. Oddly shaped irregularly or sized not, therefore, districts themselves do ordinarily consti- tute of gerrymandering evidence noncompactness. On contrary, an showing ordinarily affirmative is required to demonstrate that such intentionally districts were so produce political result, is, drawn to an unfair to dilute voting or enhance strength groups parti- discrete for san political advantage or other impermissible purposes. Thus, irregularity of shape size of a district is not proving litmus test violation of compactness require- ment.”
Id.
Contiguity
generally
has
been
as
ability
defined
“to
travel
part
any
from one
the district
part
other
without
Legislative
(1984),
Districting,
In Re
299 Md.
Id. at
383 words, contiguous boundary other a crossing district —in into two or more discrete is that is not divided district one Hebert, 451; District- supra, Legislative at see also pieces.” of 475 437. In the context 675-76, A.2d at ing, 299 Md. at III, § must “consist in Article 4 that districts requirement during adoption of the 1968 Constitu- adjoining territory,” placed on the tion, of the Whole Convention the Committee understanding it the members’ that was record a statement a compactness requirements were contiguity district Assembly forming General a prohibition against the of a dis- Chesapeake Bay. separation Mere that crossed the noncontiguous. it any body of does not render by trict water 117, A.2d Annapolis, Co. v. 352 Md. 721 217 Anne Arundel Cf. (1998) by were not (finding separated of land water areas municipal noncontiguous Annapolis to the annexation pursuant statute). functional, contiguity are rather than compactness
Both visual, They be in isolation. considerations. cannot considered 842, Ryan, 198 Ill.2d 260 762 See Beaubien v. Ill.Dec. (2001); Ryan, v. N.E.2d 501 Cole-Randazzo Ill.2d (2001). Compactness N.E.2d 485 and conti Ill.Dec. popu guity, application, are affected influenced equality requirement. They also include consideration lation community. political and economic interests the shared Vera, 1941, 1954, v. See Bush 517 U.S. 116 S.Ct. (1996). L.Ed.2d majority recognizes compactness contigu- that the
The ity prevent are requirements political gerryman- intended to 360-61, dering, maj. op. provide see but fails to a workable gerrymandering which to political definition standards irregularly shaped an district the result determine whether is ger- gerrymandering. majority defines impermissible “ ‘[t|he practice dividing rymandering geographical districts, irregular shape, highly into area electoral often by diluting give political party advantage one an unfair ” voting 14. A strength.’ Maj. op. at 332 n. opposition’s however, may gerrymandered, simply district is not because if irregular irregularity boundaries —even such have unconstitutional, To result considerations. plaintiff raising a claim gerrymandering must establish that discrimination there was intentional an against identifiable political group discriminatory and that there an actual *59 Bandemer, upon group. that See effect Davis v. 478 U.S. (1986). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 85 showing No such affirmative of gerrymandering was made cases, and, by petitioners in these that extent majority opinion today Court’s Order shift the burden prove compactness to the contiguity, they State an are application prior incorrect law. our case Section of the provides Constitution that “[d]ue regard given shall be to natural boundaries and the bound political aries of A redistricting plan subdivisions.” demon regard strates due for natural and political subdivision bound counties, cities, intact, aries keeping and towns it is where possible so doing to do without legitimate violence to other Hebert, redistricting considerations. See supra, at 451. This previously Court has stated that regard requirement, the due mandatory while of application, “by very verbiage its it would appear to be the most fluid of components the constitutional 4.”§ outlined in Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at at A.2d 439. As one explains: commentator [politi “Because cal subdivisions like vary cities and tremendously counties] geographic population density, very size and it is difficult to comparative make judgments about to split decisions them.” Hebert, at n. supra, Unfortunately, however, majority’s analysis of regard provision the due III Article seems to limited to counting be mere number boundary crossings in State’s plan. maj. op. See at 368-69 (“There simply is an excessive number of subdivision crossings districting plan____”); in this op. see generally maj. at 368. majority
The
regard
§
maintains that the due
provision of 4
mandatory.
maj. op.
is
See
I agree.
370-71.
question
The
(obvi-
regard
is
whether the
provision mandatory
due
is
operation), but
mandatory
signals
this
ously
context
“shall”
regard” means.
is what “due
question
real
goals
avoiding
that,
majority asserts
while
con-
reducing incumbent
experienced legislators and
loss of
rational,
the constitutional
not override
they “do
tests are
bound-
given
subdivision
regard be
requirement
that due
simple
that
Again,
agree
I
Maj. op. at 373.
aries.”
incumbents did not “override”
Protection of
statement.
rather,
redistricting plan;
in the
regard provision
due
incorpo-
necessarily
is
relative consideration
due
goals.
permissible redistricting
rates other
me,
analogous to
language
regard,” it seems to
“Due
Constitution,
requires,
which
contained
the Massachusetts
alia,
shall divide the Commonwealth
Legislature
inter
that the
territory and
representative
contiguous
into
districts of
formed,
may be,”
nearly
“as
without
shall
such districts
*60
Const., art.
counties, towns,
two
or cities. See Mass.
uniting
v.
the Common-
Secretary
In Mayor
Cambridge
(2002),
wealth,
476,
“Because the involves factors, requiring the clause the competing ation of these cities, towns, and coun- Legislature to the division of avoid interpreted require nearly may ties 'as as cannot be be’ mini- plan the with the absolute Legislature adopt that the town, city county, or mum that cross number districts the Legislature adopt plan must entire lines. The town, county city, State, particular of a the divisions light to meet Federal may of the need be reasonable Thus, the as a requirements for the state whole. State Legislature nearly may requires ‘as as be’ the phrase divisions, into taking while adopt plan with the fewest factors. The Massachu- consideration all the other relevant setts Constitution does require Legislature simply mathematically plan devise with the least division of cities, towns or adopt counties and then that plan; its and, necessarily determination involves use of discretion as in all legislation, compromise part Legisla- on the ture. traditionally Legislature
We have accorded the substan- determining tial deference in how to strike proper among balance goals the various directives and laid out by State and Federal Law. The we issue must resolve is not exists, ‘whether, plan whether better but once these account, various mandates and considerations are taken into Legislature has unduly departed from the directive in plaintiffs rely.’ art. on which the plaintiffs bear of showing Legislature’s the burden plan violates ‘beyond art. 101 long legisla- reasonable doubt.’ As as the took ture ‘reasonable efforts to require- conform to the Constitution,’ uphold ments will Legislature’s we redistricting plan. The Legislature must consider each of the Federal and requirements, State but not required is explicitly plan demonstrate how the meets each those re- quirements.
Although
plaintiffs
presented
have
three alternatives
statute,
to the redistricting
any
plans
whether
of these
potentially superior
redistricting
to the
statute is not deter-
question
minative of the
we must decide. We consider the
plans
alternative
as evidence that a
divi-
fewer
of Cambridge
sions
possible.
As
long
Legisla-
*61
justification
ture had a reasonable
drawing
for
the districts
did,
question
as it
shall
Legislature’s
we
not
the
determina-
by
tion
comparing
plan
its
plans
selected
alternative
that
not
were
before it. The Constitution
require
does not
that
Legislature adopt
plan
any ingenious
the best
‘that
mind
can devise.’
long
Legislature’s
----As
as the
actions are
reasonably justified by
attempt
an
to conform with the
by
law,
laid
criteria
out
Federal and
and
clearly
State
do not
laws,
Legislature’s role
usurp
shall not
we
violate these
competing plans.”
selecting among
by
omitted).
(internal
Id.
citations
at
complicated
redistricting
involves
plans
formulation of
The
weighing of fac-
study and a
requiring careful
considerations
are
one of several
requirements
but
tors. State constitutional
satisfy.
districts must
different criteria that
and
substantially equal
population,
Districts also must be
adequate
provide
a
as
configured
way
must
in such
they
be
pro-
special
and other
interests
minorities
representation
contiguous, or
compact,
law. No matter how
tected
federal
boundaries a
subdivision
respectful
political
of natural
it will not suffice
may
geographically,
be
proposed district
with
of these other
complies
the law
each
under
unless
contiguity, and
perfect compactness,
Accordingly,
factors.
only be
required.
is
Districts need
boundaries
contiguous,
and natural and
reasonably compact and
only
reason-
respected
be
when
subdivision boundaries need
Nonetheless,
striking
majority,
to do so.
ably feasible
own,
its
elevates
plan
substituting
down the
posi-
a
requirements to
redistricting
constitutional
weight given
tion
far
primary importance,
excess
prior redistricting jurisprudence.
in this Court’s
them
General
redistricting
approved
A
and filed
plan,
Assembly,
presumed
Legislative
valid. See
Redis-
is
656;
District-
Legislative
Md. at
629 A.2d at
tricting, 331
443;
at
Albert v.
at
475 A.2d
&
ing,
Md.
cf. Erfer
(Pa.2002)
that,
Pa.,
(stating
Commonwealth
adopted
is
plan
exception
unconstitutional. With the
of dis-
38, they
tricts 87 and
have failed to do so.12
different,
plan
discernibly
The
2002
is not
in
State’s
terms
requirements,
constitutional
from
plan approved
the
Cases,
Redistricting
this
331
Legislative
Court
Md.
(1993),
In striking down the
2002 plan,
majority
relies
heavily
upon
premise
possible
it is
to formulate
districts that
compact
alternative
would be
and contigu-
more
give greater
ous and that would
regard to natural and political
ability
subdivision boundaries. The
to devise more compact
formulations,
contiguous
boundary
with
crossings,
fewer
however, is not a
duly
sufficient basis for
invalidating map
approved and
according
filed
to law.
Legislative
See
District-
443;
ing,
Beaubien,
299 Md. at
at
A.2d
accord
recognize
placed
I
that the Court’s Order
on
burden
the State to
justify
requirements.
with
to state constitutional
See
Order,
maj. op.
Although
joined
upon
at 361-62.
I
in that
further
(cid:127)
reflection, I believe
placing
proof
Court erred in
the burden of
state,
upon
respect
requirements.
the State with
constitutional
In the
case,
little,
found,
instant
Special
matters
because the
I
Master
him,
agree
hearing
that the State met that
burden
below.
presumption
validity
issue
and the allocation of the
burden, however,
important
for future cases.
explained
As
N.E.2d at 505.13
this Court
Ill.Dec.
to deter
judiciary
is not for the
Legislative Districting: “[I]t
*63
compact
could have been drawn
district
mine whether more
to
solely
challenge;
province
court’s
than
the
that under
underlying
requirement
the
principles
the
determine whether
properly
territory
have
considered
compactness
been
680-81,
Id. at
considering
relevant circumstances.”
applied
all
added).
(emphasis
The consideration, districts, often will conflict redistricting as a in that compactness requirements due with the I fail quo.” op. at 374. Maj. to the status perpetuate “tends the perpetuation with problem to the constitutional see fact that this held quo, particularly light in the Court status (presumably quo”), the “status existing legislative the districts Redis- Legislative to See as drawn be constitutional. isway A.2d 667. 331 Md. at at What better tricting, process stability predictability there to ensure the judicially-approved use redistricting existing decennial than to starting point reapportionment? as a for districts Voting Rights
III.
Act
today
concerns
adopted by
Final Plan
the Court
raises
The
enacted
Congress
§
§
to
2 of
VRA. See
1973.
pursuant
the
persistent
the VRA an effort to eradicate
assaults on
Congress’s goal in
effectively
vote.
ability of minorities
to
passing the act was to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s
right
United States
guarantee
“[t]he
that
of citizens
by petitioners
respect
example,
arguments presented
13. For
by reconfiguring
two
essentially
are that
Districts
districts,
and 20 more
map
improved
to make districts 18
could
plan, relying solely
they
on visual
compact
than
are under
the State's
attempt
justify
majority
the Court's
observation.
does not
fact,
says what
changes and
lines and in
never
was unconstitu-
redrawn
Although
changes might
originally
about the lines as
drawn.
tional
visually
justification
map appear
compact,
is not a
make the
more
changes
redrawing
especially
when
are not
map.
This is
true
appear
compact
be far less
a visual
made to other districts
examination.
vote shall
abridged by
not be denied or
the United
or
States
by any
race, color,
on
previous
State
account of
or
condition of
servitude.”
Legislative
See
Redistricting,
602-03,
Section the VRA prevents vote preventing states from enforcing voting practices that under- minority voting strength.14 1973; mine §§ See 1971 and Leg- 602-03, Redistricting, islative 331 Md. at A.2d Section prohibits imposition “standard, of any electoral practice procedure” or (including redistricting plans) that “re- sults in a abridgment denial or right any of the citizen ... 1973(a). vote on account § of race color.” A violation of if, § 2 totality circumstances, exists on “based it is shown that processes leading to nomination or election or political State subdivision equally are not *64 open participation by to of members a class of protec- citizens (a) tion by subsection of this section that its members have opportunity less than other of members the electorate to participate in the process representatives and to elect 1973(b). of § their choice.” It not necessary is for a plaintiff to demonstrate intentional discrimination in prove order to a violation of the VRA.
In § the context of 2 redistricting, raises questions about how and governments when state must districts create that provide minority voters with an opportunity effective to elect Hebert, candidates of their choice. See supra, at 434. successfully order raise challenge VRA to a redistricting Minority 14. equal opportunity partici- vote dilution is the denial of pate successfully process. in the accepted electoral There are several methodologies determining composition for the racial of the electoral candidates, support minority including successful ecological infer- ence, retrogression analysis, polling, exit and vote shares based on {i.e., homogeneous precincts precincts ninety those in which more than percent white). registered voters are either black or See Charles S Bullock, Dunn, III & Richard E. Districting The Demise Racial and Representation, (1999); the Future Black 48 L.J. 1223-24 Emory Guinn, al., M. Redistricting Beyond: David et Navigating in 2001 and Equal Narrow Channel Between the Protection Voting Clause and the Act, (1999). Rights 51 Baylor 264 n. 258 L.Rev.
391
three
must demonstrate
existence
plan, petitioners
(1)
sufficiently large and
is
minority group
factors:
district;
majority
compact
constitute
geographically
(3)
cohesive;
(2)
minority group
politically
that the
sufficiently as
bloc
enable
majority votes
the white
minority group’s preferred candidate.
usually to
defeat
25, 39-40,
1075, 1084,
Emison, 507
113 S.Ct.
v.
U.S.
See Growe
(1993);
Gingles,
v.
478 U.S.
Thornburg
Under
ideal
would
by adhering
redistricting principles,
be created
to traditional
reflecting an
not being
while
awareness
race but
dominated
it,
retrogress
and it would not
minority voting
terms of
comparison
opportunity
benchmark
legally
of the
adopted
Nonetheless,
enforceable
districts
in 1992.
creating
minority
districts in which
is
sufficiently
minority
a
concentrated17
ensure
voters have
realistic
prohibited.
redistricting,
are
In
considerations
the context of
strict
scrutiny
triggered only
redistricting
is
where
principles
traditional
are
Vera,
952,
subordinated
consideration of race. See Bush v.
517 U.S.
959-60,
1941,
Miller,
(1996);
S.Ct.
116
393 of their inter- representative to elect candidates opportunity redistricting violating state constitutional may necessitate ests regard for contiguity, and due compactness, such as precepts, Majority-minori- boundaries. political subdivision natural carefully in order may be crafted ty districts have to avoiding while concentrations pockets black voters capture may have to neighborhoods and white voters. Black white the maximum disentangled surgical precision lest with minority majority reached before a permissible population be may Preserving majority black districts can be secured. minority disparate concentrations. tying together necessitate may subdivision boundaries some natural While equality to meet inevitably have be sundered which obligations the extent to increase requirements, VRA may have be breached. those boundaries § under VRA primary considerations One thereof, of minor- number or lack between the proportionality, the state’s minority’s share of ity-controlled districts and Hebert, The Su- population. supra, at 435. See relevant that, proportionality preme rough has indicated while Court opportunity needed to ensure minorities fair the level concentration their See id. at 97 S.Ct. at to elect candidate choice. necessary empirical placed ihe con- L.Ed.2d 229. Some research has lower, minority significantly instances voters some centration documenting voting opportunity majority-white minority districts. Dunn, Bullock, III & Richard E. The Demise Racial See Charles S. Emory Representation, Districting L.J. and the Future Black Cameron, al., Minority (1999); Majority Districts et Do Charles Representation Congress?, 90 Am Pol. Sci Substantive Black Maximize 794, 804, (1996) (suggesting forty-one percent that black 809-10 Rev voting age population was sufficient to ensure that black candidate O’Halloran, elected); Epstein Sharyn get David & A Social could Race, Approach Representation, Redistricting 93 Am Pol Science (1999) (suggesting approximately forty-seven Sci. Rev. necessary voting age population ensure that a percent black elected). Furthermore, are get in districts black candidate could primary heavily weighted political party, in which toward one nominees, likely party it is that a district elections determine even more fifty percent minority population provide an effective than can less choice, minority opportunity to elect a candidate of their voters major- minority provide with a "functional because such districts voters Hebert, supra, ity” though majority.” they even lack a "numerical See 438-39. automatically protect liability does not 2,§ state from under *67 require § nor does 2 a state to possible maximize the number districts, majority-minority proportionality strong is “indi- cation that minority equal opportunity, spite voters have an in. polarization, participate political racial ‘to in process representatives elect of their choice.’” Johnson v. De 997, 1020, Grandy, 114 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1994) VRA). § 2 (quoting of the Special The shape Master found that “[t]he District 44 [under the plan] designed, part, by at least in need maintain a sufficient number African American majority in City/Baltimore districts the Baltimore County area, by including the population African American of Turner’s Station within Report the district.” of the Special Master at that, Special The Master also found an “[w]ith African in majority American District the number of African majority American in City districts Baltimore and Baltimore County proportional is to the African population.” American Report Special Master at 420. prohibits
The VRA the creation electoral districts that tend to voting dilute the of a power minority population by dividing among its members several “packing” districts and minority voting strength district, into single where the minority might otherwise have constituted a ma- jority in more than one electoral district. Districts 44, and in adopted by Court, the Final Plan in con- Plan, trast to the State’s 2002 contain substantially larger concentrations black voters than reasonably necessary to minority avoid vote dilution. “Packing” excessive numbers of minority districts, into voters placing rather than them in districts, neighboring prevents spillover those voters from contributing the election of additional minority-supported expected candidates who could responsive be be to minori- ty concerns, thereby substantially weakening minori- ty voting opportunities (this adjoining districts resulting weakening minority voting strength in adjoining districts has sometimes been referred to “bleaching”). See He- bert, (“[A] supra, packed 60% black may district in an influence minority voters’ effectiveness undermine ”). Packing particularly is deleterious adjoining district.... into which adjoining those white districts majority when the “influ- minority used minority packed have been voters districts,”18 adjoining Baltimore as were several ence Furthermore, may type packing this in 1992. districts minority- light of the fact a VRA violation constitute ma- increasingly been elected have candidates preferred 18; He- note 1990’s. supra districts See jority-white that, bert, under Court’s at 439. result supra, voting majority an may voters constitute effective plan, black of the state- share proportional districts than in fewer their explains: As Hebert population. wide Gerald vote a form of voters into district is “Packing minority *68 the minority voting strength much minimizes dilution that minority fragmenting politically cohesive way same districts, voting power two more where their group into Indeed, the ‘packing’ and rendered ineffective. is reduced post poses 2000 era minority into districts in the of voters diluting minimizing greatest potential perhaps the minority voters.” voting strength of racial and ethnic the Hebert, at 439. supra, Separation of Powers
IV.
of the
authority
Court
party
challenged
no
has
the
While
on
to comment
redistricting plan,
important
I think it
draw
separation
powers
the
within
process
impact
on
the
the
among
governmental power
“The distribution
the State.
favoring
mandating or
issued decisions
18. Several
lower courts have
See, e.g., Armour
pursuant
to the VRA.
the
of influence districts
creation
1991).
Ohio,
1044,
(N.D.Ohio
Supreme Court
The
F.Supp.
1052
v.
775
occasions,
has,
§ 2
to rule on whether
expressly declined
on several
DeGrandy,
v.
requires
districts. See Johnson
the creation of influence
2647, 2656,
(1994);
997, 1008-09,
ment from usurping power other branch. Article VIII of the Rights Declaration of states: “That the *69 Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of Government ought to separate other; be forever and distinct from each person no exercising the Departments functions one of said discharge shall assume or any Mary- the duties of other.” separation horizontal powers land’s primary clause is the constitutional judicial limit on the power by exercise this judicial power Maryland Court. While the includes the power judicial review determine acts of whether legislative or constitutional, executive branches are separa- tion of powers precludes Maryland clause courts from exercis- ing power explicitly legislative vested and executive violations branches, remedy constitutional a as means even government. branch of by another Constitution, establishing boundaries Maryland
Under subdistricts, in- in the first for state electoral districts stance, function, judicial not a is an executive in the expressly Gover- duty one. The to redistrict vested is Assembly. See nor and the General Md. Const. Decl. Rights a political exer- districting process art. VIII. “[T]he judicia- legislature and not the cise for determination 443. at A.2d at 299 Md. ry.” Legislative Districting, Redistricting, explained Legislative As this Court given the force redistricting final should law: effect of which Assembly passes a bill becomes General
“When the legitimate a law, articulated people of have That is no duly their officials. policy through elected state where, here, specifies that the the constitution less true instance, law in the first which develop the Governor shall reject through Assembly can then endorse the General its or inaction.” own action A.2d at 656 Md. at 595 n.
Legislative Redistricting, 331
Therefore,
plan is
State’s 2002
entitled
n. 16.
Md.
Legislative Districting, 299
presumption
validity.
See
at
475 A.2d
explained:
As
of Illinois
Supreme
Court
directly analogous
redistricting plans are
respect,
“In that
enactments, which
cloaked with the
statutory
are also
presumption
validity
means
validity.
The
presumption
constitutionality whenev-
uphold
that courts must
a statute’s
party challeng-
reasonably possible. Correspondingly,
er
clearly
burden of
ing
constitutionality
statute’s
bears the
it is with
infirmity.
the law’s constitutional
So
establishing
redistricting
duly approved
plan.”
and filed
(internal
Beaubien,
cita-
‘Who, then,
finally
must
determine whether or not a
district
is as compact as it could or should have been
courts,
made?
Surely
the
for this would take from
the
all
legislature
discretion in
it
the matter
vest
courts,
the
belong;
where
does not
and no apportion-
ment could stand unless
prove
the districts should
as
compact as
judges might
they
the
think
ought
to be
they could themselves make them. As the courts cannot
make a senatorial apportionment directly, neither can
they do so indirectly.
is a
There
vast difference between
determining
principle
whether the
compactness
of ter-
ritory
applied
not,
has been
at all or
and whether or not
practical approximation
nearest
prefect compact-
ness has been
question
attained.
first
is
which the
”
may finally determine;
courts
the latter is [not].’
Beaubien,
(citations
260 Ill.Dec.
That what has today. occurred While the majority pays lip to granting service 2002 Plan a see maj. op. presumption validity, reality, opinion Court’s Order and reflect that the required Court validity State establish the and ultimately substituted its own redistricting plan without giving first Legislature Governor and an opportunity revise their 2002 plan according newly created constitutional criteria. See maj. op. at Although 322-23. essence, was of time “it is important primacy of the legislative role redistricting process be honored and that judiciary not be Growe, prematurely drawn into Cotlow v. process.” (Minn.2001). N.W.2d The Governor and the General Assembly fail, refuse, did not or unduly delay to come forth with a valid redistricting plan after having been advised *71 Order Court’s plan that constitutional —the the Court opportunity. them no such gave course, this have a people of State recognize,
I
the
in,
redistricting
to,
interest
a constitutional
strong
and a
right
of the constitution-
is the final arbiter
map and that the Court
view, however,
plan
a
is drawn
my
In
ality
any plan.
only secondarily
ideally by
Legislature
the
properly
light
overriding
policy
In
deference
this Court.
legislative and
on
government
other
of state
the
branches
majority
the
did not
striking
it is
questions,
executive
its
first to allow the
explanation
a
for
refusal
compelling
offer
redistricting
a
Assembly
provide
new
and General
Governor
concerns,
majority’s
state constitutional
plan to meet
stunning
light
regarded
a
particularly
what must
opinion in
compared to this Court’s
position
reversal
Redistricting.
Legislative
following ques-
to ask
closing,
important
I think it
redistricting cycle.
Secretary
for
Leroux v.
tions
the next
Cf.
(Mich.2001)
State,
(setting
specific
forth
APPENDIX: REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND TERM,
SEPTEMBER 19, 20, 22, 28, 24, 25, 26, Misc. Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
IN THE MATTER OF THE 2002 LEGISLATIVE REDIS- TRICTING OF THE STATE
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF BELL AND JUDGE THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER III, required by 5, As Article Section of the Maryland Constitution, public hearings, after Governor Parris N. Glen dening submitted a plan redistricting the State to reflect growth the and shifting of population Maryland upon based of the results the 2000 decennial of census the United States. Const., III, Md. § See art. In5. further compliance with said III, Section 5 of Article presented plan Governor the President of the and Speaker Senate of the of House Delegates, who in turn introduced it as Senate Joint Resolu tion 3 and House Joint Resolution 3 day on the first of the 9, session of Assembly, the General January 2002. Id. Assembly Since the General did not enact a plan of its own day the 45th of opening Session, of the February 22, 2002, plan the Governor’s plan became this State’s for setting forth legislative boundaries of the districts. Id. petitions Fourteen have been filed challenging validity plan. 11, the State’s hearing 2002, After a April on Court petitions referred the responses thereto to the undersigned Special as Master “for the taking of further making report evidence and the 24, to the May Court” 2002. order, 25, Pursuant hearings place took on April 26 and
A. The Petitions County Curry, K. Wayne In Misc. No. Petitioner Afri- joined by other George’s County is of Prince Executive peti- amended county. Their of that American residents can their Fourteenth plan violates that the State’s tion asserts law under protection of the equal guarantee Amendment it is invalid under and that the United States Constitution amended, 42 1965, as Act of Voting Rights 2 of the Section plan conflicts also claim that the They § 1973. U.S.C. Rights 7 and 24 of the Declaration Articles Maryland. Constitution al, et Golden, are E. Eugene
In No. Petitioner Misc. designated as the in what were heretofore registered voters Jacob J. Mohoro- districts. Petitioners 7th and 31st of the House Leopold R. are members vic and John 44 of State’s Delegates. They complain that District due to indicate that contiguous and fails compact is neither nor given “to boundaries regard was natural boundaries III, 4 of by Article Section required subdivisions” as They complaint level the same Constitution.1 plan. in the District 31 drawn regis- Asbury, Barry Steven Misc. No. Petitioner claims of general in Baltimore makes tered voter plan. invalidity the State’s *73 24, regis- is a Lowell
In Misc. No. Petitioner J. Stoltzfus W. County, is Petitioner John in as tered voter Somerset voter joined by Riley, registered R. They are Lewis Tawes. of the is a member County. in Mr. Stoltzfus Wicomico plan violates Maryland They assert that the State’s Senate. because III, Maryland Constitution 4 of the Article Section III, provides: § 4 1. Article territory, adjoining com- of be district shall consist Each form, regard substantially equal population. shall pact Due in and of political of subdi- given be and the boundaries natural boundaries visions. Const., III, §
Md. art. (1) configures Districts 37 and so they compact that are (2) form, derogation in in of the constitutional mandate to regard to political afford due of boundaries subdivisions. 25, In Stone, Jr., Misc. No. Norman Petitioners R. a mem- Arnick, Maryland Senate, ber of the John S. of member Minnick, Delegates, Joseph House of J. another member Delegates, join registered House with other in voters in County challenging Baltimore the creation of Districts They 44 and 46 plan. under State’s claim that the State ignored III, has Article 4 of Section Constitution these compact contiguous because districts are not regard not given due to natural boundaries and political boundaries of subdivisions. Wallace,
In No. Misc. Gail M. registered Petitioner County, voter in complains Calvert that the plan in creating District 27A ignored has requirements Article III of Maryland Constitution that legislative districts be compact given regard and that due be boundaries political by being subdivisions. She claims that included 27A, along District George’s County, residents Prince Southern Anne Arundel and Northern Charles Coun- ty, portion the residents of that County, of Calvert will who comprise less 27A, than 9% voters in District will be representation. denied effective Stephen Brayman Misc. No. Petitioner A. and other incorporated Park,
residents of the municipality College registered George’s voters Prince County, complain that the City division of the between District and District 22 under plan the State’s violates the constitutional mandate that planning legislative districts due given to the bound- aries subdivisions.
In Misc. No. Petitioners Gabriele Gandel and Dee Scho- complain field neighborhood under the State’s their in Montgomery County, they registered voters, where are has been although included District 20 that neighborhood under prior redistricting was included within District 18. They allege that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution *74 States, Maryland Declaration Article 7 United Act, 42 U.S.C. Voting Rights 2 of the Rights and Section redistricting. by this § 1973 have been violated registered Michael S. Steele In Misc. No. Petitioner County. is an African American George’s He voter in Prince Republican He Maryland party. of the and is Chairman grounds, alleging plan on various challenges the State’s plan: the State’s 2 of rights in violation Section minority voting
1. Dilutes 1973; § Act, 42 Voting Rights U.S.C. mi- against that discriminates gerrymander 2. Is a racial Fif- nority in violation of the Fourteenth voters Amendments; teenth compact or which are not legislative
3. districts Creates give not to natural contiguous and does due subdivisions and boundaries boundaries III, Maryland 4 of the Con- violation of Article Section stitution; person, guarantee
4. the “one one vote” Violates Amendment; Fourteenth against that discriminates partisan gerrymander Is a of the Fourteenth Amend-
Republican voters violation ment; and the First voters in violation of Republican
6. Penalizes Amendment. regis- is a Dana Lee Dembrow
In Misc. No. Petitioner also a Montgomery County and is member tered voter in plan is invalid Delegates. claims the State’s the House of He compact, required its districts are because Fur- 4 of III of Article Constitution. Section thermore, plan implemented alleges that the State’s he and, finally due asserts that the State’s process, without minority representa- right opportunity undermines the tion. al, DeHaas, et Eva Katharina Misc. No. Petitioners complain who registered
are voters Anne Arundel *75 give that District 23A fails to regard due boundaries political subdivisions it placed portion because has that County they in which in Anne Arundel reside district whose registered principally County. voters are from Prince George’s al, et
In Misc. Rayburn Smallwood, No. Petitioners are registered in voters Anne Arundel County. They challenge plan the State’s places portion because small of Anne County they Arundel which reside District which is so, County. principally say located Howard In doing they plan- regard the State’s fails to give due to the boundaries political required by III, subdivisions as Article 4 of Section Constitution.
In Cole, Misc. No. Petitioners W. John Franklin W. Prettyman Lagater County John S. are the Commission- ers of County registered Caroline and are voters that county. They that plan assert the State’s is invalid because:
1. legislative It creates districts which are compact,
contiguous and lack regard due for natural boundaries subdivisions; political or boundaries of 2. concept It proportionality violates representa-
tion embodied in Article of the of Rights; Declaration 3. It limits the counties on the Shore to Eastern. three delegates
senators and 11 in the House Delegates; It creates 38A a majority minority Subdistrict district in violation of equal protection clause of the Four- teenth Amendment.
In No. Getty, Misc. Petitioner M. Joseph is a member of Delegates the House of from registered Carroll and a that county. voter in challenges He plan entire on State’s ground counties, Carroll, that certain including popu- have lations that exceed the number of an ideal district (112,691 persons) but failed to receive district within their addition, boundaries. he plan asserts the State’s fails requirements III, observe of Article Section 4 that each given to due be compact and that legislative district subdivisions. the boundaries Equality Population B. 23, 28, 34 assert in Misc. Nos. Petitioners
The “one-man, principle one vote” violates the of the United Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed by the III, Mary- and Article Section States Constitution land Constitution. and this Court of the United States Supreme Court the pri equality held that substantial
have
*76
Sims,
533,
v.
377 U.S.
redistricting.
mary goal
Reynolds
of
(1964) (“[T]he
1362,
princi
basic
567,
census 5,296,- determined that had a population persons.2 See State’s Exhibit 16. Sections and 3 of III of the Maryland Article Constitution require that there be 47 legislative districts and that one senator and three dele- Moreover, gates from be elected each. delegates may at large throughout elected the district or from or single multiple Therefore, subdistricts. legislative “ideal” districts 112,691 would persons; each contain single each member 37,563 persons; subdistrict would contain each two mem- 75,126 ber subdistrict would contain residents. Under districts range population size 107,065 118,242, from 11,177. a disparity of This constitutes a deviation from range -4.99 to +4.92 or a total of 9.91%. See Single State’s Exhibit member subdistricts range popu- 35,716 lation 39,432, size from 3,716. disparity This results in a range deviation -4.92% +4.97% or total of subdistricts, 9.89%. Two member with an ideal 75,126, range 73,512 78,867, 5,355 in size from disparity persons. This constitutes a range deviation from -2.15% to +4.97% a total of 7.12%. *77 all legislative
Since districts and subdistricts under ± a range 5%, fall within of population disparities sufficiently are minor so require justifica- as not to tion Amendment, State under the Fourteenth Legisla- Cases, tive Redistricting Md. 331 at 629 A.2d or under Article 4 Section of the Id. III, Constitution. 600-01, at 629 A.2d Finally, 646. this pointed Court out in that case:
Possibly, may there be room Reynolds under and its proge- ny plaintiff rule,” for a to plaintiff overcome the “10% if the can present compelling evidence that of the drafters 4,781,468. Maryland’s 2. The 1990 population census revealed that for dis- legitimate population reasons plan ignored all the certain solely the deviations benefit parities and created expense of regions at the others. omitted). (footnote The evidence A.2d 646
Id. at such basis for a any not establish presented to me does finding. reasons, reject the I that the Court these recommend
For plan runs afoul that the State’s contentions and the Amendment equality mandates of the Fourteenth Maryland Constitution. Voting Rights Act
C. Cases, explained Court that Redistricting this Legislative in Voting Act of 1965 as amended Rights § 2 of the any political or subdivision prohibits practice state abridgement minority of’ results a denial or “which show, in minority only voting rights, and ... that need circumstances, totality opportunity that it less has and success in order to establish participation electoral Voting Act violation. Rights in Thorn- Supreme 646. The Court
331 Md. A.2d question Voting important v. held that the burg Gingles Rights actions practice or struc- challenged as a result of the
“is whether equal partici- plaintiffs opportunity do not have an ture and to elect pate political processes candidates their choice.” (1986). 30, 44, 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. question, that courts court directed to answer
Gingles as: weigh “objective must factors” such history discrimination any 1. the extent official right state subdivision touched the or vote, register, minority group the members process; participate or in the democratic otherwise to which in the elections the state voting the extent *78 racially polarized; political subdivision 3. extent which political “the the state or has subdivision districts, unusually large majority used election vote re- quirements, anti-single provisions, shot or voting prac- other may or procedures tices enhance opportunity against majority discrimination group; 4. if there is slating process, a candidate whether of minority group
members have been denied access process; to that
5. to which minority extent members of the group political
the state or subdivision bear the effects education, discrimination such areas as employment health, which ability hinder their to participate effectively political process; in the 6. campaigns whether been have characterized or appeals; overt subtle racial extent which members of the minority group have public jurisdiction. been elected to office in the that in Additional factors some a probative cases have had part of plaintiffs’ value as evidence establish violation are: significant
whether there is a lack responsiveness on the part of particularized elected officials to the needs of the of minority group. members
whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivi- sion’s voting qualification, use such prerequisite voting, standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. 36-37, court, Id. at Gingles however, S.Ct. 2752. The noted three limits on the effect these factors:
First, devices, elections, at-large electoral such as may Second, se per § considered violative of 2.... con- junction an allegedly dilutive electoral mechanism and the proportional lack of representation alone does not establish
409 Third, test does not assume Ibid. the results a violation. it. prove plaintiffs must voting; of racial bloc the existence 106 Id. S.Ct. emphasized that
Finally, Gingles, Supreme Court districts, not “generally impede will creation of multi-member of their representatives ability of voters to elect minority choice” unless: that able demonstrate
First, minority must be to group to compact consti- sufficiently geographically large it is Second, the single-member district.... majority tute a a politically to it is group be able show that minority must Third, the must be able demon- minority cohesive.... as a bloc majority sufficiently that votes strate the white minority’s preferred usually ... defeat enable candidate. 50-51,
Id. at
create conceivable district. v. Turner State Ark., (E.D.Ark.1991), F.Supp. aff'd, [504] [952], 2296, 119 (1992) (§ U.S. 112 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 220 2 is not statute, an affirmative action and a state need not enact a districting plan that maximizes black power or influence).
Consequently, Steele’s claim that Voting the Rights Act requires creation of single the member through- subdistricts Nevertheless, out the State cannot be maintained. had he met his burden proving Gingles conditions, threshold he introduced no “totality evidence that the of the circumstances” surrounding opportunities of minorities part to take process electoral would complaint have rendered his without merit.
Lastly, his claims that plan the drafters of the State’s engaged in invidious racial discrimination in the districting proceedings engaged in partisan gerrymandering in redis- State, tricting are completely unsupported by the evi- dence. reasons,
For these I recommend that Court hold that Petitioner Steele’s contentions under the Fourteenth and Fif-
4U Amendments, Voting Act are without Rights teenth merit. challenge (Curry) No.
The Petitioners Misc. grounds. Voting Rights Act on three State’s under Plan, a First, Curry they allege under their alternative district, delegate single majority Hispanic would which 20B, designated created. district that should be member boundary between Mont- That district would cross line Counties, according George’s which gomery and Prince a 50.7% expert, Engstrom, Dr. Richard H. would have their Engstrom report, p. 23. voting age population. See Hispanic however, analyze any Engstrom, Dr. did not elections between among Hispanic non-Hispanic candidates. Conse- provide no that could him quently, he found election results any analysis Gingles data conduct sufficient Moreover, Engstrom that he did not factors. Dr. testified bloc, voting if nor could Hispanic know voters are cohesive to defeat candidates he know whether whites would vote Lichtman, Dr. preferred by Hispanics. Allen J.
expert, testimony Engstrom that Dr. could pointed out his cohesion, threshold Gingles the second show non-Hispanic prong, voting prong, or its third records *81 Hispanic preferred by in voters elections where candidate is voters involved.
Furthermore, Lichtman, in his as well as on the report, Dr. stand, Hispanic majority in the witness demonstrated Plan, 20B, registration in Curry subdistrict and proposed George’s County Montgomery in and voter turnout Prince precincts up proposed Hispanic majority sub- that make Curry improve so low that the Plan will not district are Hispanic to of their choice. ability voters elect candidates districting Montgomery districts under the are Those current (17-10), (3-41), (17-4), George’s George’s and Prince Prince voting age population turnout of the is average where the Therefore, find have failed Curry I that the Petitioners 2.9%. Voting Rights to a Act to the threshold conditions establish claim a Hispanic district, i.e., based on the absence of majority minority that the is cohesive and votes in a bloc. Second, Curry attempted prove Petitioners to that in opportunity the black Senate House districts under the plan, minority the cohesive electorate would be unable so, depended elect its candidate of choice. To do they upon Engstrom’s analysis Dr. of the Gingles preconditions as they apply voting opportunities African American in eight elec- tions in Prince George’s where African American and non-Mrican American candidates ran. Six the eight elec- tions failed show polarized voting along In racial lines. general Dr. Engstrom analyzed, three elections African Amer- ican and non-Mrican American voters shared the same candi- preferences. Curry date See In exhibits primary election District the white candidate was choice of both Arican Americans non-African Ameri- Curry cans. See Ex. 26. In the 1994 primary Democratic election District Arican Americans non-Mrican preferred American voters top same two of the three candidates, both whom Arican In were American. election, majority both Arican Americans and non-Ari- can Americans voted for Arican American candidates. primary the 1998 Democratic election District two top three Arican American choices were also the election,
choices non-Arican Americans. In this majority of both Arican Americans and non-Mrican Americans voted for Arican American candidates. I find analysis that the Dr. Engstrom fails voting to demonstrate that racially is polarized George’s in Prince County, either the current Furthermore, districts or in plan. the State’s if even Dr. Engstrom proven had racially polarized existence of vot- ing, there is no from analysis support evidence his the other i.e., preconditions Gingles a cohesive minority electorate that usually unable elect its candidates choice as a result of *82 voting sufficiently whites a usually bloc to defeat the minority’s Therefore, preferred candidates. I conclude that- proof on burden Curry have met their petitioners Rights action. Voting to a Cingles preconditions of more
Third, the creation Curry urge Petitioners in County, George’s minority districts in Prince majority I that persuaded statewide. am not Capital Region and hearing. at The State’s evidence received view in George’s County which five in plan includes districts Prince oppor- a have fair that African Americans the State contends choice, i.e., Districts their tunity elect candidates of these which does only 26 and 27. is the one of District age majority voting population; American not have a African rather, voting popula- age in the African American District 22 in voting age only is 42% of the total tion Nevertheless, to vote in African turnout district. Americans a higher in District 22 at much rate primaries Democratic Americans, 59% of than non-African and constitute about report, p. in Lichtman 13. primary voters this district. See any plan suggested has or Curry Neither the Plan nor other Americans, any presented that African other evidence compact minority, sufficiently numerous and constitute City anywhere than group in the State other Baltimore district George’s County, Prince and the created federal-court Shore, opportunity minority on the create a dis- Eastern trict.
I, therefore, that find that the State has demonstrated propor- State is majority minority number districts minori- tionate the number African Americans and other minority sufficiently compact ties areas where the minority district. There is opportunity numerous to create requirement every no that State must create conceivable Cases, Md. minority Redistricting district. Legislative Indeed, Voting Rights § 629 A.2d Act expressly “nothing in this established a provides section class right protected to have members elected numbers Curry equal proportion population.” their petitioners proof have not met their burden the State’s insufficiently minority provides opportunity districts. *83 414 (Cole) Petitioners in 37
The
Misc. No.
claim that
creating
district,
38A order to make a majority minority
Subdistrict
Rights
State has the burden under
Act
Voting
Gingles
establish the
factors. The Petitioner’s reliance on
Reno,
v.
Shaw
113
U.S.
S.Ct.
Subdistrict substantially 38A under the plan State’s simi- lar to Subdistrict 37A plan. under the current Sub- Current district 37A was created as a result of a decision of the United States District Court for the District of which found Voting Rights Act violation in the 1992 plan. State’s See Marylanders Fair Representation, Inc. Schaefer, v. (D.Md.1994). F.Supp.
I recommend that the petition Cole be found to be without merit insofar as it alleges a violation Voting Rights of the Act.
D. Law State Contentions exceptions, With few each Petitioner takes issue with legislative districts drawn in the districts affect their individual They interests. that the districts claim they challenge which were not drawn in compliance with the mandate Section III of Maryland Article Constitution. That provision mandates:
Each district shall consist of adjoining territory, compact form, be substantially and of equal population. regard shall given Due to natural boundaries and bound- aries subdivisions. Adjoining Territory phrase “adjoining territory”
This adopted Section was from Proposed Constitution of 1968. Consequently, floor debate at the constitutional convention drafted that document is an aid interpretation to the “adjoining territo- 1, 1967, amend- an floor on December ry.” During the debate “adjoining land substitute the term proposed ment proposed amend- territory.” After that for “adjoining area” Legislative failed, on of the Committee the Chairman ment prohibition about “we use a concluded that can’t Branch 6315-16, Later, 6332-35. crossing body of water.”. Id. at of a prohibit the creation was offered another amendment Bay.” Chesapeake Id. “that crosses the center district *84 however, that 6525-31, the appeared, it at 6439-42. When of a might prevent also the creation proposed amendment River, Susquehanna the Committee district which crossed the adding “if we his that start expressed concern Chairman tributaries, estuaries, water ... we won’t and other bodies of that he stand.” Id. The Chairman stated know where we if only it was limited the support would the amendment result, proposed Id. at As a the amendment Bay. 6529-31. Id. at 6541-42. was withdrawn.
Subsequently, the of the Whole the Conven- Committee a it was “our placed tion on the record statement that inten- interpretation adjoining words and tion that under ... redistricting commission or the General Assem- compact a district, or a bly could not form a either a Senate district Id. at by crossing Chesapeake Bay.” Delegate district 6574-75. contexts, interpreted this Court has the term
In other
by
territory”
of two
water
“adjoining
separation
so
areas
non-contiguous.
not
See Anne Arundel
does
render
them
(1998)
Md.
For these reasons
44, 34A,
38A
37B which
petitions challenging districts
separated by
district are
a
allege
parts
two
because
river,
territory
contiguous.
district’s
Compactness
and due
for natural
boundaries
boundaries
subdivisions
Cases,
Legislative
Redistricting
590-92,
331 Md.
A.2d
this Court revisited
compactness requirement
which the Court had
Legislative
examined
detail in In re
674-81,
Districting,
We
compactness
requirement
case,
in some detail in the 1982 redistricting
which involved
compactness challenges.
number of
surveying
After
jurisdictions,
views
other
we found that “the ideal of
circle,
compactness,
geometric terms,
is a
with the perim-
equidistant
eter of district
from the center.
In Re Legis-
Districting,
lative
supra,
which
operate upon
interact
the constitutional
compact
mandate that
Thus,
districts be
in form.
cannot ordinarily
determined
mere visual exami-
map
nation
an electoral
compactness
whether the
re-
violated____
quirement has been
*85
680,
Id. at
Also re Districting, 299 Md. at A.2d this Court observed: requirements
the state constitutional 4§ work combi- with nation legislative one another ensure the fairness representation. they That practical tend to conflict their application is, however, fact, viz, plain population could be if not for exactness with mathematical apportioned compactness could be achieved requirements, territorial substantially equal population apportionment easily if more required.' not regard for boundaries were and due in violation alleged districts be factors relevant to the The requirements compactness, of the State Constitutional for natural boundaries and boundaries due separately. will be addressed subdivisions FACT FINDINGS OF County Baltimore 62,- County grew population of Baltimore Although the Baltimore 1990 and southeast 158 residents between por- and western County population while the northern lost Ex. 20. As See county gained population. tions must share result, county’s population portion Baltimore county, because with of another districts residents legislative districts population for six County has too much enough for seven districts. which are plan there six districts the State’s Under (Dis- County from Baltimore population comes majority 12). 6, 7, 8, 10, Ex. 24. Baltimore 11 and See State’s tricts Carroll, and Howard Harford County shared districts 1966 to districting plans from prior legislative Counties City in the 1992 with Baltimore and shared districts County were redistricting in Baltimore plan. options for loss of reconfigure old District 6 and 7 where the all districts to occurred, change county the core of or to population. absorb repre- Baltimore came plan, the 1992
Under senators, including Delores Kel- Senator sented incumbent (District 10); Black Caucus Senator leader the Senate ley, Chair, Education, Health and Hollinger, Vice Senate Paula (District 11); Bar- Senator Affairs Committee Environmental *86 Hoffman, Chair, Budget and Taxation Committee Senate bara Chair, Fi- (District 42); Bromwell, Senate Thomas Senator (Dis- (District 8); and Mike Collins Senator nance Committee 6), triet all from districts that would need redrawn unless plan the State’s on were focused the area in which population (whose loss occurred. Senator Barbara Hoffman legislative City district is shared Baltimore and Baltimore County residents) Delegate Rawlings, Howard Chair of the House Committee, Appropriations both testified that shared districts worked City well and that shared Baltimore and Baltimore County provide representation districts effective city county residents.
Only plans two the alternative submitted to the Gover- (“Committee”) Redistricting Advisory nor’s Committee did not have districts City shared Baltimore and Balti- County. more The number of crossing boundary districts City between Baltimore County and Baltimore remains the same as it was in 1992 plan approved by this Court. See State’s Exs. territory 25 and 31. Less is involved City/Baltimore Baltimore County crossings than the 1992 crossings. A percentage smaller County’s popu- Baltimore lation jurisdiction shares a district with another under the (54.50%) plan (55.53%). than under the 1992 District 44
The Committee decided preserve the core of most Balti- County more districts. For example, boundary lines between District 10 (Kelley) and (Hollinger) District 11 were largely preserved boundary as were the lines between District (Hollinger) (Hoffman). and District 42 Districts 10 and 47B, 12A absorbed 1992 District and District which had formerly crossed from City, Baltimore into Baltimore placed entirely County. Baltimore Compare State’s Exs. 25 and 31. The Committee reconfigured then District 6 where the loss occurred.
District is City located Baltimore and eastern Balti- County. more driving distance between Merritt Boule- Dundalk, vard in portion the easternmost of District is only 8.2 miles from the intersection of North Avenue Fulton Avenue in the Northeastern-most portion District 44. This significantly distance than less that across District
419 on District 47 variations plan and the 47 under the 1992 testified Delegate Mohorovic proposed by Petitioner Stone. Dundalk, downtown Baltimore but travels to that he lives work, imagines quite few other day and that he every City. He further also work in Baltimore Dundalk residents wish to emulate the economic Dundalk residents testified that City along Baltimore that has occurred within revitalization hope to Highlandtown, in Canton and the Inner Harbor represent that could He conceded he learn from that success. plan 2002 44 under the State’s of District the residents approves the represent them the Court would do his best to if plan. designed, part, by shape 44 was at least
The of District American African to maintain sufficient number the need County City/Baltimore majority districts in the Baltimore area, including population of Turner’s the African American 44 portion of District within district. The Station Key includes the Francis Scott Patapsco River crosses the Bridge.
District 31 territory on plan, includes
District under the State’s Anne River in Baltimore and Patapsco both sides of the Ex. 25. One reason Arundel Counties. See State’s popula 31 additional crossing population; District needed portion District 31 has County tion. The Anne Arundel 105,965 1,091 persons, persons below the maximum allowable County negative portion The Baltimore of District deviation. 9,452 Baltimore persons. 31 State’s Ex. 24. The has See large 31 too County population within District is add adjoining County population District 6. The Baltimore 113,685 (0.88% plan is deviation District under the State’s ideal). Adding Baltimore from See Ex. 26. Coun State’s 6 to ty portion District 31 to District cause District would 4,811 popula The people. the maximum deviation exceed (4.99% 107,065 tion the State’s of District under ideal). the Balti Adding deviation from State’s Ex. See of District 46 population of District 31 County more (within 116,508 a population would result in the allowable deviation), populations but these are not The contiguous. Baltimore population within District 31 cannot be to adjoining added maintaining District while 44 as District a majority African American district. percentage African American drop District would from 52.62% 49.45%. See Ex. 24. With an African Ameri *88 can majority District the number of African American majority City districts Baltimore and County Baltimore proportional population. to the African American District 31 designed to avoid dilution of the newly merged African (District 44), majority American district and to in minimize conflict. cumbent
Including portion Patapsco of the River located District irregular this district does not an shape. have To the extent that the borders of District 31 irregular, are this is southern, eastern, attributable to the on extensive coastline its and northern sides. See State’s Ex. 38. The Francis Scott Key Bridge Beltway and the immediately Baltimore are adja- cent to District and travel between portions the two require only District will few by minutes automobile. See Ex. State’s 38.
District 5B entirely
Most District 5B is located within the northern portion of County. Baltimore The of District remainder 5B single of a consists extension into County Carroll that was required in order to population include sufficient in District 5B. This area shared a with County district Carroll from 1974 to 1994. The Committee correspondence received from Dele- Kach, gate Wade requesting that the Baltimore County por- tion single of District be a member district portion County Carroll of District 5 be two member district. See single State’s Ex. 47. This member district was also requested verbally Getty. Petitioner The State’s this request. reflects State’s 47. See Exs.
District 7 County District shared County and Harford
Baltimore from6 District The two counties shared 1974 to 1982. from contigu- County is 81. Harford Ex. 2002. See State’s Any excess Counties. and Baltimore only with Cecil ous be County must with Cecil cannot share population County. Baltimore with shared County
Anne Arundel census, County Arundel the Anne According to the 2000 Anne 489,656. portion Ex. 19. A See population is State’s resi- County’s must share districts population Arundel too counties, County has Arundel because Anne dents other enough for five four districts and population much for If had four self-contained districts. Anne Arundel deviation, still be would at the maximum 5% there districts 16,352 county possible it is not people; excess See Ex. self-contained. in Anne Arundel application of shared districts Chesapeake Bay on the eastern bound-
was constrained county population totals ary side *89 south, George’s County from Prince from Calvert pressure from the north. County County the west and Howard from substantially in between grew population All of counties these Ex. 20. The decided 1992 and 2002. See State’s Committee majority vast existing districts. The to maintain core County stayed the same Anne Arundel residents 30; districts, residents of District including 98.39% the 31; of District 83.91% of the residents 93.69% of the residents To 32; 33. 82.28% of the of District of District and residents County that shares of Anne Arundel put population area, necessary to disturb single it would be district one Anne significant communities inside numerous established would natural County and due boundaries Arundel of Glen example, For communities difficult. be more Millersville, Park, Arnold, Burnie, Pasadena, Severn Severna be Annapolis could affected. 13 District
Howard and George’s Prince Counties have shared district since 1982. See State’s Exs. and 31. Under the State’s plan, Howard and Anne Arundel Counties share District 13 George’s and Prince and Howard Counties share District 21. See State’s Ex. 25. population
The of the Anne Arundel County portion of 18,794, District 13 population County is and the of the Howard 18,242. portion of District See State’s Ex. 24. The Anne (which portion County Arundel of District Mary- includes City) land is divided from the rest of Anne County Arundel boundary (I- natural Baltimore Washington Parkway —the 295). boundary The southeastern of District 13 follows 1-295 intersects with Route and includes correc- Jessup. tional facilities in See State’s Ex. 65. The Committee attempted preserve the core of existing districts Anne determination, County. making Arundel this the northwest portion County Anne Arundel placed had to in a shared district. District 32 is close the maximum deviation and cannot absorb population the excess in District 13. The (3.64% population 116,789 district), of District 32 is above ideal population of District 32 plus the Anne Arundel County portion 135,583. of District 13 is Ex. See State’s 17,257 This is people more than the maximum allowable 5% population. deviation above the ideal African population The American in District 13 increased approximately 85% past years. over the District 13 is represented by an African representative American in the House of Delegates. The Anne County portion Arundel higher District has a African population American than the n Howard County portion of District 21. all-or-part African American of the Anne County part Arundel 8,855 47.1%; District 13 is all-or-part African American population of 1,345 the Howard part of District 21 is *90 or 7.4%. Id. If District 13 included County portion the Howard of District the African American population in District 13 7,510 would be decreased people, approximately 25%. Id. (all percent The of African American population part) in
423 including the Anne Arun- By be 19.7%. would Id. this district plan pre- the State’s County within District portion del of District 13 population the African American serves (26.19%). Id.
District into County Anne George’s 23 crosses from Prince District African Ameri- order create new County. Arundel along County, in majority George’s District 47 Prince can line, the bound- County/District of Columbia George’s Prince County existing George’s in Prince were ary lines of districts line, and from the District of Columbia pushed outwards Prince population to surrender central District had total County. population See Ex. 60. The George’s State’s 110,746, popula- is and the District under of District 23 is County portion tion the Anne Arundel crossing Anne 3,729. Ex. 24. If the between See State’s eliminated, the George’s Prince Counties was Arundel and 107,017, than 5% of District 23 be more population would crossing in District 23 population. Id. The below ideal significant change eliminated without could districts, County other Anne Arundel because boundaries of allowable 32 and are close to maximum Districts from the population and cannot absorb the excess deviation County portion population of District Anne Arundel ideal). 116,789 (3.64% Adding from 32 is deviation District County of District and the Anne Arundel population population 23A create a total portion District would 7,827 district 120,518. This is in excess of the ideal Id. 2,192 in allowable population and excess of the maximum (4.5% 117,768 population deviation. The of District 33 ideal). population of District 33 Adding deviation from 23A portion of District would and the Anne Arundel 8,806 121,497. total Id. This is excess population create a 11,941 of the ideal district excess Id. maximum allowable deviation.
District
424
In plan, 1992 District 27 parts included of Prince Arundel, George’s, Anne and Calvert Counties. the 2002 plan, part District 27 also County. includes of Charles County/Prince County Charles George’s crossing in District 27 pp. 32-33, By discussed District 27 under infra. the 1992 had largest become the second dis- State, 137,182 trict in the residents. 22. See State’s Ex. give up District 27 had to population, gave up popula- County. tion Anne Arundel 4,284 27
District under the 2002 plan contained fewer Anne County Arundel than residents District 27 1992 under the plan. plan, 12,001 In the 1992 27 District included of residents Anne County, using Arundel 1990 figures. Census See State’s plan, 9,509 Ex. 30. In the 2002 District 27 includes residents County, of using figures. Anne Arundel 2000 Census See 24. State’s Ex. The Committee decided that of because geography population the Southern pen- insula, crossing County District into Anne Arundel required. If crossing District 27 into Anne Arundel eliminated, County was all of the districts within Arun- Anne north, County del would shift larger there could be a crossing into County Baltimore District 31. George’s County
Prince George’s County Prince highest population had the second growth any 729,268 Maryland county, persons from in 1990 801,515 in 2000. See Ex. County State’s 20. The has second highest percentage African American residents (64.32%), (65.18%). City second to Baltimore See State’s Ex. 18. In order to the new majority create African American District Prince George’s County, along the Prince George’s County/District line, of Columbia boundary lines existing George’s County districts in Prince pushed were outwards from the District of Columbia line. See State’s Ex. George’s County Prince has highest one of the concentra- municipalities tions of any locality in See State.
Ex. 38.
District County into How- George’s from Prince 21 crosses District aas population, acquire additional in order ard new form from District taken population result ab- 21 also County. District George’s District in Prince largest had the which from District sorbed *92 from 1990 in the State any of district population growth Ex. 22. 2000. See State’s Prince 13B crossed between plan, 1992 District
Under the approximate the same George’s and Howard Counties longer 13B crosses 31. District no State’s Ex. location. See testimony that County. There was no George’s into Prince or that it would be 21 would be difficult traverse District in that district. constituents to communicate with difficult County follows of 21 in Howard portion The District Montgomery Coun- by the political subdivision' line created ty/Howard County border.
District 22 is the same District 22 under the State’s
The bulk of relatively com- District District small previous was no and there pared to other districts across State District 22 or to it to traverse testimony that would be difficult College In the area of communicate with its constituents. pre- two Park, moving District results from shape of which acquire population, into District 22 to additional cincts popula- required give District could some order that District 47. tion on its southern border the new See of Park is plan, College Ex. the town 60. Under the State’s precincts of exception with the the two located District (21-017 21-010) 22. Id. moved to District One that were (21-017) University is the precincts two these a low number are students who have campus, whose residents Id. extremely voting low turnout. registered and an voters 8,629, voting age population precinct has a total This for the 8,577, registered 646 total voters population had 476 for voter turnout of presidential a total election (21-010) The precinct the 2000 other presidential election. 3,289 residents, contains and is Berwyn located next Heights, the town in which the Delegate, new District 22 Gaines, mayor. Tawanna was the Park is
College George’s located in an area of Prince numerous, there adjacent municipalities, where are Greenbelt, including Berwyn Heights, Hyattsville, and River- exception dale Park. Id. With partial plan submitted Brayman, every Petitioner third-party plan splits College Park. redistricting for George’s County the Prince Coun- similarly cil splits College proposed Park between District (containing precincts 01-02, 21-04, 21-10) 22-05, and 21-01, 21-02, (containing precincts 21-15, District 3 21- 17). Park, College To unite maintaining while substantial equality population, one could not College take the two precincts Park out of District 22 obtaining without additional adjoining from districts. This population could not adjacent come from majority African American District 47 district, major changes without to that because is defined its borders with the District and Montgomery Columbia *93 County. Brayman Petitioner proposed has two alternative plans to place College single Park in a plan district. One causes District which is an African plurality American district under the plan, State’s to a plurality become white plan district. The other population causes the in District 23A to fall to population. 6.5% below ideal Brayman Ex. 4 See (an analysis Brayman State). of the Plan prepared by the District 27
In 1992 plan, parts District 27 included of Prince George’s, Arundel, Anne and Calvert Counties. In 2002 plan, parts District 27 also includes of Charles County. The population 120,546. Census Charles County was See State’s Ex. 16. In plan, the 1992 County entirely Charles within District 28. See State’s Ex. 31. County Charles now too population has much to in a single remain district. Excess population jurisdiction. must be shared a neighboring addition, County largest Calvert percentage had the popula- any jurisdiction tion in Maryland. increase See Ex. within Calvert Thus, entirely is now 27A 20. Subdistrict 27 is in portion of District Arundel County, and the Anne 27B. Subdistrict only Maryland, the of Southern geography
Because the excess 28 that could take to District contiguous districts District 29. 27 and 28 were District population from District already adjust- needed of District boundaries northern majority African American to the new ment in order create addition, District 29 George’s County. In 47 in Prince District from 1990 growths population largest had one 27 in to District order give up population and had decided stay The Committee within allowable deviations. 28 District 27 from District the excess attach for District 29. creating crossing than a new rather Montgomery growth of largest population
Montgomery County had eight All Ex. 20. any county Maryland. See State’s wholly County are within Montgomery districts in 25. County. State’s Ex. Montgomery the borders of See District entirely the southwest corner
District 20 is within located County. extremely regular, Two itsof sides are Montgomery county formed straight and consist lines primarily testimony that Ex. There was no border. See State’s 25. traversing District delegate or have trouble senator would and, 20 is one of the territory, total District in terms its shape District 20 Id. The districts the State. smallest shape of irregular more than the under the 2002 is not example, under redistricting plans. For prior District into the of District 20 extended plan, appendage the 1982 an County. State’s Ex. Montgomery See portion central *94 complained division about the The Petitioners who have configuration about the neighborhood Rollingwood, any split that is municipality District have not identified a politi- is not neighborhood Rollingwood 20. The District split drawn so as to cal 18 and 20 were subdivision. Districts existing delegates incumbent into the two Delegate districts. is in Hurson the incumbent District 20 remaining and the two still in Minority incumbents are District 18. candidates are expected to run for open delegate seats. Maryland
Western In all redistricting plans adopted 1960s, since the Frederick County County always Carroll have shared counties, with neighboring districts County Frederick has a legislative entirely never had district county within its lines. n No any witness identified representative instance where a of a Maryland shared district in Western respond failed to a political concerns of residents subdivision within the district. The Western traditionally districts have single been member districts. See State’s Exs. and 31. crossing The Washington County district into involves less population plan. than under See State’s Exs. 24 and 3B District 3B primarily
District is located in County, Frederick part Washington of the district in County. County Frederick shares a subdistrict with Washington under each plans, including plan proposed by alternative Petition- Getty, er which on focused the western four counties. See Washington County State’s Ex. 59. The portion of Subdistrict 3B prisoners prison includes incarcerated State institutions. prison The State’s facilities this area were divided between 3B 2B. prisoners Districts .Because these do vote elections, it prisons appropriate include within subdivision crossings possible. where The inclusion of non-voting prison population crossing within the minimizes the number voters who are affected crossing, mini- therefore any potentially mizes consequences adverse crossing that the may create. 3A was
Subdistrict created to encompass City of Fred- erick, which is the largest incorporated municipality State, City. outside of Baltimore Census 2000
429 52,767, larger and was than City of of the Frederick Ex. See State’s eight Maryland Counties. of population Eastern The Shore of density and number population because of the Since Shore, population in each all of the on the Eastern counties or people one district has shared county con- plan, District 36 1982 approved more counties. 1992 approved plan, In the of counties. part all or five tained District 37 counties and all or five part District 36 contained plan, 2002 In the part all or of four counties. contained counties, and or of four part 36 now contains all District part of five counties. District 37 contains all County Districts and 36—Cecil County 34A Cecil sharing of District between
The Shore, of the Eastern County population is due Harford River Susquehanna requires that a district cross which District 36 in the within allowable deviations. stay order to 44,542 118,176 including has population State’s tolerance). See maximum County (only people below Cecil County population Ex. 24. of the Cecil The balance State’s 1,967 41,409, of maximum tolerance which is excess 34B was 39,442 Id. District single for a district. member 39,430 persons (only to contain drawn the Committee County remaining tolerance), Cecil maximum with the below along 95 corridor to District 34A the Route residents added Perryville Port boundary municipal lines outside may 34A Exs. 24 and 38. District Deposit. See State’s nearby bridge across the Route traversed means Ex. 38. bridge. 1-95 State’s Susquehanna River or the See County Districts 36 and 37—Caroline split the Eastern Shore must be At three counties on least According limitations. population because 29,772, more Census, County population had a Caroline a single member 20% the ideal than below every legislative appor- 16. In State’s Ex. subdistrict. See County have shared since residents Caroline tionment a district with residents of other counties. Since Caro- County districts, line has been divided between two District 36 District 37. See Exs. 28 and 31. All but one plans the alternative split submitted the Committee Caro- County. only plan line split did not Caroline *96 placed init two shared member subdistrict Queen with County, Anne’s but even guarantee this alternative did not that a County Caroline repre- candidate would be elected sent the subdistrict because the population Queen Anne’s County 40,563 29,772. by outnumbered Caroline’s County Hawley that,
Caroline Administrator acknowledged to population, every county due on the Eastern can Shore have a delegate, resident will there have to be splitting some counties; County Caroline is a jurisdiction. home rule geographic Because of their location Talbot or either Caroline County split. has to plan, Under the 1992 both Talbot and County Caroline split. were See State’s Ex. 31. The Commit- Talbot; for plan tee the 2002 plan decided unite this also allowed Easton to be unified in District 37B. See Ex. State’s
In 1992 plan, Caroline County line in was crossed places. two different 2002 plan, County the Caroline only line is crossed once. The County fact that Caroline split does not that a mean Caroline resident could not win election in District 36 or District 37. and Senators Delegates across the State have in split been elected districts they which county reside in the with a population. smaller Getty Petitioner Ferguson referred to Senator 4 District an example. Petitioner Stoltzfus provided example. another Districts 37 and 38 adoption
Before the plan, the 2002 District 38 had a 120,548, population 7,857 by which exceeded people the 2,222 ideal district and population people the maxi- over mum allowable deviation. See State’s Ex. 22. Districts and 38 by are bounded the highly irregular Maryland coastline south, east, west, on straight lines of the Maryland Delaware border to the north. low Because Shore, Districts 37 density the Eastern population territory districts, large will amount of contain large are Data). (County Population Ex. 20 any See plan. under or of five part 36 contained all District plan, Under part or of four counties. counties, 37 contained all and District in the part of five counties contained all 36 also District shape of 37 and are affected plan. Districts communities 38A, joins African American which District Inc., Fair Representation, compliance Marylanders is the same 38A the State’s p. 17. District supra, changes to plan. the 1994 The as District 37A under district required plan were minor ones 38A under the State’s District minority changes region. in the The population as a result of decreased, and the bound- in 1994 District 37A had district. minority maintain it as a had to be modified to aries popula- changes recommended increase the Committee 39,375, plan to with an 38A under the State’s of District tion *97 Department of 52.06% under the population African American Ex. standard. See State’s 39. measurement Justice Stoltzfus, plan submitted Petitioner Under put be back into Delegate District 38A would proposed State’s Delegate 37A proposed and District District the State’s configuration, 38. to District Under that would returned 118,326 residents, 118,193 37 have and Districts and 38 would respectively. 271 Legislative Districting, Md. 317 In re
Since (1974), has been divided into three A.2d 477 the Eastern Shore districts, of the shore comprised one of which was Somerset, part and of Wicomico. The counties of Dorchester alliances, formed of these lower shore counties have citizens Tri-County for the Shore as the Council Lower Eastern such Committee, pro- Heritage and the Lower Eastern Shore Exs. 8 12. their See and mote interests. Stoltzfus in anyway would not affect the proposal The Stoltzfus minority by Mary- district crafted composition majority Rather, it return Fair Inc. would Representation, landers for that single member district to the middle shore counties from which was carved. plan,
Under the Salisbury substantially in united subdistricts, District Switching 38. proposed by as Peti- (to tioner Stoltzfus create districts from and 38A/37B 37A/ 38B) in larger would result population Salisbury being split among two Salisbury different Senate districts. While united, could completely not be because the District 38 under the 2002 was too close to the maximum deviation, only allowable Salisbury residents of in are 22,980 District 37A. District 38 contains Salisbury, residents of or 96.8%. District could not remaining popula- absorb the (763 residents) tion of Salisbury without exceeding maxi- mum Switching allowable deviation. the 37A and 38A subdis- 9,420 (39.7%) tricts would in result of Salisbury residents in 14,323 (60.3%) District 38 and Salisbury residents of in Dis- trict 37. plan,
Under
Marylanders
amended
Fair
Inc.,
Representation,
County
Wicomico
was divided between
44,320
Districts 37
persons
(59.6%),
with
District
30,019 persons
(40.4%).
in District 37
Under the 2002
plan,
County
divided,
61,827
Wicomico
is less
persons
(71.93%)
22,817
District
(18.07%).
persons in District 37
Ex.
If
switched,
See State’s
24.
Districts 37A and 38A were
46,835
there
(54.49%)
would be
Wicomico
residents
37,809
(45.51%)
District
residents
District
Districts 38A and 37B have
challenged
been
on the basis
they both cross the Nanticoke and Wicomico Rivers.
Districts 37 and 38 do not cross the Nanticoke River at the
*98
same point, and the northern and southern
of
portions District
adjoin
37B do not
at the
location that
same
District 38A
crosses
Nanticoke River. The northern and southern
portions
adjoin
of District 37B
on the western side of the
district, adjacent
(as
to the shore of the Chesapeake Bay
herein,
18-19,
supra,
pp.
discussed
at
the fact that a district is
aby
divided
not prevent
river should
the banks of the river
III, § 4
meaning of Article
contiguous within the
being
from
Constitution).
Maryland
TO
LAW RELATING
OF
CONCLUSIONS
CLAIMS
CONSTITUTIONAL
STATE
districting set forth
requirements
The
III,
intended
Maryland
§
Constitution are
Article
4 of the
in their
combination,
to conflict
though they
tend
work
Md.
Districting, 299
In re
practical application.
Legislative
(1984).
681,
conclusions
674,
Because the
This Court
Con
III of the
provision
§
The
of
of Article
to natural
given
shall be
that “[d]ue
stitution
is
subdivisions”
and the boundaries
boundaries
contiguity
compactness and
re
integrally related to the
configuration of district
physical
all
quirements;
involve
es.[15]
regard”
intent of the “due
primary
lin
preserve
and known features
is to
those fixed
provision
maintain an orientation to their
which enable voters to
contiguity,
compactness
own territorial areas. Like
requirement
mandatory application,
regard”
the “due
appear
it would
be the
although by
very verbiage
its
§in
components
most fluid
the constitutional
outlined
being “political
incorporated municipalities
sub
construed
15 We
contemplation
Legislative Districting,
§ 4 in In re
divisions" within the
Twilley v. Governor
Md.
477 cert. denied sub. nom
271
Md.,
A.2d
(1974).
42 L.Ed.2d
419 U.S.
95 S.Ct.
Md.
Although the term may “natural boundaries” include artifi- boundaries, cially roads, created highways such as possibly Constitution cannot crossing every prohibit such line district, the formation of a nor can require any particular boundary natural in preference be used to another. (Misc. 25)
Stone Petition No. & Golden (Misc. 22) Petition No.
The Stone and Golden Petitioners claim that the State did give due to natural boundaries and boundaries of because, subdivisions under 2002 plan, former eliminated, District 7 has been residents of Dundalk will share District 44 with residents Baltimore City Patap- across the River, sco Edgemere and residents of will share District 31 County' residents of Anne Arundel Patapsco across the River. The number of districts crossing boundary be- City tween Baltimore and Baltimore County remains the same plan as it was in approved by the Court in Legislative Redistricting Cases. The evidence at the hearing demonstrat- ed, through testimony State, of the Secretary of that the principles underlying compactness as well as all other consti- concerns had fairly been applied considered and tutional. designing Districts 31 and City/Balti- Baltimore area, more the effect of the leaves undis- districts, turbed the core of existing minimizes incumbent conflicts, preserves for its African American voters the opportunity elect candidates their choice. based Petitioners contrast, Stone and Golden
By both the community of perceived on a lack argument their much of City and Baltimore of Dundalk between residents interest *100 and Edgemere residents of District between the case 31. Neither set in case District County, Anne Arundel where however, any instance Petitioners, has identified has address district failed shared representative within political of a subdivision concerns residents Balti- Moreover, County and Baltimore district. Southeastern interests, including do share common City more residents in the economic and a stake employment places common Patapsco River along areas of waterfront revitalization Hoffman, a shared According Senator and Inner Harbor. residents of representation to effective provides district Petitioner sharing the district. Even subdivisions in the established the shared districts confirmed that Stone have been worked as well as could redistricting have repre- he could Delegate Mohorovic testified expected. plan the State’s of District under sent the residents approves if the Court represent do his them and would best repre- any instance where plan. witness identified No City and Baltimore district shared Baltimore sentative of a of either respond to concerns of residents County has failed political subdivision. Plan Petitioners’ Alternative
The Stone hearing on plan, at the latest submitted Senator Stone’s and six incum- 26, 2002, Delegates pairs 30 incumbent April Senators; Kelly Taylor single in member Delegates bent 1C; single Delegates and McGee member District Schenk 2A; Weir, Ports, Delegates and Hubers DeCarlo District Pielke, in two 6; and Kach member Delegates Klima District Menes, Gaines, Moe, 9B; Frush and Gian- Delegates District 24; 21; in District Exum and Lawlah in District Senators etti 40; Hughes in District Senators Sfikas Mitchell and Senators Oaks, 46; Nathan-Pul- Delegates in District and McFadden 41; liam, Delegates Krysiak, Phillips in District Gladden 46; Branch, and Davis in District Hammen, Harrison Dypski, 47A; Delegates in single Cole McHale member Subdistrict Delegates Paige single Kirk and member Subdistrict 47C. plan College Park,
Stone’s also splits Frostburg, latest Greenbelt, and Cheverly, among Glenarden municipali- other addition, ties. In plan the latest has discontiguous Stone 10-007; blocks in Hagerstown precinct area eliminates single 23; majority member African American Subdistrict single eliminates the member subdistrict in Somerset (District 37A plan). in the the latest Stone plan, City Baltimore has five full single districts and two (with districts third piece being member in Baltimore County), which one plan. less district than the State’s is. Baltimore City only under the latest Stone has four majority districts with a African population, American which is also one less district than plan provides. the State’s
The Golden Petitioners’ Alternative Plan *101 Petitioners, together The Golden with the Petitioners in 31) (Misc. (Misc. 32), DeHaas and Smallwood No. have submit- (“Mohorovic Plan”) ted an alternative with an number of serious deficiencies. in Senate districts the Mohorovic Plan from the population by deviate ideal district as much a s 47) + 6.9% (proposed District and -7.02% (proposed District 46), 13.99%, for total population Senate district variance of that exceeds the 10% population maximum required variance for prima validity equal protection under the clause of facie substantially United States Constitution and the equal population requirement of Maryland Single Constitution. in member subdistricts the Mohorovic Plan deviate from the population ideal subdistrict by much as +6.9% (proposed 21B) 31C) District and (proposed -4.65% District for a total population variance of 13.99% among single member subdis- Two tricts. in member subdistricts the Mohorovic Plan deviate from the ideal subdistrict population as much as +4.69 24A) (proposed 46A) (proposed District and -9.08 District total among variance of 13.77% two member subdistricts. discontiguous Plan include in the Mohorovic
Three districts 1- (1) discontiguous precinct contains territory: District 30 district 6,953 any adjoining would cause residents whose population; from the district +5% ideal to exceed deviation 15-001; (2) and discontiguous precinct 24B contains District (3) discontiguous. small 21A contains a area District 6 that a new shared District proposes Mohorovic Plan The City Baltimore subdistrict 6A South joins a two member Anne Arun- 6B in Northern with a member subdistrict single Park, splits College Green- Mohorovic Plan County. del The Rockville, Bowie, Gaithersburg Bladensburg, belt, Cheverly, Laurel, and eliminates among municipalities, other and traditionally pro- been subdistricts that have single member Maryland. vided Western Senators, includ- incumbent pairs Mohorovic Plan nine City, against from Baltimore each
ing five incumbent Senators proposed and Mitchell in Hughes, Blount other. Senators proposed and McFadden District and Senators Sfikas Senator from pairs District 5. It also another incumbent Della, City, against an incumbent Senator Baltimore Senator Jimeno, pairs incum- County, from Anne Arundel Senator County in and Collins from Baltimore bent Senators Stone Delegates pairs Plan also incumbent District The Mohorovic City (pairs from incumbent proposed Baltimore District Marriott, Campbell, Doory, Rawlings and Rosen- Delegates Fulton, Gladden, Delegates Phillips berg), (pairs District Jones), Kirk, Branch, Paige and (pairs Delegates District Pulliam), Delegates (pairs Dypski, Nathan District Harrison), Hammen, Krysiak, against other. Davis each *102 (Misc. 31) Petition No. DeHaas in the 2002 adopting DeHaas contend that Petitioners regard not to natural boundaries plan give the did due State placed of when it political and the boundaries subdivisions 23A County in a shared District residents of Anne Arundel George’s County. popula- Due to the Prince residents for all County, possible tion of Arundel it is not residents Anne placed legislative in districts County of Anne Arundel within entirely County. Anne Arundel Petitioners have not any identified instance a representative where a shared by district has failed to address concerns raised a residents of district; political subdivision within they present- nor have any boundary specified ed evidence that natural in the Petition, River, poses any Patuxent obstacle to travel representation. effective (Misc. 32)
Smallwood Petition No. The Smallwood Petitioners contend that in adopting the plan, give did regard State not due to the boundaries political placed subdivisions when residents northwest- Anne County ern Arundel a shared District 13 with resi- County. of Howard present- dents The Smallwood Petitioners testimony ed no hearing they any nor did identify a representative instance where has failed address concerns raised political of a resident subdivision within the district. criteria, The State’s was based on appropriate including preserving existing the core districts Anne County, recognizing Arundel population restraints pre- sented District which is close the maximum allowable deviation, not diluting African American population Moreover, District 13. District boundary 13/District ashington line follows Parkway, the Baltimore-W which consti- boundary. tutes a natural (Misc. 33)
Cole Petition No. Petitioners, The Cole who consist of the members of the County Caroline Commission and County Caroline Adminis- trator, that, contend in adopting plan, the 2002 the State did give due to natural boundaries and the boundaries 34, 36, subdivisions in apportioning Districts 37 and on Shore, the Eastern as well various districts other throughout plan. Census, According to the population Caroline is more than 20% below the single subdistrict, ideal for a member and residents of Caroline County have shared district with residents every other Counties apportionment since 1966. *103 acknowledge that either Caroline Cole The Petitioners 37, and 36 and split must between Districts County Talbot District 37 entirely which is within argue County, that Talbot instead of plan, should have been divided the State’s under must be of the two counties Given that one County. Caroline County divided, decision divide Caroline the Committee’s any County not show lack due than Talbot does rather or natural boundaries. regard political subdivisions 29) (Misc. Petition No. Steele Steele, Republican Michael State Chairman Petitioner legislative redis- adopting that in Party, maintains regard to whole, give did not due plan the State tricting political subdivisions natural boundaries and boundaries not has identi- and communities interest. Petitioner Steele representative has failed address any fied instance where political subdivision within residents of concerns raised presented that would any the district. Nor has he evidence abandoning long-standing multi-member justify the State’s objective challenge of Steele’s Apparently, districts. the true According Knighton, who partisan. James Lawrence original plan both Steele’s and the so-called “Steele drafted Republican II” original plan sought maximize plan, gains, and II are based on the districts the districts Steele plan II original plan. pairs The Steele incumbent plan Nor is that against Democratic each other. Senators viable; technically plan II two districts are the Steele has completely discontiguous by any test. 34) (Misc.
Getty Petition No. did not Getty maintain that the State’s Petitioners give due to the boundaries subdivisions (1) respects: legislative an entire district placing two County, respectively, within Frederick Carroll (2) Hampstead between Subdistricts by dividing town that, Petitioners, however, Getty concede due 5A and 5B. The Garrett, counties, five each westernmost population, Carroll, placed Washington, Frederick and must be Allegheny, in shared districts with boundaries that coun- cross lines, ty that in all redistricting plans adopted 1960s, since the *104 County County Frederick and Carroll legislative have shared counties, districts neighboring with and that County Frederick legislative entirely has never had a district county within its Getty lines. The not any Petitioners have identified instance a a representative where shared district’in Mary- Western land has respond failed to to concerns residents of a political subdivision within the district. The crossing the County Baltimore and Carroll line and splitting Hampstead required to were achieve equality substantial population. plan responded
The population changes to and rec- ognized municipalities a City when created district in That Getty petitioners Frederick. present legally no valid by claim is plan area, confirmed their alternative for that interests, which partisan advances but not constitutional re- quirements.
Getty Petitioners’ Alternative Plan Getty The proposed Petitioners have an plan alternative only that redraws 1 through Districts 5. Under the alternative plan Petitioners, Getty submitted each of the five Garrett, counties of Allegany, westernmost Washington, Fred- erick and Carroll will have share with districts other counties. The plan proposed by alternative Getty Petitioners would place Delegate Kelly Kevin Speaker Casper Taylor, Democrats, House both of whom are in the subdistrict, single same but require any member would not Republicans against incumbent to run each other. Getty acknowledge they Petitioners that the relief are
seeking in Maryland require western will changes legisla- tive district boundaries elsewhere the State and will affect beyond districts adjacent those that are to the five western Getty districts petitioners seek reconfigure. However, the Getty Petitioners not have submitted workable any nor plan statewide purports how demonstrate necessi- the State districts elsewhere changes to other in a manner remedy can be made requested tated their law. State requirements Federal that satisfies Plan”), (“Getty Getty Plan respect to the State-wide With Getty Petitioners on behalf of Cavey testified Christian had prepared but he prepared map, that he had map the basis for which he believed spreadsheet as map submitted Exhibit 34-4. The Getty submitted substantively however, technically and 34-4, is both Exhibit Plan, 6, 8A, 44A Getty portions of Districts flawed. Under the from the ideal discontiguous, and a deviation and 44B are + a maxi- range from 6.06% for -18.38% po]iulation district of Balti- Representation of 24.42%. mum variance two and a City is reduced to five districts more residents subdistrict, dis- majority black Senate three member *105 districts, majority and a tricts, majority two white Senate subdistrict, majority white connected to white two member County. in Baltimore one-member subdistrict are with each paired Six incumbent Democratic Senators (Sen. Stone), District and other in District 7 Collins Sen. (Sfikas (Sen. Hughes), and District and Sen. Mitchell McFadden). paired are Republican No Senators incumbent run Delegates will any district. Incumbent Democratic 1, 7, 41, 42, 47A. No 46 and against each other Districts Delegate against run another Republican need incumbent (in incum- Delegate Republican District 8A two Republican placed subdistrict with would be two member bents incumbent, 12A, Murphy, a in District Del. Democratic placed single in a member subdistrict Republican, would be incumbent). with a Democratic (Misc. 27)
Brayman Petition No. give Brayman claim that the did Petitioners State The of politi- the boundaries regal’d due to natural boundaries and because, College plan, City of under the cal subdivision exception Park Districts and 22. With is located Petitioners, every partial Brayman plan submitted party plan splits third College redistricting Park. The for the Prince George’s County splits Council similarly College Park 01-02, proposed (containing between District 1 precincts 21- 21-10) 04, 21-05, and and District 3 (containing precincts 21- 21-15, 21-17). 01, 21-02, City College Park is in an George’s County located area of Prince where there are numerous, adjacent municipalities, including Berwyn Heights, Greenbelt, Hyattsville, and Park. In Riverdale order to create substantially districts, equal is necessary split it the bound- municipalities, of some of Brayman aries these as both the and the plan Petitioners’ State’s demonstrate. College Park, order to unite the City Brayman propose, among
Petitioners other things, the relocation of City of precincts (precincts 10-010, 10-011, three Laurel 10-007) from District 21 and District 23. See Brayman Exhib- it Laurel, 1. This would have the of splitting City effect subdivision, a political among Districts 21 and 23. con- By trast, plan gives Laurel, due to the City maintaining wholly Mayor within District 21. Bray- While man complained prior redistricting plans did not have crossing District 21 the Patuxent River into County, Howard plan his nothing rectify does the sharing of District 21 among George’s Prince and Howard Counties. Under the Brayman plan, Petitioners’ District 21 would still cross the Patuxent County. because, River into Howard This is as the State recognizes, population from Howard needed to District 21 substantially equal make population. (Misc. 28)
Gandal and Schofield Petition No. *106 Petitioners Gandal and Schofield maintain that the State did give not regard due to natural boundaries Districts 18 and 20 political or the boundaries of plan subdivisions in that the neighborhoods divides precincts. and Petitioners Gandal and Schofield, Delegate and Grosfeld testified that plan the splits neighborhood Rollingwood, placing it part District 18 and part of it District 20. Each testified that in past, Rollingwood entirely was located within District 18. While Petitioners Gandal and they Schofield testified that political ability in the Rollingwood’s participate believed plan, Delegate Gros- by be the State’s process would affected 18 and both of Districts testified that the residents feld by representatives, senior represented be incumbent would in the leadership and Annapolis tenure in terms of both Assembly. presented was no evidence General There and 20 or could in Districts 18 would officials elected office Rollingwood. responsive not to the needs regard to natural boundaries give does due The State’s Districts subdivisions within and the boundaries boundary map that the entire eastern and 20. The shows Montgomery and Prince boundary 20 is the between District is of the district defined George’s and that bottom District Montgomery County by the border between precinct follow remaining Most of its boundaries of Columbia. lines, natural in turn based on roads and other which are Its natural boundaries. District also follows boundaries. by Mill Road one side and upper end is defined Viers on county’s also used border railroad on the other. It Columbia, Park, Avenue, the District of Rock Creek Wisconsin Avenue, Beltway and the University Boulevard Connecticut not the district does follow for substantial While stretches. to use major boundary, for its entire the decision roads easily explained on the need smaller roads occasion populated area. population equality densely maintain in this (Misc. 30) No. Dembrow Petition give not alleges Dembrow Petition State did using the “well due to natural boundaries di- recognized Randolph/Cherry Hill” as the thoroughfare of splitting precincts Districts 14 and viding line between neigh- streets well dividing along residential established communities, homeowners’ associations. See borhoods, ¶ Petition, fact, Randolph No. 30 at l.C. In Dembrow Misc. line 20. dividing Road has never been sole for District plan, through the road went District In the Randolph and 20 plan, the line between Districts 14A followed time, and the Road for a short but crossed on both east *107 west side of the district. plan. The same was true the 1992 plan comes State’s closer to following Randolph Road any past than plan. (Golden),
The Petitioners in Misc. No. 22 Misc. No. (Stone), (Cole), (Steele), Misc. No. 33 Misc. No. 29 Misc. No. (Dumbrow) (Getty) and Misc. No. 30 allege also that the plan III, § violates Article Constitu- requires tion which that “compact districts be form.” I conclude with regard to these petitions that has proving State met' its burden of compliance with that constitutional mandate. “compactness
This Court has viewed
requirement
as a
for a
(conducive
territory
union
close
to constituent-representa-
communication),
tive
a requirement
rather than as
which is
dependent upon a
being
any particular
district
shape or
In
Legislative
size.”
re
Districting,
Md. at
475 A.2d
428. In determining
compactness
district,
of a
the Court
must give “due consideration” to “the ‘mix’ of constitutional
and other
which
degree
factors
make some
noncompactness
unavoidable,” including “concentration of people, geographic
features,
access,
communications,
convenience of
means
restraints,
the several competing constitutional
... as well as
predominant
requirement
constitutional
that districts be
comprised
substantially
equal population.”
Although
Id.
districts under the State’s
that
are attacked
question may
Petitioners in
“visually compact,”
not be
consti-
compactness
tutional
not determined
test.
re
Legislative
299 Md. at
Districting,
On the I am persuaded other that the State has met its proof burden of plan complies its with the requirements constitutional compactness and due reject and 38. I drawing Districts 37 boundaries *108 noncompact districts designing such the State’s reason in Wicomico split of voters upon a more favorable based voters would of so that those County City Salisbury and in the their electing chance of senator supposedly enjoy better choice.
Furthermore, includes proposed by 38B State District Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot, Wi- portions of five counties: Atlantic stretching from the Counties comico Worcester configu- this County. I do not believe that to Caroline Ocean gave due drafters District 38B that its ration of demonstrates The subdivisions. State’s to the boundaries County Somerset configuration Districts 37 and 38 divides County. Those part Wicomico from Worcester district since aligned legislative one three areas have been view, presented, my has acceptable 1966. No reason been of includ- justify divergence longstanding from the tradition I district. ing lower counties one shore grant petition court the Stoltzfus recommend that, reconfigure and 38 what was under Districts 37 so would designated single District 38A plan member 37A, District 37A would single become and that member 38A. become
E. Additional Claims alleged Some of Petitioners have that the State’s rights deprives them of the First Amendment their under 2, 7 and 24 the United States Constitution3 and under Articles rights Constitution.4 Declaration of 3. The First Amendment states: religion, Congress respecting an shall make no law establishment thereof; abridging prohibiting or the free or the freedom exercise speech, right people peaceably press; or of the or assemble, grievances. petition Government for a redress of Const., U.S. amend. I. 4. Article states: made, States, and or which The Constitution of the United the Laws made, made, thereof, pursuance which and all Treaties shall be does not support allegations, evidence these and I recom- rejected. mend that these claims be submitted,
Respectfully
Robert L. Karwacki
Special Master
May *109 made, States, are, authority shall be under the of the United and shall State; Supreme State, be the Law of Judges and the of this State, are, People all the of this thereby; and shall anything be bound in die contrary Constitution or Law of this State to the notwithstand- ing. Rights. Art. 2 of the Md. Declaration of Article 7 states: right That the People participate Legislature in the is the Government; security liberty best and the foundation of all free purpose, ought this elections frequent; every be free and having Constitution, qualifications citizen prescribed by ought right suffrage. to have the Rights. Art. 7 of the Md. Declaration of Article 24 states: ought That no man imprisoned be taken or or disseized of his n freehold, outlawed, exiled, privileges, or, liberties or or any or manner, life, destroyed, deprived or liberty of his property, or but judgment peers, of his the Law of the land. 24 of Rights.
Art. the Md. Declaration of