This content was republished with permission from 草莓传媒鈥檚 news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for today.
Senior Judge Lynne A. Battaglia blocked Maryland鈥檚 new congressional map Friday, finding that the plan violates the Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights 鈥� and unfairly favors Democrats.
Battaglia sent the redistricting plan back to the General Assembly and ordered lawmakers to come up with a new plan by next Wednesday.
滨苍听, Battaglia found that the new map violates Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution. That provision has historically been interpreted to apply to legislative districts and stipulates that 鈥渆ach legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form and of substantially equal population鈥� and that districts respect natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.
Battaglia also found that the map violates Articles 7, 24 and 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Those provisions provide that elections be 鈥渇ree and frequent,鈥� equal protection and free speech respectively.
In her听, Battaglia wrote that the plaintiffs had proved that partisanship was the predominant factor over traditional redistricting criteria like compactness when lawmakers drew the map in December. She called the plan 鈥渁n outlier and a product of extreme partisan gerrymandering.鈥�
Battaglia ordered the General Assembly to draw a new plan and set a hearing to review the new plan for next Friday at 9 a.m. She noted at a trial last week that the case would likely head to the Court of Appeals regardless of how she ruled.
Battaglia鈥檚 order could have a particularly meaningful impact on the 1st congressional district, a former Republican stronghold, which the Democrats drew to become considerably more competitive.
Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R), who has been working to take politics out of the redistricting process since taking office in 2015, called Battaglia鈥檚 decision a 鈥渉istoric milestone鈥� and called on the General Assembly to enact the proposed map from the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, which he convened last year.
鈥淔or nearly eight years, we have been fighting to end the gerrymandering monopoly that has for too long been a shameful legacy of our state,鈥� Hogan said. 鈥淭his ruling is a monumental victory for every Marylander who cares about protecting our democracy, bringing fairness to our elections, and putting the people back in charge. It puts in plain view the partisan, secretive, and rigged process that led to the legislature鈥檚 illegal and unconstitutional maps.鈥�
Fair Maps Maryland, an anti-gerrymandering group with ties to Hogan that supported one of the lawsuits challenging the map, filed by state Del. Kathy Szeliga (R-Baltimore County), lauded the decision in a statement.
鈥淭o call this a big deal would be the understatement of the century,鈥� the group said.
Four of the eight plaintiffs spoke to reporters outside the State House after the ruling.
鈥淭his decision is a victory for every Marylander,鈥� said Szeliga. 鈥淥n this 338th anniversary of Maryland鈥檚 founding, this decision is a rebirth for our state.鈥�听
James Warner, a Vietnam War POW who lives in Anne Arundel County, said he fought in uniform to uphold a system that recognizes the consent of the governed, 鈥渁nd that is not gerrymandering.鈥�听
Del. Christopher T. Adams (R-Middle Shore) said the map reflected a desire among Democrats to remove the only Republican in the state鈥檚 congressional delegation, Rep. Andrew P. Harris. He said the voices of Eastern Shore voters 鈥渨ere imperiled by this process.鈥�听
The court declined to order the state to use the map drawn by Hogan鈥檚 Citizens Legislative Redistricting Commission and Szeliga would not predict whether that map would ultimately end up being used. 鈥淚 personally do not trust the legislature to do this again,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey [Democrats in the legislature] assured us what they did was constitutional.鈥�听
Another plaintiff, Del. Neil C. Parrott (R-Washington), recalled a failed referendum effort and a legal challenge against the prior congressional map that made it to the Supreme Court.
鈥淣ow we have, in the state courts, a decision that says this really does violate the Maryland constitution,鈥� said Parrott, who is seeking a rematch with U.S. Rep. David J. Trone (D) this year.
It isn鈥檛 clear yet what the General Assembly or the attorney general鈥檚 office, which defended the state鈥檚 map in court, will do next.
鈥淥ur office is currently reviewing the decision,鈥� Raquel Coombs, a spokesperson for Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D), said in an email. 鈥淣o decision on appeal.鈥�
In a joint statement, House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D-Baltimore County) and Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) said they were 鈥渄isappointed鈥� by Battaglia鈥檚 decision. The pair wrote that they believe the ruling 鈥渋s not representative of the historic and long-standing legal requirements and precedent,鈥� that they considered when drafting the map.
鈥淲hen the General Assembly approved our new congressional map in early December, we believed then, as we do now, that the new districts upheld the letter of the law by enacting fair boundaries that reflect demographic shifts and keep as many Marylanders as possible in their current district in a Congressional map that was approved by more than 64% of the voters,鈥� Jones and Ferguson wrote.
The legislative leaders said they will review the court鈥檚 order, and said the ruling 鈥渆stablishes brand new legal standards for the drawing of the Maryland Congressional map.鈥�
One Democrat with knowledge of the map-drawing process said lawmakers did not discuss contingency plans or what they would do if the court overturned their congressional plan.
鈥榃e will win this race no matter what鈥�
Battaglia鈥檚 ruling comes after a听听last week for a pair of lawsuits brought against the congressional map. One lawsuit, Szeliga v. Lamone, is brought by Republican voters from all eight of Maryland鈥檚 congressional districts and contends that the new map violates the state constitution by intentionally diluting Republican votes. The other lawsuit, brought by Parrott and the national conservative group Judicial Watch, also contends that the new map violates Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs pointed in particular to the 1st Congressional District in arguing that the map violates the Maryland Constitution. The 1st District was previously solidly Republican and included portions of northern Harford, Baltimore and Carroll counties with the Eastern Shore, but under the enacted plan crosses the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to include parts of central Anne Arundel County with the Eastern Shore.
That district is represented by Harris, Maryland鈥檚 lone congressional Republican, and under the map enacted by lawmakers was set to become significantly more competitive for Democrats. Strider Dickson, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the Szeliga case, argued that the reconfiguration could result in an 8-0 partisan breakdown favoring Democrats.
Sean Trende, a senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Szeliga case, said at last week鈥檚 trial that he analyzed the map enacted by lawmakers and found that Republican voters were removed from the 1st District with 鈥渘ear surgical precision鈥� in the challenges map. Trende also said he ran thousands of simulations of potential district lines and found Maryland鈥檚 enacted district shapes to be outliers when it came to being non-compact.
Heather Mizeur, a former state delegate and Democratic contender in the 1st District primary, said in a statement that she is confident in her ability to take on Harris regardless of how the district lines are drawn.
鈥淚 am so excited by the support we are generating in every corner of this district 鈥� regardless of what map you use,鈥� Mizeur said. 鈥淲e will win this race no matter what the final district looks like, as Marylanders have had enough of Andy Harris putting far-right partisan politics ahead of common-sense solutions for our communities.鈥�
R. David Harden, a foreign policy strategist who is running as a moderate in the Democratic primary for the 1st听District, slammed gerrymandering in a statement.
鈥淭hree consecutive cycles of litigation and chaos are proof that our system just isn鈥檛 working,鈥� Harden wrote. 鈥淥ur citizens lose connection with and confidence in the political process as a result. We must take redistricting out of the hands of self-interested politicians. This court鈥檚 decision does just that.鈥�
Harris鈥� home in Baltimore County had been drawn out of the 1st District under the General Assembly鈥檚 original plan. The U.S. Constitution requires representatives to live in the state they represent, but not the same district. Harden鈥檚 home in Carroll County likewise wasn鈥檛 in the 1st District in the redistricting plan.
In a social media post, Harris praised the court鈥檚 decision.
鈥淭he court got it right,鈥� Harris wrote. 鈥淭he hyperpartisan gerrymandering in Maryland is unconstitutional.鈥�
The state called two witnesses during the four-day trial in arguing that the map doesn鈥檛 unlawfully dilute votes: Allan Jay Lichtman, a history professor at American University, and former Secretary of State John T. Willis, both Democrats. Lichtman testified that the new congressional map is more compact than the map enacted in 2011 in arguing that the new district lines don鈥檛 constitute a gerrymander.
Democratic lawmakers argued when they enacted the map during a special session in December that compactness was secondary in congressional redistricting compared to population equality and compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act. Willis said at the trial that lawmakers also need to consider the historical district boundaries when adjusting for population to avoid disrupting representation.
Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan argued at the trial that the state constitution is silent on congressional redistricting, and that any change to the state constitution should come via the amendment process rather than via judicial decisions. Deputy Attorney General Andrea Trento argued that the framers of the state constitution had assumed that some degree of politics would be involved in the redistricting process since they entrusted the legislature with the task.
The challenges to the congressional map honed in on state law rather than federal law after the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to weigh in on state-level partisan gerrymandering in Benisek v. Lamone, a case which centered around Maryland鈥檚 6th Congressional District as it was drawn in 2011.
Battaglia, a former Court of Appeals judge, called the legal challenges a 鈥渃ase of first impression鈥� during the trial last week and said congressional maps hadn鈥檛 previously been challenged in state courts.
The congressional map adopted by lawmakers during a December special session was drawn up by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission, a panel convened by Jones and Ferguson. Jones and Ferguson were both members of that panel, alongside two other Democratic legislative leaders and two Republican legislative leaders. The Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission was chaired by Karl Aro, a former head of the nonpartisan Department of Legislative Services.
A map drawn up by the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, a panel convened by Hogan, didn鈥檛 advance out of committee during the December special session 鈥� although Republican lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to resurrect the map via amendments. That panel included three Republicans, three Democrats and three unaffiliated voters.
Hogan vetoed the congressional redistricting plan enacted by lawmakers in December, but Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in both the House of Delegates and the state Senate and overrode his veto.
Hogan has appointed five of the top court鈥檚 current judges, including his former chief legislative officer, Chief Judge Joseph M. Getty. The Court of Appeals recently pushed Maryland鈥檚 2022 primary back from June 28 to July 19.
Bruce DePuyt and Josh Kurtz contributed to this report.
