This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
This content was republished with permission from WTOP鈥檚 news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for聽听迟辞诲补测.
An advisor to the Court of Appeals recommended Monday that the state鈥檚 high court reject all four cases challenging Maryland鈥檚 new legislative map.
All four petitions contended that the maps passed by the General Assembly earlier this year violate the Maryland Constitution鈥檚 requirement that legislative districts be compact and respect natural and political boundaries.
Special Magistrate Alan M. Wilner, a former Court of Appeals judge, said in a Monday report that the legislative map should stand. His report will serve as a recommendation to the Court of Appeals, which has original jurisdiction over challenges to state legislative maps.
The court is expected to hold a hearing on the report next Wednesday.
Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) and House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D-Baltimore County) said they were 鈥渘ot surprised鈥� by Wilner鈥檚 findings in a joint statement Monday.
The legislative leaders said they 鈥渃losely followed the legal standards that have been developed by the State鈥檚 highest court over last three redistricting cycles.鈥�
鈥淎lthough we are pleased with these findings and recommendations, we recognize that the Court of Appeals must still weigh in on the report,鈥� Jones and Ferguson said.
The leaders said they 鈥渓ook forward to getting on with the 2022 election with certainty and with a fair and legal State legislative map that accurately reflects Maryland鈥檚 diverse population.鈥�
Fair Maps Maryland, an anti-gerrymandering group with ties to Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R), criticized Wilner鈥檚 recommendations in a Monday statement.
鈥淯ltimately, Judge Wilner鈥檚 report represents the opinion of one person and we strongly disagree with his conclusions,鈥� the Fair Maps Maryland statement reads.
The boundaries passed by the Democratic majority in the General Assembly in January largely mirror the state鈥檚 previous legislative map and shore up several potentially vulnerable Democrats for reelection.
One of the challenges to the map was brought by Delegates Mark N. Fisher (R-Calvert), Nicholaus R. Kipke (R-Anne Arundel) and Kathy Szeliga (R-Baltimore County). The three lawmakers contended that their own districts and several others violated the state constitutional requirements.
Strider Dickson, an attorney for three delegates, contended at a March hearing before Wilner that Districts 12, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 33 and 47 violate the constitution by either being non-compact or not respecting natural or political boundaries.
In recommending that the Court of Appeals reject the Republican lawmakers鈥� petition, Wilner said compactness is 鈥渁n important element,鈥� but not the only factor when it comes to mapmaking. He wrote that compactness has historically been regarded as being subject to other considerations, including contiguity, the Federal Voting Rights Act, having districts with roughly equal populations, and keeping residents in the same districts over time.
鈥淎 comparison of the current plan with the one it replaces shows that an attempt was made to keep voters in their current districts, with which they are familiar, and to avoid crossing political or natural boundary lines except when required to achieve or maintain population equality,鈥� Wilner wrote. 鈥淪uggestions in the petitions that political considerations played a role were all on 鈥榠nformation and belief鈥� and were not supported by any compelling evidence.鈥�
Another petition contended that use of both single- and multi-member delegate districts, a measure enshrined in the Maryland Constitution, conflicts with other constitutional provisions. David K. Bowersox, an attorney in the petition brought by Dels. Brenda J. Thiam (R-Washington) and Wayne A. Hartman (R-Wicomico) and Republican voter and Hampstead resident Patricia Shoemaker (the wife of House Minority Whip Haven Shoemaker) argued during the 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.
Bowersox asserted that Marylanders aren鈥檛 given an equal vote since they vote for one, two or three delegates depending on the district they live in.
鈥淭his is not equal,鈥� Bowersox said. 鈥淭hree to one isn鈥檛 even close.鈥�
Wilner noted 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�
He said the use of both single- and multi-member delegate districts 鈥渉as been a fixture in Maryland, however, and can serve a useful purpose of giving minority groups a better opportunity to elect one of their own.鈥�
鈥淭o abolish them would be to declare part of the Maryland Constitution unconstitutional. That has been done before, and that is what it would take to abolish multi-member districts, as requested by petitioners,鈥� Wilner wrote.
Wilner also wrote that the Court of Appeals should deny a petition from Washington County Republican Central Committee President Seth Wilson, who argued at a hearing last month that District 2, which now crosses from Western Maryland into Frederick County, disregards county lines for 鈥渘o good reason.鈥� Assistant Attorney General Andrea Trento argued that, with Western Maryland counties losing population, an eastward shift in Districts 1 and 2 was necessary.
鈥淭here is no legal impediment to including multi-member districts, even when the district or part of it includes residents of another county, at least when that becomes necessary to assure population equality,鈥� Wilner wrote.
Wilner also recommended the high court deny a petition from Anne Arundel County resident David Whitney, whose original petition appeared to take issue with the state鈥檚 congressional map. Wilner noted that Whitney submitted a revised petition after the Feb. 10 deadline.
The fate of the four petitions will ultimately be up to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Five of the court鈥檚 current judges were appointed by Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R), including Chief Judge Joseph M. Getty, Hogan鈥檚 former chief legislative liaison.
Wilner鈥檚 report was released just hours after the governor and legislative leaders announced a resolution to the fraught congressional redistricting process in which a judge threw out the original map created by the Maryland General Assembly.
The challenge to Maryland鈥檚 congressional map in state court was a 鈥渃ase of first impression,鈥� Senior Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, a former Court of Appeals judge who presided over the challenges to Maryland鈥檚 congressional map in the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, said during the trial. Constitutional provisions for compactness and due regard for political and natural boundaries have long been applied to state legislative districts, and Battaglia found that those criteria also apply to congressional districts.
Fair Maps Maryland said the legislative map and the congressional map 鈥� now completely replaced 鈥斺�漺ere produced by the same toxic, closed-door process and it defies common sense that one is substantially different than the other.鈥�
