In re 2022 Legislative Districting of the State
| Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Citation | 481 Md. 507,282 A.3d 147 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the 2022 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING OF the STATE |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
481 Md. 507
282 A.3d 147
In the MATTER OF the 2022 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING OF the STATE
No. 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, Sept. Term, 2021
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
August 31, 2022
Submitted by David Whitney, pro se (Annapolis, MD), for Petitioner in Misc. No. 24, Sept. Term, 2021
Submitted by Steven M. Sullivan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert A. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for Respondent in Misc. No. 24, Sept. Term, 2021
Argued by Strider L. Dickson (Brenton H.J. Conrad, McAllister, DeTar, Showalter & Walker LLC, Annapolis, MD), for Petitioners in Misc. No. 25, Sept. Term, 2021
Argued by Ann M. Sheridan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Steven M. Sullivan, Sol. Gen., Robert A. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for Respondent in Misc. No. 25, Sept. Term, 2021
Amici Curiae Bipartisan Former Governors: Marina Eisner, Esquire, Christine P. Sun, Esquire, States United Democracy Center, 1101 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Jonathan L. Williams, Esquire, Jonathan L. Williams, P.A., 113 South Monroe Street, First Floor, Tallahassee, FL 32301
Argued by David K. Bowersox (Hoffman, Comfort, Offutt, Scott & Halstad, LLP, Westminster, MD), for Petitioners in Misc. No. 26, Sept. Term, 2021
Argued by Ann M. Sheridan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Steven M. Sullivan, Sol. Gen., Robert A. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for Respondent in Misc. No. 26, Sept. Term, 2021
Argued by Seth E. Wilson, pro se (Hagerstown, MD), for Petitioners in Misc. No. 27, Sept. Term, 2021
Argued by Ann M. Sheridan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Steven M. Sullivan, Sol. Gen., Robert A. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for Respondent in Misc. No. 27, Sept. Term, 2021
Submitted to and Argued before:* Getty, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
McDonald, J.
The Maryland Constitution requires that the boundaries of the State's legislative districts be adjusted after each decennial national census. Those adjustments are necessary to ensure that each district remains reasonably equal in population following any population shifts that have occurred in the State since the previous census. Any changes to the legislative districts to account for population shifts must be made with an eye on other State and federal Constitutional requirements concerning districting.
The Maryland Constitution assigns the decisions on how to re-draw district lines to the political branches of State government - the Governor and the General Assembly. Inevitably, there are disputes about the best way to re-draw the district maps and - more importantly for our purposes - about whether the new districts comply with the constitutional criteria. And so, every 10 years, one or more challenges are asserted to the latest legislative districting plan. It falls to this Court, as directed by the State Constitution, to consider those challenges, to decide whether burdens have been satisfied and challenges have merit and, if the challenges are found to have merit, to determine the appropriate relief.
The Bottom Line
This case concerns the most recent districting plan adopted by the General Assembly. On the tightest timeline in the modern history of redistricting, the General Assembly adopted a new plan for State legislative districts earlier this year. The validity of that plan was promptly challenged by four separate petitions. Consistent with past practice, the Court enlisted the assistance of a special magistrate to conduct a hearing and provide findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the issues raised by the challengers. At the conclusion of that process, the special magistrate recommended that the challenges be rejected.
The challengers filed exceptions to the special magistrate's recommendation. On April 13, 2022, the Court heard oral arguments on those exceptions and, later that day, denied the petitions by order with an opinion to follow. This is that opinion.
The Roadmap
This Court's opinions analyzing prior challenges to Maryland redistricting plans occupy 358 pages of the Maryland Reports. We are about to add to that number. To aid the reader in navigating this opinion, we offer this roadmap (For those readers who rely on GPS devices for navigation and do not know what a roadmap is, these are the turn-by-turn directions).
Part I of this opinion (pp. 520-37, 282 A.3d at 154-64) describes the constitutional provisions governing redistricting and in particular the criteria for redistricting plans as construed in this Court's prior decisions. Part II of this opinion (pp. 537-54, 282 A.3d at 164-75) provides an overview of the redistricting process in the current cycle, beginning with the release of 2020 census data, the actions taken by the Governor and General Assembly in the adoption of a redistricting plan, the petitions challenging that plan, and the proceedings in this Court to resolve those challenges. Part III of this opinion (pp. 554-57, 282 A.3d at 175-76) outlines the role of the Court in assessing
challenges to a redistricting plan and the burdens of proof that apply. Part IV of this opinion (pp. 558-604, 282 A.3d at 177-205) discusses in detail the proceedings and evidence relating to the petition filed in Miscellaneous No. 25, the primary challenge to the redistricting plan. Part V (pp. 604-09, 282 A.3d at 205-08) and Part VI (pp. 609-14, 282 A.3d at 208-11) of this opinion do the same for the petitions filed in Miscellaneous No. 26 and Miscellaneous No. 27, respectively. Part VII of this opinion (pp. 614-15, 282 A.3d at 211-12) briefly summarizes the disposition of the petitions challenging the redistricting plan. Appendices attached to this opinion include the Court's April 13, 2022 order and maps displaying State legislative districts under the redistricting plan and under the previous redistricting plan approved 10 years ago.
Dissenting opinions have been filed by former Chief Judge Getty and Judge Gould (both joined by Judge Biran). For ease of reference, we will refer to Chief Judge Getty's opinion, the primary dissent, as "Dissent" and Judge Gould's opinion, which focuses on specific issues, as "Dissent (Gould, J.)."
I
Districting the General Assembly
A. Historical and Constitutional Context
A brief history of State legislative redistricting in Maryland establishes the historical and constitutional context for this case.
1. Historical Context
As of the early 1960s, the Maryland Constitution assigned specific numbers of legislators to each county and Baltimore City, but did not set forth any general criteria for the design of legislative districts.1 In 1964, the Supreme Court held that the existing apportionment of the Maryland Senate violated the one-person, one-vote principle derived from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595 (1964).
During 1967 and 1968, a State constitutional convention was held to devise a new Maryland Constitution. Among other things, the new constitution proposed by that convention
would have remedied the constitutional defect in the apportionment of the General Assembly. The proposed constitution was ultimately rejected by the voters, but several elements of it were adopted in 1970 and 1972 as amendments to the existing 1867 Maryland Constitution. See Dan Friedman, The Maryland State Constitution: A Reference Guide (2006) at 9-10. Among those amendments were provisions, specific to State legislative redistricting, responsive to the Supreme Court decision in Tawes. See Chapter 785, Laws of Maryland 1969, ratified November 3, 1970; Chapter 363, Laws of Maryland 1972, ratified November 7, 1972. Those provisions currently appear in Article III, § 2 through § 5 of the Maryland Constitution.
2. State Constitutional Standards and Process
The Legislative Department
Article III of the Maryland Constitution pertains to the Legislative Branch - or, as the article is entitled, the "Legislative Department" - of State government.2 The first seven sections of that Article concern the make-up of the General Assembly. Section 1 specifies that the General Assembly is a bicameral legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Delegates. Section 2 provides that the Senate shall have 47 members and the House of Delegates shall have 141 members. Under § 3, there are to be 47 legislative districts, each containing one senator and three delegates, with the proviso that, instead of representing the district at large, the three delegates may be apportioned among three single-member subdistricts or two districts (one with one delegate; the other with two delegates).3
Districting Criteria
Most pertinent to this case, § 4 sets forth the criteria for determining the districts that the State senators and delegates represent:
Each legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population. Due regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.
Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 4.
The Process
Finally, § 5 sets forth a process for creating legislative districts after each decennial census and provides for judicial review if there are challenges to the plan that result from that process.
Section 5 provides that the Governor is to take the first step by holding public hearings and preparing a plan that sets forth the boundaries of the legislative districts in conformity with the other provisions of Article III described above. The Governor is to submit that plan to the General Assembly by the beginning of the legislative session in the second year following the census and may call a special session to present the plan.
The General Assembly may, by joint resolution...
To continue reading
Request your trial