ShareThis Page
Political Headlines

Federal judges throw out Maryland's congressional voting map

| Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2018, 4:42 p.m.
A view of the Maryland State House in Annapolis, Md. MUST CREDIT: Washington Post photo by Michael Robinson Chavez.
Michael Robinson Chavez
A view of the Maryland State House in Annapolis, Md. MUST CREDIT: Washington Post photo by Michael Robinson Chavez.

Federal judges in Maryland on Wednesday blocked the state from using its congressional voting map in future elections, ordering political leaders to draw new electoral lines for contests in 2020.

The three-judge panel unanimously threw out the congressional map in a long-running partisan gerrymandering case. The decision gives Maryland officials until March to submit a new redistricting plan.

The judges acknowledged the inherently political redistricting process, but declared the boundaries unconstitutional and intentionally designed to target Republican voters in the 6th congressional district because of their political affiliation.

“When political considerations are taken into account to an extreme, the public perceives an abuse of the democratic process,” wrote Judge Paul Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, who was joined by U.S. District Judge George Russell.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Bredar wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the overall judgment and declaring partisan gerrymandering “is noxious, a cancer on our democracy.”

If the state is unable to meet the deadline for creating a new map, the court’s order establishes a commission that will create a map of its own.

The ruling can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which in June avoided answering the question of when extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional in the Maryland case and in another map case from Wisconsin.

The office of Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D), which defended the map, said Wednesday it is reviewing its options. Legislative leaders declined to immediately comment on the court’s order.

Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who won re-election on Tuesday, called the decision “a victory for the vast majority of Marylanders who want free and fair elections.”

“We remain steadfastly committed to moving forward in an open and transparent manner that is free of the partisan influence that has dominated the redistricting process in Maryland for far too long,” said Hogan, who has pushed for a constitutional amendment that would have an independent redistricting commission redraw boundaries.

At the core of the issue is the 6th District in Western Maryland, which was redrawn in 2011 to include parts of heavily Democratic Montgomery County. Democratic mapmakers moved hundreds of thousands of voters from Western Maryland out of the 6th District and added Democrats from Montgomery.

The lawsuit was brought by seven Republican voters who lived in the 6th District prior to the redrawing of the boundaries.

In its ruling Wednesday, the three-judge panel declared the district unconstitutional and found the state intended to lessen the influence of GOP voters by replacing them with Democrats in violation of the First Amendment right to political association.

“The massive and unnecessary reshuffling of the Sixth District, involving one-half of its population and dictated by party affiliation and voting history, had no other cause than the intended actions of the controlling Democratic officials to burden Republican voters by converting the District into a Democratic district,” Niemeyer wrote in 59-page opinion.

The court ruling came one day after Democrat David Trone defeated Republican Amie Hoeber by a wide margin in what was considered the most competitive of Maryland’s House contests.

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, has been blunt about the partisan mapmaking in a deposition in the case, saying Democratic leaders intentionally redrew the districts to try to give their party an advantage.

“Yesterday’s results confirm what we’ve been saying all along. The 6th District isn’t really competitive for Republicans,” said attorney Michael B. Kimberly, who represents a group of Maryland Republicans.

The ruling rejected the argument from the attorney general’s office that Democratic leaders intended only to make the 6th District more competitive.

“It is impossible to flip a seat to the Democrats without flipping it away from the Republicans,” Niemeyer wrote.

“There can be no doubt that at every stage of the process, the State’s Democratic officials who put the 2011 redistricting plan in place specifically intended to flip control of the Sixth District from Republicans to Democrats and then acted on that intent.”

The ruling applies to the entire Maryland congressional map as drawn in 2011, but the challengers have proposed a modification at the border between the 6th and 8th Districts that could address the court’s concerns without affecting the shape of the other districts.

Before the ruling Wednesday, Senate President Thomas Mike Miller (D) cast doubt on the possibility of an independent commission without sign on from other states - Virginia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina - to ensure Maryland Democrats are not at a political disadvantage in Washington.

“To put that in play without all of those states having to abide by the same rules is not going to happen, Miller said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me