Legislative Districting of State, Matter of

• Citation: 299 Md. 658,475 A.2d 428
• Decision Date: 01 September 1982
• Docket Number: Nos. 2-11,s. 2-11
• Parties: In the Matter of the LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING OF the STATE. Misc.,
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 658

299 Md. 658

475 A.2d 428

In the Matter of the LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTING OF the STATE.

Misc. Nos. 2-11, Sept. Term, 1982.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 4, 1982.

Opinion May 29, 1984.

C. Lawrence Wiser, petitioner, Kensington, in pro. per

Stanley D. Abrams, Chevy Chase, for Bruce A. Goldensohn and amicus curiae, City of Gaithersburg.

Roger W. Titus, Sp. Counsel, Rockville, for amicus curiae, Mayor and Council of Rockville.

W. Shepherdson Abell and Marianne K. Renjilian, Chevy Chase, for amicus curiae, Montgomery County Legislative Delegation.

Read K. McCaffrey, Baltimore, for Carville L. Collins et al., petitioners.

Robert B. Ostrom, County Atty., Upper Marlboro, for amicus curiae, Prince George's County.

Richard L. Andrews, petitioner, Baltimore, in pro. per.

Charles K. Graham, petitioner, Baltimore, in pro. per.

M. Albert Figinski, Baltimore, for amicus curiae, Gerald J. Curran.

Frank G. Lidinsky, Baltimore, for Joseph T. Landers, III, et al., petitioners.

Thomas W. Chamberlain and Michael H. Weir, Baltimore, for amici curiae, themselves.

Linda H. Lamone, Diana G. Motz, Mary N. Humphries, James L. Shea and Robert A. Zarnoch, Asst. Attys. Gen., Baltimore, for the State.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

WHEREAS, petitions were filed by various registered voters of the State with this Court as authorized by Section 5 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland challenging the constitutionality of the 1982 Legislative Districting Plan which was approved and became law on February 26, 1982; and

WHEREAS, this Court appointed a Special Master to schedule hearings and to submit his findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Court; and

WHEREAS, this Court has considered the findings and conclusions of the Special Master, the exceptions filed thereto and the oral arguments of the parties and amici curiae presented in support of their respective positions; now, therefore, it is this 4th day of June, 1982

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that for reasons to be set forth in an opinion later to be filed, the petitions challenging the 1982 Legislative Districting Plan (House Joint Resolution No. 32) having failed to establish any violations of the federal constitution or the Constitution of Maryland, the exceptions to the Special Master's report taken by the State be, and they are hereby, sustained and all other exceptions are hereby overruled, and the legislative districts of the State shall be as established in and by House Joint Resolution No. 32; and it is further

ORDERED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland, the provisions MURPHY, Chief Judge.

of Section 9 of Article III of the Constitution shall govern the age, citizenship and residency requirements for election of Senators[475 A.2d 432] and Delegates to the General Assembly of Maryland except that for the primary and general elections of 1982, only, any person seeking election as a Senator or Delegate must have resided in the district which he or she seeks to represent not later than July 6, 1982.

This case involves a number of challenges to the constitutionality of Maryland's Legislative Districting and Apportionment Plan (the Plan), as enacted by House Joint Resolution No. 32 (H.J.R. 32) at the 1982 session of the General Assembly.

I

Under the Constitution of Maryland, Article III, § 5, the Governor is required, after each federal decennial census, and after public hearings, to prepare a Plan setting forth the boundaries of the legislative districts for electing members of the Senate and House of Delegates. The Plan is required to conform to the dictates of §§ 2, 3 and 4 of Art. III of the Maryland Constitution, which respectively provide:

Section 2: "The membership of the Senate shall consist of forty-seven (47) Senators. The membership of the House of Delegates shall consist of one hundred forty-one (141) Delegates."

Section 3: "The State shall be divided by law into legislative districts for the election of members of the Senate and House of Delegates. Each legislative district shall contain one (1) Senator and three (3) Delegates. Nothing herein shall prohibit the subdivision of any one or more of the legislative districts for the purpose of electing members of the House of Delegates into three (3) single-member delegate districts or one (1) single-member delegate district and one (1) multimember delegate district."

Section 4: "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."

The Plan is also required to comply with federal constitutional constraints imposed by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), ¹ and with the fifteenth amendment, see Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960). ²

Following completion of the 1980 federal census, Governor Harry Hughes, on April 13, 1981, appointed a five-member Advisory Committee on Reapportionment and Redistricting to assist him in developing a new legislative districting and apportionment plan. ³ The Committee conducted numerous public hearings throughout the State and submitted its recommendations to the Governor on December 8, 1981. Two public hearings were held by the Governor later that month to permit comment on the recommended plan. The Governor thereafter made several changes in the Committee's proposal, and submitted the Plan to the General Assembly on January 13, 1982; it was introduced as H.J.R. 32 and after legislative hearings were conducted, the resolution was approved by the General Assembly and became Under the provisions of Art. III, § 5 of the State Constitution, the Court of Appeals of Maryland is vested with original jurisdiction, upon petition filed by any registered voter, "to review the legislative districting of the State and [to] grant appropriate relief, if it finds that the districting of the State is not consistent with requirements of either the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Constitution of Maryland." A petition challenging H.J.R. 32 was filed on March 2, 1982, by Montgomery County registered voter and former State Senator, C. Lawrence Wiser, thereby invoking our original jurisdiction. Recognizing the likelihood of additional challenges, and the need for a Special Master to conduct hearings and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Court, we designated the Honorable W. Albert Menchine, a retired Associate Judge of the Court of Special Appeals, to act in that capacity. By order dated March 5, 1982, we directed that any registered voter who claimed that the 1982 Legislative Districting Plan, or any part thereof, was invalid should "intervene in these proceedings by petition filed ... [by] March 31, 1982 setting forth his objection to said plan and containing the particular part or parts of the plan claimed to be unconstitutional and the factual and legal basis for such claims, and the particular relief sought, including any alternative district configuration suggested or requested by the petitioner."

law on February 26, [475 A.2d 433] 1982 pursuant to Art. III, § 5 of the Maryland Constitution. ⁴

Ten petitions in all were filed in opposition to H.J.R. 32. The Wiser petition, Misc. No. 2, was consolidated with Misc. No. 5, which was brought by Bruce Goldensohn, Mayor of Gaithersburg, since both petitions challenged the districting of Montgomery County, i.e., Districts 14-20, inclusive. It was alleged that several of these districts violated the state constitutional requirement of compactness (District 17 being designated as the chief offender). Other principal claims were that H.J.R. 32, as it divided Montgomery County Miscellaneous No. 3, brought by Carville L. Collins, et al., challenged H.J.R. 32 because of the way in which Howard County was divided. The principal charges were that the Plan (1) violated the requirement of due regard for natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions by dividing Columbia, a large unincorporated residential-business area of the county in half and by crossing county lines with House of Delegates Subdistricts 4B, 13B and 14B, and (2) that the voting strength of blacks in western Columbia was invidiously diluted, in violation of the equal protection clause.

                (1) disregarded "communities of interest," in violation of the state constitutional requirement of due regard for natural boundaries and political subdivisions;  (2) that it violated the equal protection clause by improperly protecting incumbent candidates, all of whom lived in the southern portion of Montgomery County;  and (3) that it violated the equal protection clause by diluting the voting strength of residents of the incorporated municipalities of Gaithersburg and Rockville by including both cities in District 17. 5  Both petitions provided alternative districting configurations
                

Miscellaneous No. 4, brought by Richard L. Andrews, was consolidated with two other challenges involving the districting of Baltimore City, Misc. No. 8, filed by Vernon L. Morris, et al., and Misc. No. 9, by Joseph T. Landers, III, et al. Taken together, these petitions alleged (1) that Districts 42 and 44 were unconstitutionally noncompact; (2) that the use of three-member at-large delegate districts invidiously diluted the voting strength of blacks, in violation of the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions; (3) that district lines were intentionally drawn to divide Republicans among several districts, diluting their voting strength in violation of the equal protection clause; Miscellaneous No. 6, brought by William Rush, related...