This content was republished with permission from WTOP鈥檚 news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for today.
Opponents of Maryland鈥檚 legislative redistricting plan filed challenges on Friday to a high court adviser鈥檚 recommendation to keep the boundaries drawn by the General Assembly.
Special Magistrate Alan M. Wilner, a former Court of Appeals Judge, said in a Monday聽聽that the legislative maps聽. Four petitions were filed objecting to that map, which was enacted by lawmakers in January.
All of the petitions argue that the legislative map violates the Maryland Constitution鈥檚 requirement that legislative districts be compact and respect natural and political boundaries.
Fair Maps Maryland, an anti-gerrymandering group with ties to Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R), announced a challenge to Wilner鈥檚 report Friday. The group is supporting a petition brought by Delegates Mark N. Fisher (R-Calvert), Nicholaus R. Kipke (R-Anne Arundel) and Kathy Szeliga (R-Baltimore County), who contend that several districts 鈥� 12, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 33 and 47 鈥� violate the state constitution鈥檚 compactness requirements.
Wilner concluded that the Court of Appeals should reject those claims, writing that compactness is an 鈥渋mportant element鈥� but not the only factor when drawing up maps.
In a Friday聽, Strider Dickson, an attorney for the three Republican delegates, said Wilner had erred in his report. Dickson said the petitioners had presented 鈥渃ompelling evidence鈥� that the districts aren鈥檛 compact.
Dickson also wrote that the report 鈥渨holly ignored鈥� the challenges to District 27鈥檚 cross over the Patuxent River in an area without a bridge. And Dickson also said that Wilner erred in finding that legislative privilege prevented plaintiffs from conducting discovery as to why the districts were drawn they way they are.
The petitioners want the Court of Appeals to sustain their exceptions to Wilner鈥檚 report, find that the challenged districts violate the state constitution and that legislative privilege doesn鈥檛 bar them from conducting discovery on the drawing of the districts.
罢丑别听聽enacted by lawmakers earlier this year largely mirrors previous districts and could shore up several potentially vulnerable Democratic lawmakers.
Fair Maps Maryland spokesperson Doug Mayer, a former communications strategist for Hogan, contended in a release that the districts were drawn for partisan gain.
鈥淭his map was created with one single purpose in mind 鈥� to protect incumbents and the veto-proof majority by any means necessary, including blatant voter suppression and the violation of Marylanders鈥� civil rights,鈥� Mayer said. 鈥淛udge Wilner wasn鈥檛 interested in righting these obvious wrongs but fortunately for Marylanders, he doesn鈥檛 have the final say on the matter. The Maryland Court of Appeals does, and we eagerly anticipate their ruling.鈥�
On Wednesday, the court is expected to hear arguments in the case. The state鈥檚 deadline to respond to the challengers is Monday at 4:30 p.m.
Other challengers push back
Also on Friday, Dels. Brenda J. Thiam (R-Washington) and Wayne A. Hartman (R-Wicomico) and Hampstead resident Patricia Shoemaker (the wife of House Minority Whip Haven Shoemaker)聽聽Wilner鈥檚 recommended denial of their petition. Their petition contends that the use of both single- and multi-member delegate districts, though part of the Maryland Constitution, conflicts with other constitutional provisions.
David K. Bowersox, their attorney, argued during a March trial that Maryland鈥檚 use of both single- and multi-member districts conflicts with the Maryland Declaration of Rights鈥� guarantee that elections be 鈥渇ree鈥� and offer equal protection under law.
鈥淭his is not equal,鈥� Bowersox said. 鈥淭hree to one isn鈥檛 even close.鈥�
Wilner noted in his report that the petitioners raised questions about voting equality, and said the issue is 鈥渁 fair one that deserves attention,鈥� but wrote that the issue should be left for the next redistricting cycle.
鈥淭he problem is one of time,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淭o strike down a provision of the Maryland Constitution 鈥� that has been an integral part of our redistricting law for 50 years, with a general election on our doorstep and a legislative session about to end, can create as much mischief as it resolves. The entire legislative redistricting plan would need to be reviewed and much of it rewritten.鈥�
In response to Wilner鈥檚 report, Bowersox wrote that the petitioners 鈥渆mphatically disagree鈥� that time is a problem, and warned against delaying the issue until the next redistricting cycle.
鈥淧etitioners do not agree that preparing a new redistricting plan will be the herculean task which the report fears,鈥� Bowersox wrote. 鈥淪ome effort will no doubt be involved.鈥�
Bowersox added that the petitioners agree with Wilner鈥檚 assertion that 鈥渢he issue has been raised, and it is a fair one that deserves attention鈥� as to the issue of single- and multi-member districts. However, Bowersox also said the petitioners only want the map enacted by lawmakers tossed out and didn鈥檛 specifically request a constitutional change as relief.
Washington County Republican Central Committee President Seth Wilson, who filed a petition arguing that District 2鈥檚 cross from Western Maryland into Frederick County violates the state constitution, also filed an聽聽to Wilner鈥檚 report. Wilson argued at a hearing that District 2 disregards county lines 鈥渇or no good reason,鈥� although Assistant Attorney General Andrea Trento argued that, with Western Maryland counties losing population, an eastward shift in Districts 1 and 2 was necessary.
In his report, Wilner wrote that there is no legal barrier to crossing county boundaries, particularly when its needed to ensure districts of roughly equal population.
The challenges to the case are being closely watched in Annapolis, with Wednesday鈥檚 hearing scheduled just two days before an聽聽next Friday.
