Fair Maps Maryland Announces Challenges to Maryland Court of Appeals
Fair Maps Maryland today announced challenges to the recent report from Special Master Alan Wilner in the Maryland Court of Appeals legislative redistricting case. These exceptions to Wilner’s report re-establish strong claims of extreme partisan gerrymandering and once again prove that the legislative map is unconstitutional and has been for decades.
“Maryland’s legislative districts are unconstitutional, they have been for decades, and these challenges once again prove that fact,” said Fair Maps Maryland spokesman Doug Mayer. “The majority of these districts look like something from an abstract art collection, not things that represent actual communities and neighborhoods. No doubt that Jackson Pollock would be proud.
“This map was created with one single purpose in mind—to protect incumbents and the veto-proof majority by any means necessary, including blatant voter suppression and the violation of Marylanders’ civil rights. Judge Wilner wasn’t interested in righting these obvious wrongs but fortunately for Marylanders, he doesn’t have the final say on the matter. The Maryland Court of Appeals does, and we eagerly anticipate their ruling.”
Read Exceptions to the Report of the Special Magistrate
The petitioners filing the challenge submitted the following exceptions to the report:
1. The Report erroneously recommends denying Petitioners challenges under Article III, § 4 of Maryland’s Constitution to Districts 12, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, and 47. Petitioners presented compelling evidence that these districts are not compact and that partisan political considerations led to District 33’s final shape, and Respondent failed to present sufficient evidence rebutting these claims. The Report largely ignored Petitioners’ evidence, misapplied the burden of proof, and reached a conclusion contrary to governing legal principles.
2. The Report wholly ignored Petitioners’ challenges to District 27. Petitioners presented compelling evidence that District 27 violates Article III, § 4’s requirements that legislative districts consist of adjoining territory and give due regard for natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions. Respondent failed to present sufficient evidence rebutting these challenges.
Petitioners also respectfully submit the following exception to a discovery order issued by the Special Magistrate:
3. The Special Magistrate erred when he ruled that the doctrine of legislative privilege barred Petitioners from conducting discovery regarding why the challenged districts were drawn as they were.
Petitioners respectfully request that the Court: (1) sustain Petitioners’ exceptions; (2) find that Districts 12, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 33, and 47 fail to meet the requirements of Article III, § 4 of Maryland’s Constitution; and (3) find that the doctrine of legislative privilege does not bar Petitioners from conducting discovery regarding why the challenged districts were drawn as they were.
