Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND GREENBELT DIVISION

)

MS. PATRICIA FLETCHER

)

1531 Belle Haven Drive

)

Landover, MD 20785

)

Prince George’s County,

)

)

)

MR. TREVELYN OTTS

)

157 Fleet Street

)

Oxon Hill, MD 20745

)

Prince George’s County

)

)

)

MR. DONALD M. GLOVER

)

1142 N. Carrollton Avenue

)

Baltimore, MD 21217

)

Baltimore City,

)

)

MS. JANIS HAGEY

)

14005 Gullivers Trail

)

Bowie, MD 20720

)

Prince George’s County,

)

)

MS. WINNIE MAE CAMPBELL

)

3508 Ellen Road

)

Baltimore, MD 21244

)

Baltimore County,

)

)

MR. MICHAEL HARRIS

)

3709 Southgate Court

)

Temple Hills, MD 20748

)

Prince George’s County,

)

)

MR. MICHAEL THOMPSON

)

2715 University Boulevard

)

Wheaton, MD 20902

)

Montgomery County,

)

)

MS. JULIA L. WILLIAMS

)

13910 Amberfield Terrace

)

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

)

Prince George's County,

)

Civ. Action No.: _______________

1

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 18

MS. ROBINA SPRUILL

)

11502 Hornbeam Court

)

Waldorf, MD 20601

)

Charles County,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

LINDA H. LAMONE in her official

)

capacity as State Administrator of

)

Elections for the state of Maryland

)

And Robert L. WALKER in his

)

official capacity as Chairman of

)

the State Board of Elections,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are individual registered voters that seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce Article One Section Two of the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. 2. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the newly enacted Maryland congressional redistricting plan (“Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan”) violates their civil rights because the plan intentionally discriminates against racial minorities in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of African Americans in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; malapportions districts by violating Article One Section Two of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment; and by constituting a political gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 18
3. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction prohibiting the calling, holding, supervising or certifying of any future congressional elections under the challenged redistricting plans. Plaintiffs seek the creation of congressional redistricting plans that will not cancel out, minimize or dilute the voting strength of African American voters in Maryland.
4. Plaintiffs further seek costs and attorneys’ fees. II. JURISDICTION
5. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343a (3) & (4) and upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for causes of action arising from 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 and 1973c. Additionally, a three-judge court has jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2284 because this claim relates to constitutional claims involving statewide redistricting. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' claims under Article One Section Two, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is based upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' claim for attorney’s fees is based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973L(e) and 1988. Venue is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). III. PLAINTIFFS
6. Plaintiff Ms. Patricia Fletcher is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. She resides in Landover, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan she resides in the Fourth Congressional District.
7. Plaintiff Mr. Trevelyn Otts is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. He resides in Oxon Hill, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan he resides in the Fourth Congressional District.
3

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 4 of 18
8. Plaintiff Mr. Donald M. Glover is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. He resides in Baltimore, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan he resides in the Seventh Congressional District.
9. Plaintiff Ms. Janis Hagey is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. She resides in Bowie, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan, she resides in the Fifth Congressional District.
10. Plaintiff Ms. Winnie Mae Campbell is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. She resides in Baltimore County, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan she resides in the Second Congressional District.
11. Plaintiff Mr. Michael Harris is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. He resides in Temple Hills, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan, he resides in the Fourth Congressional District.
12. Plaintiff Mr. Michael Thompson is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. He resides in Wheaton, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan, he resides in the Eighth Congressional District.
13. Plaintiff Ms. Julia L. Williams is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. She resides in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan, she resides in the Fourth Congressional District.
14. Plaintiff Ms. Robina Spruill is African American and a registered voter of Maryland. She resides in Waldorf, Maryland. In the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan, she resides in the Fifth Congressional District.
15. All Plaintiffs are injured by the malapportionment of the Congressional Districts.
4

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 5 of 18
16. All Plaintiffs are injured as a result of the intentional discrimination contained in the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan.
17. All Plaintiffs are injured as a result of the violations of Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution for apportionment of Congressional Districts.
18. All Plaintiffs are injured as a result of the political gerrymander inherent in the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan. IV. DEFENDANTS
19. Defendant Linda Lamone is sued in her official capacity as Election Administrator for the State of Maryland. Defendant Lamone is the State’s elections officer and as such is responsible for overseeing the conduct of elections within the State.
20. Defendant Robert L. Walker is sued in his official capacity as Chairman of the Maryland State Board of Elections. V. FACTS
21. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Maryland is 5,773,552 with an African American population of 1,783,899 (30.9%). The African American voting age population of Maryland is 29.3% of the total voting age population.
22. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African American population of Maryland grew 17.0% between 2000 (1,525,036) and 2010 (1,783,899).
23. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the non-Hispanic white population of Maryland declined 3.91% between 2000 (3,286,547) and 2010 (3,157,958).
24. The Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan was signed into law by Governor Martin O’Malley on October 20, 2011.
5

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 6 of 18

25. The Maryland congressional redistricting process began when Governor O’Malley

appointed a commission called the Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Committee

(“GRAC”) to hold public hearings, review plans submitted by public officials and

members of the public, and propose a recommended redistricting plan for the state’s eight

congressional districts for the Governor’s review.

26. GRAC was comprised of five members appointed by Governor O’Malley. They are

Maryland Secretary of Appointments Jeanne D. Hitchcock (Chair of GRAC), Maryland

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., Maryland Speaker of the House Michael E.

Busch, Maryland Representative James King, and President and Chief Executive Officer

of Montgomery Mechanical Services Incorporated Richard Stewart.

27. GRAC held twelve public hearings according to the following schedule:

Hancock, MD

July 23, 2011

Frederick, MD

July 23, 2011

Largo, MD

July 25, 2011

Rockville, MD

August 10, 2011

Baltimore, MD

August 12, 2011

La Plata, MD

August 24, 2011

Annapolis, MD

August 30, 2011

Columbia, MD

August 30, 2011

Salisbury, MD

September 10, 2011

Wye Mills, MD

September 10, 2011

Bel Air, MD

September 12, 2011

Randallstown, MD September 12, 2011

6

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 7 of 18
28. At hearings and in submitted materials GRAC heard the requirement under Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) of the creation of three compact majority-minority African American congressional districts; the history of racial gerrymandering for both partisan political purposes and incumbency protection purposes in Maryland; and plans for creation of three compact majority minority African American congressional districts.
29. On July 22, 2011, GRAC was presented with a third party map that drew three compact majority minority African American congressional districts submitted by the Fannie Lou Hamer PAC. Further information in support of this map was submitted on July 27, 2011. This map and its accompanying demographic data are included as ATTACHMENT A.
30. On October 4, 2011, GRAC released its proposed congressional redistricting plan (the “GRAC Proposed Plan”) to Governor O’Malley. This map and its accompanying demographic data and measures of compactness are included as ATTACHMENT B.
31. On October 15, 2011, Governor O’Malley proposed a modified version of the GRAC plan. This map and its accompanying demographic data and measures of compactness are included as ATTACHMENT C.
32. On October 17, 2011, a special session of the state legislature convened to consider the Governor’s proposed congressional redistricting plan as Senate Bill 1.
33. On October 17, 2011, the legislature heard testimony from Congresswoman Donna Edwards, an African American member of Congress who voiced objections to Senate Bill 1’s treatment of African American and minority communities.
34. On October 17, 2011, the state Senate defeated an amendment to Senate Bill 1 sponsored by state Senator Pipkin which would have created three compact majority-minority
7

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 8 of 18
African American congressional districts. The Senate defeated the amendment by a vote of 13-33. 35. On October 18, 2011, the very next day, the state House defeated the same amendment to Senate Bill 1 which was offered by Delegate Parrott. The House defeated this amendment by a vote of 40-97. Senator Pipkin’s plan and its accompanying demographic data and measures of compactness are included as ATTACHMENT D. 36. On October 18, 2011, the state House passed Senate Bill 1 with technical amendments with a vote of 91 in favor and 46 opposed. 37. On October 20, 2011, the state Senate passed Senate Bill 1 with technical amendments with a vote of 32 in favor and 13 opposed. 38. African American members of the legislature throughout the process requested information about the demographic numbers in the proposals. Information was denied. 39. On October 20, 2011, Governor O’Malley signed Senate Bill 1 into law as emergency legislation to take effect immediately. 40. The Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan and its accompanying demographic data and measures of compactness are identical to the Governor’s proposed map and are included as Attachment C. 41. Despite the dramatic growth in minority population since 2000, the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan contains only two majority-minority districts, even though minorities constitute 41.6% of the state’s population, and African Americans constitute 30.8% of the state’s population. 42. Under this plan, African American and other minority communities are fractured among multiple districts for the benefit of white candidates.
8

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 9 of 18
43. This plan dilutes African American voting strength statewide by drawing only two majority-minority African American voting districts rather than the three compact majority-minority African American voting districts presented to the legislature that afford African Americans the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.
44. This plan intentionally discriminates against minority groups by drawing districts that fracture minority communities for the benefit of white incumbents.
45. This plan uses the state “adjusted” census numbers in accordance with the “No Representation without Population Act” enacted April 13, 2011.
46. The “No Representation without Population Act” requires the drawing of congressional districts by assigning persons in correctional facilities located in the state back to their last known address within the state of Maryland.
47. These adjusted numbers result in population deviations in the districts ranging from .67% (-4832) to +.94% (+6754).
48. These “adjusted” census numbers eliminated persons residing in state prisons whose last known address is outside the state of Maryland.
49. A comparison of the state adjusted numbers to the U.S. Census numbers indicate that 1321 people were eliminated in an attempt to comply with state law.
50. 939 known African American residents are eliminated from the adjusted state numbers. 51. 368 known white residents are eliminated from the state adjusted numbers. 52. The remaining 14 known people eliminated from the state adjusted numbers are of other
races. 53. These statistics demonstrate that of the known but eliminated persons, 71.08% of them
are African American.
9

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 10 of 18
54. The difference in ideal population numbers appears to be a direct result of the state of Maryland simply eliminating persons residing in state prisons whose last known address was outside the state of Maryland.
55. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices and procedures that result in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is a permanent provision of the federal Voting Rights Act.
56. The Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunity of African American voters to elect representatives of their choices as compared to white voters.
57. The Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan operates to dilute the voting strength of African Americans in the state of Maryland.
58. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have acted under color of State law. VI. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1
Intentional Discrimination in the Splitting of Minority Communities 59. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 60. Including but not limited to the following examples, the Enacted Maryland Congressional
Plan splits or “cracks” minority communities in the following places: a. In the City of Baltimore, the minority neighborhood near the intersection of Route 1 and Culmore Street is split to connect two white neighborhoods (see Attachment E)
10

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 11 of 18
b. In Prince Georges County, a near perfect horizontal line is drawn through the count to split black communities between a majority African American district and a majority Caucasian district (See Attachment F).
61. The state of Maryland's Enacted Congressional Redistricting plan intentionally discriminates on the basis of race in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court’s rule in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) (finding that creation of a twenty eight sided municipality for the purpose of splitting a community on the basis of race); (See also Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F. 2d. 763 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1028 (1991) (holding that intentional division of minority neighborhoods to preserve white incumbents constituted intentional discrimination) by splitting minority neighborhoods in Baltimore and its suburbs and in suburban areas of Maryland surrounding Washington, DC. COUNT 2
Intentional Discrimination in the Creation of Districts with Bizarre Shapes and Racial Percentages on the Basis of Race
62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 63. Including but not limited to the following examples, the Enacted Maryland Congressional
Plan splits minority communities in bizarre shapes in the following places: c. In Baltimore, in the area of East Northern and Alemeda (See Attachment E); d. In Prince George’s County, a finger of a majority Caucasian district reaches north through Prince George’s County and forces a majority African American district to squeeze around it. (See Attachment G).
11

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 12 of 18
64. Including but not limited to the following examples, the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan intentionally created “minority influence” districts where minority communities could have been kept more whole: e. Congressional District 2 in the Baltimore area – African American population of 34.22% f. Congressional District 5 in the Prince George’s County area – African American population of 38.82%.
65. The state of Maryland's Enacted Congressional Redistricting plan intentionally discriminates on the basis of race in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (holding that bizarre shaped districts explainable by only race not permissible); See also Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (stating that districts with targeted racial percentages can constitute intentional discrimination); Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003) (Kennedy, J., concurring)(districts with targeted minority influence percentages can constitute intentional racial discrimination) by creating districts composed of minority neighborhoods in Baltimore and its suburbs and in suburban areas of Maryland surrounding Washington, DC that are bizarrely shaped and with targeted racial percentages. COUNT 3
Intentional Discrimination by Violating the Equal Protection Principal of One Person, One Vote 66. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 67. Including but not limited to the following examples, the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan intentionally creates districts that are in violation of the equal protection principles:
12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 13 of 18
g. Congressional District 6 is overpopulated by 6,754 persons according to U.S. Census figures;
h. Congressional District 7 is underpopulated by 4,832 persons according to U.S. Census figures.
68. The state of Maryland's Enacted Congressional Redistricting plan intentionally discriminates in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments by violating the equal protection principles one person, one vote as determined in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (holding that courts have jurisdiction to consider equal population arguments), Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (holding that congressional districts must be held to the strictest standards for equal population) and Travis v. King, 552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982) (holding that congressional district lines should be based on total population as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau). COUNT 4 Intentional Discrimination by Adjusting Population Numbers to Omit Persons Disproportionately by Race
69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 70. The state of Maryland's Enacted Congressional Redistricting plan intentionally
discriminates in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments by omitting certain persons residing in state prisons whose last known addresses are from outside the State of Maryland and who are disproportionately minority in violation of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (applying a disparate impact test to analyze a facially race neutral law).
COUNT 5
13

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 14 of 18
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 72. The State of Mayland’s Enacted Congressional redistricting plan results in a denial or
abridgement of the right to vote of Plaintiffs on account of their race, color, or ethnicity, by having the effect of canceling out or minimizing their individual voting strength as minorities in Maryland. 73. The state of Maryland does not afford Plaintiffs an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, and denies Plaintiffs the right to vote in elections without distinction of race, color or previous condition of servitude in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1973. See also Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (defining the three pre-conditions and including in-depth discussion of the totality of the circumstances test).
COUNT 6 Article One Section Two of the U.S. Constitution 74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 75. The state of Maryland’s use adjusted U.S. Census figures for developing redistricting plans and violates Article One Section Two of the U.S. Constitution requiring use of an actual enumeration of the population of the state for determining congressional representation. See Travis v. King, 552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982) (holding that Article 1, Section 2 requires the use of U.S. Census numbers for Congressional redistricting absent a compelling justification); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (holding congressional districts to the strictest population equality standards).
COUNT 7
14

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 15 of 18
Political Gerrymandering in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 76. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 77. Including but not limited to the following examples, the Enacted Maryland Congressional
Plan intentionally created districts that are politically gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment:
i. Congressional Districts 2, 3, and 7 – these districts individually and in combination are politically gerrymandered (See Attachment H);
j. Congressional Districts 6 and 8 – individually and in combination politically gerrymander Frederick and Montgomery Counties (See Attachment I);
78. The state of Maryland’s Enacted Congressional District plans is the result of gross partisan gerrymanders, which violate the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantee by fragmenting cohesive communities of interest and political subdivisions between districts in support of no legitimate, consistently applied state policy.
79. No legitimate consistently applied state policy is supported or furthered by these plans' needless division of these communities.
80. This fragmentation of cultural, ethnic, geographic economic and political communities results in a dilution and debasement of Plaintiffs’ voting rights, political power and influence. See League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).
81. The Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan constitutes intentional discrimination against minority voters. VII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
15

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 16 of 18
82. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. Sections 1973-1(e) and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs. VIII. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court: (a) assume jurisdiction of this action and request a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2284; (b) issue a declaratory judgment finding that the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan illegally and unconstitutionally dilutes the voting strength of African American voters in Maryland and is unlawful, null and void; (c) issue a declaratory judgment finding that the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan illegally and unconstitutionally constitutes intentional discrimination and is unlawful, null and void; (d) issue a declaratory judgment finding the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan illegally and unconstitutionally violates Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution for the purposes of drawing congressional districts resulting in malapportionment and violations of the United States Constitution ; (e) permanently enjoin Defendants from calling, holding, supervising or certifying any elections under the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law other than the judicial relief sought herein, and unless the Defendants are enjoined from using the Enacted Maryland Congressional Plan, plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed by the continued violation of their statutory and constitutional rights;
16

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 17 of 18 (f) set a reasonable deadline for state authorities to enact or adopt redistricting plans
for congressional districts that do not dilute, cancel out or minimize the voting strength of African American voters; (g) if state authorities fail to enact or adopt valid redistricting plans by the Court’s deadline, order new redistricting plans for congressional districts that do not dilute, cancel out or minimize the voting strength of African American voters; (h) adjudge all costs against Defendants, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; (i) retain jurisdiction to render any and all further orders that this Court may grant any and all further relief to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be entitled.
17

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 18 of 18

 </s> Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 12
Index of Attachments Attachment A- Map drawing three compact majority minority African American congressional districts submitted by the Fannie Lou Hamer PAC to the GRAC
Attachment B- GRAC Proposed congressional redistricting plan.
Attachment C- Governor O’Malley’s proposed modified version of the GRAC plan.
Attachment D- Senator Pipkin’s proposed alternative plan containing three compact majority minority districts
Attachment E- Baltimore neighborhood near the intersection of Route 1 and Culmore Street demonstrating a minority neighborhood split to connect two white neighborhoods.
Attachment F- Prince Georges County map showing line splitting black community
Attachment G- Prince George’s County map showing a finger of a majority white district reaching forcing a majority black district to squeeze around it.
Attachment H- Map of Congressional Districts 2, 3, and 7 showing the bizarre shapes
Attachment I- Map of Congressional Districts 6 and 8 showing the splitting of Montgomery and Frederick counties

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 12
Attachment A

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 12

District
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 4 of 12

FLH-PAC Maryland Congressional Districts Stats (July 17)

Adj

Population Deviation

721529

0

721529

0

721529

0

721529

0

721529

0

721528

-1

721529

0

721529

0

Black (NH)

18+ Pop VAP

568117

64781

543625

48003

560937

81398

549036

319106

544944

83477

547629

274242

560160

309701

546140

59088

% BVAP
11.40% 8.83%
14.51% 58.12% 15.32% 50.08% 55.29% 10.82%

Hispanic VAP
15345 21585 21110 61706 27084 73753 21961 79764

%HVAP Anglo VAP

2.70%

474786

3.97%

448672

3.76%

412149

11.24%

134763

4.97%

398292

13.47%

145129

3.92%

203787

14.61%

311928

% Anglo VAP
83.57% 82.53% 73.48% 24.55% 73.09% 26.50% 36.38% 57.12%

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 5 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 6 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 7 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 8 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 9 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 10 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 11 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 12 of 12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 20
Attachment B

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 4 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 5 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 6 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 7 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 8 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 9 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 10 of 20

Plan Name:

MD GRAC 100411

Plan Type: Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT

Date:

11/1/2011

Time: Administrator:

3:48:52PM

Document 1-2

Filed 11/10/11

Page 11 of 20

Measures of Compactness
11/1/2011
Sum Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.20

0.13

0.10

0.77

0.65

0.43

0.49

0.35

0.22

0.19

0.15

0.10

DISTRICT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Population Population

Polygon

Circle

0.20

0.13

0.36

0.31

0.32

0.23

0.63

0.37

0.60

0.38

0.77

0.65

0.53

0.38

0.52

0.34

Ehrenburg
0.23 0.25 0.10 0.21 0.43 0.19 0.15 0.21

1

Plan Name:

MD GRAC 100411

Plan Type: Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT

Date:

11/1/2011

Time: Administrator:

3:36:19PM

Document 1-2

Filed 11/10/11

Page 12 of 20

Measures of Compactness
11/1/2011

Sum Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

N/A

N/A 3,015.24

N/A

0.14

1.69

N/A

0.03

0.36

4.95

N/A

0.31

0.27

3.09

N/A

0.12

0.07

0.94

N/A

0.09

DISTRICT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reock Schwartzberg

0.27

2.35

0.26

3.50

0.23

4.95

0.25

3.17

0.36

1.69

0.14

3.11

0.36

3.02

0.34

2.91

Perimeter
648.73 308.22 375.39 206.60 303.13 566.85 264.94 341.38

PolsbyPopper
0.16 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.31 0.08 0.09 0.10

1

District Hispanic Origin % Hispanic Origin Adj_White % Adj_White Adj_AP_Wht % Adj_AP_Wht Adj_Black % Adj_Black Adj_AP_Blk % Adj_AP_Blk Adj_AmIndian % Adj_AmIndian Adj_AP_Ind % Adj_AP_Ind Adj_Asian

Case 8:11-cv-032G20R-RAWCT ADdocjuumsetnet d1-2PoFipleud l1a1t/1io0/n11 Page 13 of 20
1 23,789 3.29% 601,630 83.38% 613,536 85.03% 82,220 11.40% 88,966 12.33% 1,734 0.24% 5,253 0.73% 13,417 2 39,604 5.47% 416,406 57.71% 433,976 60.15% 231,594 32.10% 244,961 33.95% 2,948 0.41% 8,477 1.17% 32,857 3 55,597 7.72% 474,707 65.79% 491,780 68.16% 151,458 20.99% 161,487 22.38% 2,354 0.33% 7,067 0.98% 47,658 4 98,116 13.63% 225,460 31.25% 239,739 33.23% 394,285 54.65% 405,916 56.26% 3,372 0.47% 8,810 1.22% 22,110 5 52,126 7.23% 375,798 52.08% 393,273 54.51% 266,813 36.98% 280,332 38.85% 3,262 0.45% 9,686 1.34% 27,603 6 81,376 11.17% 501,793 69.55% 522,374 72.40% 86,881 12.04% 97,364 13.49% 2,193 0.30% 6,234 0.86% 74,924 7 22,508 3.14% 252,206 34.95% 263,670 36.54% 401,552 55.65% 411,205 56.99% 2,044 0.28% 6,526 0.90% 41,352 8 97,516 13.52% 510,916 70.81% 530,171 73.48% 84,556 11.72% 92,729 12.85% 2,512 0.35% 6,603 0.92% 58,927
Page 1

District % Adj_Asian Adj_AP_Asn % Adj_AP_Asn Adj_Hawaiian % Adj_Hawaiian Adj_AP_Hwn % Adj_AP_Hwn Adj_Other % Adj_Other Adj_AP_Oth % Adj_AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-032G20R-RAWCT ADdocjuumsetnet d1-2PoFipleud l1a1t/1io0/n11 Page 14 of 20
1 1.86% 16,727 2.32% 300 0.04% 759 0.11% 8,893 1.23% 10,660 1.48% 2 4.55% 38,814 5.38% 460 0.06% 1,418 0.20% 14,964 2.07% 18,443 2.56% 3 6.61% 54,946 7.62% 531 0.07% 1,405 0.19% 23,637 3.28% 28,018 3.88% 4 3.06% 26,782 3.71% 478 0.07% 1,513 0.21% 54,934 7.61% 62,136 8.61% 5 3.83% 34,227 4.74% 429 0.06% 1,307 0.18% 24,677 3.42% 28,488 3.95% 6 10.38% 83,454 11.57% 346 0.05% 1,163 0.16% 30,956 4.29% 37,169 5.15% 7 5.73% 46,929 6.50% 254 0.04% 939 0.13% 7,949 1.10% 10,415 1.44% 8 8.17% 68,160 9.45% 359 0.05% 1,322 0.18% 40,814 5.66% 48,046 6.66%
Page 2

District Adj_18+_Wht % Adj_18+_Wht Adj_18+_AP_Wht % Adj_18+_AP_Wht Adj_18+_Blk % Adj_18+_Blk Adj_18+_AP_Blk % Adj_18+_AP_Blk Adj_18+_Ind % Adj_18+_Ind Adj_18+_AP_Ind % Adj_18+_AP_Ind Adj_18+_Asn % Adj_18+_Asn Adj_18+_AP_Asn

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RGWRTADCocAumdejnut s1-t2edFilVedA1P1/10/11 Page 15 of 20
1 472,663 84.86% 477,608 85.75% 61,080 10.97% 63,167 11.34% 1,338 0.24% 3,799 0.68% 9,812 1.76% 11,382 2 339,466 61.59% 347,102 62.97% 163,221 29.61% 168,497 30.57% 2,198 0.40% 5,864 1.06% 25,040 4.54% 28,177 3 388,333 68.72% 396,897 70.24% 109,638 19.40% 114,044 20.18% 1,757 0.31% 5,069 0.90% 36,969 6.54% 40,936 4 175,797 32.32% 184,164 33.85% 296,483 54.50% 303,245 55.74% 2,492 0.46% 6,452 1.19% 17,664 3.25% 20,225 5 297,167 54.43% 305,592 55.97% 195,358 35.78% 201,408 36.89% 2,439 0.45% 6,770 1.24% 22,379 4.10% 25,825 6 392,148 71.99% 401,598 73.72% 61,138 11.22% 64,907 11.92% 1,587 0.29% 4,322 0.79% 56,288 10.33% 60,520 7 204,503 36.70% 210,470 37.77% 303,798 54.51% 309,185 55.48% 1,598 0.29% 4,880 0.88% 32,085 5.76% 35,196 8 398,753 71.98% 408,836 73.80% 64,397 11.62% 68,429 12.35% 1,828 0.33% 4,720 0.85% 46,772 8.44% 51,321
Page 1

District % Adj_18+_AP_Asn Adj_18+_Hwn % Adj_18+_Hwn Adj_18+_AP_Hwn % Adj_18+_AP_Hwn Adj_18+_Oth % Adj_18+_Oth Adj_18+_AP_Oth % Adj_18+_AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RGWRTADCocAumdejnut s1-t2edFilVedA1P1/10/11 Page 16 of 20
1 2.04% 227 0.04% 500 0.09% 5,993 1.08% 6,950 1.25% 2 5.11% 354 0.06% 966 0.18% 10,334 1.87% 12,364 2.24% 3 7.24% 423 0.07% 1,023 0.18% 16,674 2.95% 19,483 3.45% 4 3.72% 384 0.07% 1,126 0.21% 38,282 7.04% 43,260 7.95% 5 4.73% 348 0.06% 866 0.16% 16,498 3.02% 18,795 3.44% 6 11.11% 263 0.05% 804 0.15% 21,473 3.94% 25,330 4.65% 7 6.32% 204 0.04% 685 0.12% 5,751 1.03% 7,427 1.33% 8 9.26% 288 0.05% 1,005 0.18% 28,961 5.23% 33,913 6.12%
Page 2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 17 of 20
GRAC Non Adjusted Population

District Deviation % Deviation White % White AP_Wht % AP_Wht Black % Black AP_Blk % AP_Blk AmIndian % AmIndian AP_Ind % AP_Ind Asian

1

967 0.13% 601,609 83.25% 613,515 84.90% 83,374 11.54% 90,120 12.47% 1,733 0.24% 5,252 0.73% 13,417

2 1,750 0.24% 416,561 57.58% 434,131 60.01% 233,333 32.25% 246,700 34.10% 2,949 0.41% 8,478 1.17% 32,864

3 -1,615 -0.22% 474,091 65.84% 491,164 68.21% 150,634 20.92% 160,663 22.31% 2,354 0.33% 7,067 0.98% 47,652

4 -1,626 -0.23% 225,244 31.28% 239,523 33.26% 393,053 54.59% 404,684 56.20% 3,371 0.47% 8,809 1.22% 22,109

5 -1,222 -0.17% 375,415 52.11% 392,890 54.53% 266,141 36.94% 279,660 38.82% 3,262 0.45% 9,686 1.34% 27,602

6 6,759 0.94% 503,352 69.10% 523,933 71.92% 92,218 12.66% 102,701 14.10% 2,196 0.30% 6,237 0.86% 74,932

7 -4,832 -0.67% 252,265 35.19% 263,729 36.79% 396,835 55.36% 406,488 56.70% 2,043 0.28% 6,525 0.91% 41,349

8 -181 -0.03% 510,747 70.79% 530,002 73.46% 84,710 11.74% 92,883 12.87% 2,512 0.35% 6,603 0.92% 58,928

Page 1

District % Asian AP_Asn % AP_Asn Hawaiian % Hawaiian AP_Hwn % AP_Hwn Other % Other AP_Oth % AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-2 Filed 11/10/11 Page 18 of 20
GRAC Non Adjusted Population
1 1.86% 16,727 2.31% 300 0.04% 759 0.11% 8,893 1.23% 10,660 1.48% 2 4.54% 38,821 5.37% 460 0.06% 1,418 0.20% 14,977 2.07% 18,456 2.55% 3 6.62% 54,940 7.63% 531 0.07% 1,405 0.20% 23,634 3.28% 28,015 3.89% 4 3.07% 26,781 3.72% 478 0.07% 1,513 0.21% 54,923 7.63% 62,125 8.63% 5 3.83% 34,226 4.75% 429 0.06% 1,307 0.18% 24,676 3.42% 28,487 3.95% 6 10.29% 83,462 11.46% 346 0.05% 1,163 0.16% 30,973 4.25% 37,186 5.10% 7 5.77% 46,926 6.55% 254 0.04% 939 0.13% 7,944 1.11% 10,410 1.45% 8 8.17% 68,161 9.45% 359 0.05% 1,322 0.18% 40,812 5.66% 48,044 6.66%
Page 2

District H18+_Pop % H18+_Pop 18+_Wht % 18+_Wht 18+_AP_Wht % 18+_AP_Wht 18+_Blk % 18+_Blk 18+_AP_Blk % 18+_AP_Blk 18+_Ind % 18+_Ind 18+_AP_Ind % 18+_AP_Ind 18+_Asn

Case 8:11-cv-032G20-RRWATC DNoocunmeAntd1j-u2stFeiledd 1V1A/10P/11 Page 19 of 20
1 15,366 2.75% 472,642 84.68% 477,587 85.57% 62,234 11.15% 64,321 11.52% 1,337 0.24% 3,798 0.68% 9,812 2 26,160 4.73% 339,621 61.40% 347,257 62.78% 164,960 29.82% 170,236 30.78% 2,199 0.40% 5,865 1.06% 25,047 3 38,401 6.81% 387,717 68.79% 396,281 70.31% 108,814 19.31% 113,220 20.09% 1,757 0.31% 5,069 0.90% 36,963 4 67,800 12.50% 175,581 32.36% 183,948 33.90% 295,251 54.42% 302,013 55.67% 2,491 0.46% 6,451 1.19% 17,663 5 34,345 6.30% 296,784 54.47% 305,209 56.01% 194,686 35.73% 200,736 36.84% 2,439 0.45% 6,770 1.24% 22,378 6 55,423 10.05% 393,707 71.37% 403,157 73.08% 66,475 12.05% 70,244 12.73% 1,590 0.29% 4,325 0.78% 56,296 7 15,898 2.88% 204,562 37.02% 210,529 38.10% 299,081 54.12% 304,468 55.10% 1,597 0.29% 4,879 0.88% 32,082 8 68,915 12.44% 398,584 71.95% 408,667 73.77% 64,551 11.65% 68,583 12.38% 1,828 0.33% 4,720 0.85% 46,773
Page 1

District % 18+_Asn 18+_AP_Asn % 18+_AP_Asn 18+_Hwn % 18+_Hwn 18+_AP_Hwn % 18+_AP_Hwn 18+_Oth % 18+_Oth 18+_AP_Oth % 18+_AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-032G20-RRWATC DNoocunmeAntd1j-u2stFeiledd 1V1A/10P/11 Page 20 of 20
1 1.76% 11,382 2.04% 227 0.04% 500 0.09% 5,993 1.07% 6,950 1.25% 2 4.53% 28,184 5.10% 354 0.06% 966 0.17% 10,347 1.87% 12,377 2.24% 3 6.56% 40,930 7.26% 423 0.08% 1,023 0.18% 16,671 2.96% 19,480 3.46% 4 3.26% 20,224 3.73% 384 0.07% 1,126 0.21% 38,271 7.05% 43,249 7.97% 5 4.11% 25,824 4.74% 348 0.06% 866 0.16% 16,497 3.03% 18,794 3.45% 6 10.20% 60,528 10.97% 263 0.05% 804 0.15% 21,490 3.90% 25,347 4.59% 7 5.81% 35,193 6.37% 204 0.04% 685 0.12% 5,746 1.04% 7,422 1.34% 8 8.44% 51,322 9.26% 288 0.05% 1,005 0.18% 28,959 5.23% 33,911 6.12%
Page 2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 20
Attachment C

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 4 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 5 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 6 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 7 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 8 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 9 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 10 of 20

Plan Name:

MD CD (SB1)

Plan Type: Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT

Date:

11/1/2011

Time: Administrator:

3:30:59PM

Document 1-3

Filed 11/10/11

Page 11 of 20

Measures of Compactness
11/1/2011
Sum Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.20

0.13

0.10

0.77

0.65

0.43

0.49

0.35

0.22

0.19

0.15

0.10

DISTRICT
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Population Population

Polygon

Circle

0.20

0.13

0.36

0.31

0.31

0.20

0.63

0.37

0.60

0.38

0.77

0.65

0.53

0.38

0.53

0.34

Ehrenburg
0.23 0.24 0.10 0.21 0.43 0.19 0.15 0.21

1

Plan Name:

MD CD (SB1)

Plan Type: Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT

Date:

11/1/2011

Time: Administrator:

3:10:10PM

Document 1-3

Filed 11/10/11

Page 12 of 20

Measures of Compactness
11/1/2011

Sum Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

N/A

N/A 3,081.51

N/A

0.14

1.69

N/A

0.03

0.36

5.09

N/A

0.31

0.27

3.16

N/A

0.11

0.08

0.99

N/A

0.09

DISTRICT
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Reock Schwartzberg

0.27

2.37

0.25

3.65

0.22

5.09

0.25

3.15

0.36

1.69

0.14

3.17

0.36

3.02

0.33

3.12

Perimeter
657.20 319.97 392.10 205.58 303.13 576.03 264.94 362.56

PolsbyPopper
0.16 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.31 0.08 0.09 0.08

1

District Adj_White % Adj_White Adj_AP_Wht % Adj_AP_Wht Adj_Black % Adj_Black Adj_AP_Blk % Adj_AP_Blk Adj_AmIndian
% Adj_AmIndian
Adj_AP_Ind % Adj_AP_Ind
Adj_Asian % Adj_Asian Adj_AP_Asn % Adj_AP_Asn

Case 8:11-cv-0322S0-BRW1TAdDojucusmteendt 1P-3opFiulelda1t1io/1n0/11 Page 13 of 20
01 601,502 83.36% 613,405 85.01% 82,401 11.42% 89,154 12.36% 1,747 0.24% 5,282 0.73% 13,340 1.85% 16,630 2.30% 02 415,117 57.53% 432,784 59.98% 232,443 32.22% 245,855 34.07% 2,928 0.41% 8,456 1.17% 33,284 4.61% 39,301 5.45% 03 478,526 66.32% 495,473 68.67% 149,217 20.68% 159,060 22.04% 2,360 0.33% 7,023 0.97% 46,330 6.42% 53,554 7.42% 04 224,916 31.17% 239,211 33.15% 394,687 54.70% 406,357 56.32% 3,373 0.47% 8,826 1.22% 22,175 3.07% 26,828 3.72% 05 375,798 52.08% 393,273 54.51% 266,813 36.98% 280,332 38.85% 3,262 0.45% 9,686 1.34% 27,603 3.83% 34,227 4.74% 06 503,603 69.80% 524,295 72.66% 87,435 12.12% 98,056 13.59% 2,213 0.31% 6,288 0.87% 72,088 9.99% 80,528 11.16% 07 252,206 34.95% 263,670 36.54% 401,552 55.65% 411,205 56.99% 2,044 0.28% 6,526 0.90% 41,352 5.73% 46,929 6.50% 08 507,248 70.30% 526,408 72.96% 84,811 11.75% 92,941 12.88% 2,492 0.35% 6,569 0.91% 62,676 8.69% 72,042 9.98%

District Adj_Hawaiian
% Adj_Hawaiian Adj_AP_Hwn % Adj_AP_Hwn
Adj_Other % Adj_Other Adj_AP_Oth % Adj_AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-0322S0-BRW1TAdDojucusmteendt 1P-3opFiulelda1t1io/1n0/11 Page 14 of 20
01 301 0.04% 759 0.11% 8,903 1.23% 10,672 1.48% 02 459 0.06% 1,417 0.20% 14,875 2.06% 18,406 2.55% 03 537 0.07% 1,393 0.19% 23,651 3.28% 27,923 3.87% 04 479 0.07% 1,518 0.21% 54,974 7.62% 62,186 8.62% 05 429 0.06% 1,307 0.18% 24,677 3.42% 28,488 3.95% 06 354 0.05% 1,171 0.16% 31,293 4.34% 37,556 5.21% 07 254 0.04% 939 0.13% 7,949 1.10% 10,415 1.44% 08 344 0.05% 1,322 0.18% 40,502 5.61% 47,729 6.61%

District White %White Adj_18+_AP_Wht % Adj_18+_AP_Wht Black % Black Adj_18+_AP_Blk % Adj_18+_AP_Blk Indian % Indian Adj_18+_AP_Ind % Adj_18+_AP_Ind Asian % Asian Adj_18+_AP_Asn % Adj_18+_AP_Asn

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWSTB1DoAcudmjuenst t1e-3d FVileAdP11/10/11 Page 15 of 20
01 472,646 84.85% 477,601 85.74% 61,205 10.99% 63,295 11.36% 1,350 0.24% 3,824 0.69% 9,729 1.75% 11,296 2.03% 02 338,080 61.39% 345,720 62.78% 163,783 29.74% 169,051 30.70% 2,181 0.40% 5,838 1.06% 25,383 4.61% 28,529 5.18% 03 391,070 69.19% 399,623 70.71% 108,181 19.14% 112,529 19.91% 1,761 0.31% 5,038 0.89% 35,925 6.36% 39,848 7.05% 04 175,815 32.29% 184,191 33.83% 296,783 54.51% 303,561 55.76% 2,493 0.46% 6,466 1.19% 17,721 3.26% 20,285 3.73% 05 297,167 54.43% 305,592 55.97% 195,358 35.78% 201,408 36.89% 2,439 0.45% 6,770 1.24% 22,379 4.10% 25,825 4.73% 06 393,802 72.25% 403,309 73.99% 61,486 11.28% 65,293 11.98% 1,603 0.29% 4,353 0.80% 54,323 9.97% 58,522 10.74% 07 204,503 36.70% 210,470 37.77% 303,798 54.51% 309,185 55.48% 1,598 0.29% 4,880 0.88% 32,085 5.76% 35,196 6.32% 08 395,747 71.48% 405,761 73.29% 64,519 11.65% 68,560 12.38% 1,812 0.33% 4,707 0.85% 49,464 8.93% 54,081 9.77%

District Hawaiin % Hawaiin Adj_18+_AP_Hwn % Adj_18+_AP_Hwn
Other % Other Adj_18+_AP_Oth % Adj_18+_AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWSTB1DoAcudmjuenst t1e-3d FVileAdP11/10/11 Page 16 of 20
01 228 0.04% 499 0.09% 5,997 1.08% 6,958 1.25% 02 353 0.06% 964 0.18% 10,276 1.87% 12,333 2.24% 03 428 0.08% 1,016 0.18% 16,658 2.95% 19,415 3.44% 04 385 0.07% 1,127 0.21% 38,313 7.04% 43,287 7.95% 05 348 0.06% 866 0.16% 16,498 3.02% 18,795 3.44% 06 268 0.05% 814 0.15% 21,687 3.98% 25,576 4.69% 07 204 0.04% 685 0.12% 5,751 1.03% 7,427 1.33% 08 277 0.05% 1,004 0.18% 28,786 5.20% 33,731 6.09%

District Deviation
% Deviation Hispanic
Origin % Hispanic
Origin White % White AP_Wht % AP_Wht Black % Black AP_Blk % AP_Blk AmIndian
% AmIndian
AP_Ind

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 17 of 20
SB1 Non Adjusted Population
1 1121 0.16% 23,821 3.30% 601,474 83.23% 613,377 84.88% 83,551 11.56% 90,304 12.50% 1,746 0.24% 5,281 2 1918 0.27% 39,538 5.47% 415,277 57.40% 432,944 59.84% 234,180 32.37% 247,592 34.22% 2,929 0.40% 8,457 3 -1435 -0.20% 55,563 7.72% 477,913 66.37% 494,860 68.72% 148,404 20.61% 158,247 21.98% 2,360 0.33% 7,023 4 -1464 -0.20% 98,109 13.63% 224,699 31.21% 238,994 33.19% 393,453 54.64% 405,123 56.26% 3,372 0.47% 8,825 5 -1057 -0.15% 52,126 7.23% 375,415 52.11% 392,890 54.53% 266,141 36.94% 279,660 38.82% 3,262 0.45% 9,686 6 6919 0.96% 82,118 11.27% 505,160 69.35% 525,852 72.19% 92,769 12.74% 103,390 14.19% 2,216 0.30% 6,291 7 -4667 -0.65% 22,508 3.14% 252,265 35.19% 263,729 36.79% 396,835 55.36% 406,488 56.70% 2,043 0.28% 6,525 8 -15 0.00% 96,849 13.42% 507,081 70.28% 526,241 72.94% 84,965 11.78% 93,095 12.90% 2,492 0.35% 6,569
Page 1

District % AP_Ind
Asian % Asian AP_Asn % AP_Asn Hawaiian
% Hawaiian AP_Hwn % AP_Hwn
Other % Other AP_Oth % AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-3 Filed 11/10/11 Page 18 of 20
SB1 Non Adjusted Population
1 0.73% 13,340 1.85% 16,630 2.30% 301 0.04% 759 0.11% 8,903 1.23% 10,672 1.48% 2 1.17% 33,291 4.60% 39,308 5.43% 459 0.06% 1,417 0.20% 14,888 2.06% 18,419 2.55% 3 0.98% 46,324 6.43% 53,548 7.44% 537 0.07% 1,393 0.19% 23,648 3.28% 27,920 3.88% 4 1.23% 22,174 3.08% 26,827 3.73% 479 0.07% 1,518 0.21% 54,963 7.63% 62,175 8.63% 5 1.34% 27,602 3.83% 34,226 4.75% 429 0.06% 1,307 0.18% 24,676 3.42% 28,487 3.95% 6 0.86% 72,096 9.90% 80,536 11.06% 354 0.05% 1,171 0.16% 31,310 4.30% 37,573 5.16% 7 0.91% 41,349 5.77% 46,926 6.55% 254 0.04% 939 0.13% 7,944 1.11% 10,410 1.45% 8 0.91% 62,677 8.69% 72,043 9.98% 344 0.05% 1,322 0.18% 40,500 5.61% 47,727 6.61%
Page 2

District 18+_Wht % 18+_Wht 18+_AP_Wht % 18+_AP_Wht 18+_Blk % 18+_Blk 18+_AP_Blk % 18+_AP_Blk % 18+_Ind 18+_Ind 18+_AP_Ind % 18+_AP_Ind 18+_Asn % 18+_Asn 18+_AP_Asn % 18+_AP_Asn

Case 8S:1B1-1cv-N03o2n20-ARWdjTusDtoecdumVenot t1i-n3gFAilegd e11P/10o/1p1ulPaatgioe n19 of 20
01 472,618 84.67% 477,573 85.56% 62,355 11.17% 64,445 11.55% 0.24% 1,349 3,823 0.68% 9,729 1.74% 11,296 2.02% 02 338,240 61.21% 345,880 62.59% 165,520 29.95% 170,788 30.91% 0.39% 2,182 5,839 1.06% 25,390 4.59% 28,536 5.16% 03 390,457 69.26% 399,010 70.78% 107,368 19.05% 111,716 19.82% 0.31% 1,761 5,038 0.89% 35,919 6.37% 39,842 7.07% 04 175,598 32.34% 183,974 33.88% 295,549 54.43% 302,327 55.68% 0.46% 2,492 6,465 1.19% 17,720 3.26% 20,284 3.74% 05 296,784 54.47% 305,209 56.01% 194,686 35.73% 200,736 36.84% 0.45% 2,439 6,770 1.24% 22,378 4.11% 25,824 4.74% 06 395,359 71.62% 404,866 73.35% 66,820 12.11% 70,627 12.80% 0.29% 1,606 4,356 0.79% 54,331 9.84% 58,530 10.60% 07 204,562 37.02% 210,529 38.10% 299,081 54.12% 304,468 55.10% 0.29% 1,597 4,879 0.88% 32,082 5.81% 35,193 6.37% 08 395,580 71.45% 405,594 73.26% 64,673 11.68% 68,714 12.41% 0.33% 1,812 4,707 0.85% 49,465 8.93% 54,082 9.77%

District 18+_Hwn % 18+_Hwn 18+_AP_Hwn % 18+_AP_Hwn 18+_Oth % 18+_Oth 18+_AP_Oth % 18+_AP_Oth

Case 8S:1B1-1cv-N03o2n20-ARWdjTusDtoecdumVenot t1i-n3gFAilegd e11P/10o/1p1ulPaatgioe n20 of 20
01 228 0.04% 499 0.09% 5,997 1.07% 6,958 1.25% 02 353 0.06% 964 0.17% 10,289 1.86% 12,346 2.23% 03 428 0.08% 1,016 0.18% 16,655 2.95% 19,412 3.44% 04 385 0.07% 1,127 0.21% 38,302 7.05% 43,276 7.97% 05 348 0.06% 866 0.16% 16,497 3.03% 18,794 3.45% 06 268 0.05% 814 0.15% 21,704 3.93% 25,593 4.64% 07 204 0.04% 685 0.12% 5,746 1.04% 7,422 1.34% 08 277 0.05% 1,004 0.18% 28,784 5.20% 33,729 6.09%

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 20
Attachment D

Garrett 06

Allegany

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 20

Washington

Frederick

Carroll

Baltimore

Harford

Cecil

08 Montgomery

02 Baltimore 07
Howard

Anne Arundel
04

Prince George's

05
Charles

03
Calvert

Kent

Queen Anne's Caroline

Talbot

01

Dorchester

Wicomico

St. Mary's

Worcester

Somerset

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 4 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 5 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 6 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 7 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 8 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 9 of 20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 10 of 20

Plan Name:

MD CD (SB1)

Plan Type: Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT

Date:

11/1/2011

Time: Administrator:

3:30:59PM

Document 1-4

Filed 11/10/11

Page 11 of 20

Measures of Compactness
11/1/2011
Sum Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.20

0.13

0.10

0.77

0.65

0.43

0.49

0.35

0.22

0.19

0.15

0.10

DISTRICT
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Population Population

Polygon

Circle

0.20

0.13

0.36

0.31

0.31

0.20

0.63

0.37

0.60

0.38

0.77

0.65

0.53

0.38

0.53

0.34

Ehrenburg
0.23 0.24 0.10 0.21 0.43 0.19 0.15 0.21

1

Plan Name:

MD CD (SB1)

Plan Type: Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT

Date:

11/1/2011

Time: Administrator:

3:10:10PM

Document 1-4

Filed 11/10/11

Page 12 of 20

Measures of Compactness
11/1/2011

Sum Min Max Mean Std. Dev.

N/A

N/A 3,081.51

N/A

0.14

1.69

N/A

0.03

0.36

5.09

N/A

0.31

0.27

3.16

N/A

0.11

0.08

0.99

N/A

0.09

DISTRICT
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Reock Schwartzberg

0.27

2.37

0.25

3.65

0.22

5.09

0.25

3.15

0.36

1.69

0.14

3.17

0.36

3.02

0.33

3.12

Perimeter
657.20 319.97 392.10 205.58 303.13 576.03 264.94 362.56

PolsbyPopper
0.16 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.31 0.08 0.09 0.08

1

District Adj_White % Adj_White Adj_AP_Wht % Adj_AP_Wht Adj_Black % Adj_Black Adj_AP_Blk % Adj_AP_Blk Adj_AmIndian % Adj_AmIndian Adj_AP_Ind % Adj_AP_Ind Adj_Asian % Adj_Asian Adj_AP_Asn

Case 8:F11a-cnv-n03ie22L0-oRuWTHaDomcuemrenAt d1-j4usFtieledd1P1/1o0p/1u1laPtaiogen13 of 20
01 577,984 80.11% 591,557 81.99% 103,631 14.36% 112,065 15.53% 1,911 0.26% 5,889 0.82% 12,221 1.69% 15,876 02 479,307 66.43% 495,224 68.64% 148,327 20.56% 158,445 21.96% 2,229 0.31% 6,601 0.91% 59,773 8.28% 67,057 03 554,828 76.90% 572,852 79.39% 106,787 14.80% 116,790 16.19% 2,379 0.33% 7,525 1.04% 22,010 3.05% 28,986 04 183,423 25.42% 201,519 27.93% 378,572 52.47% 391,377 54.24% 4,177 0.58% 9,982 1.38% 41,061 5.69% 47,220 05 229,752 31.84% 245,819 34.07% 406,397 56.32% 422,089 58.50% 2,903 0.40% 9,594 1.33% 37,418 5.19% 44,005 06 627,595 86.98% 641,599 88.92% 46,305 6.42% 53,962 7.48% 1,669 0.23% 5,055 0.70% 19,281 2.67% 23,715 07 255,526 35.41% 267,103 37.02% 415,296 57.56% 425,085 58.91% 2,831 0.39% 7,807 1.08% 18,295 2.54% 22,185 08 450,501 62.44% 472,846 65.53% 94,044 13.03% 103,147 14.30% 2,320 0.32% 6,203 0.86% 108,789 15.08% 120,995
Page 1

District % Adj_AP_Asn Adj_Hawaiian % Adj_Hawaiian Adj_AP_Hwn % Adj_AP_Hwn Adj_Other % Adj_Other Adj_AP_Oth % Adj_AP_Oth

Case 8:F11a-cnv-n03ie22L0-oRuWTHaDomcuemrenAt d1-j4usFtieledd1P1/1o0p/1u1laPtaiogen14 of 20
01 2.20% 421 0.06% 1,001 0.14% 9,877 1.37% 11,903 1.65% 02 9.29% 286 0.04% 976 0.14% 11,764 1.63% 15,031 2.08% 03 4.02% 596 0.08% 1,577 0.22% 13,997 1.94% 16,751 2.32% 04 6.54% 522 0.07% 1,801 0.25% 87,630 12.15% 98,655 13.67% 05 6.10% 375 0.05% 1,332 0.18% 21,204 2.94% 25,517 3.54% 06 3.29% 281 0.04% 789 0.11% 10,795 1.50% 13,091 1.81% 07 3.07% 330 0.05% 1,046 0.14% 13,308 1.84% 16,051 2.22% 08 16.77% 346 0.05% 1,304 0.18% 38,249 5.30% 46,376 6.43%
Page 2

District Adj_18+_Wht % Adj_18+_Wht Adj_18+_AP_Wht % Adj_18+_AP_Wht Adj_18+_Blk % Adj_18+_Blk Adj_18+_AP_Blk % Adj_18+_AP_Blk Adj_18+_Ind % Adj_18+_Ind Adj_18+_AP_Ind % Adj_18+_AP_Ind Adj_18+_Asn % Adj_18+_Asn Adj_18+_AP_Asn

Case 8:11-cvF-0a3n22n0i-eRWLTouDoHcuammenet 1r-4AdFjiuledst1e1/d10V/11APPage 15 of 20
01 455,677 82.00% 461,245 83.00% 75,729 13.63% 78,381 14.10% 1,480 0.27% 4,246 0.76% 9,074 1.63% 10,830 02 386,662 69.52% 393,830 70.81% 105,652 19.00% 109,980 19.78% 1,631 0.29% 4,604 0.83% 44,068 7.92% 47,610 03 431,355 78.78% 439,280 80.23% 77,468 14.15% 81,019 14.80% 1,792 0.33% 5,194 0.95% 17,083 3.12% 20,440 04 150,283 27.30% 161,699 29.37% 285,128 51.80% 292,877 53.20% 3,008 0.55% 7,300 1.33% 33,771 6.13% 37,503 05 187,246 34.28% 195,269 35.75% 299,858 54.89% 307,758 56.34% 2,226 0.41% 6,844 1.25% 29,346 5.37% 32,880 06 487,813 88.60% 493,594 89.65% 33,195 6.03% 35,531 6.45% 1,274 0.23% 3,547 0.64% 14,042 2.55% 16,076 07 218,042 38.49% 224,328 39.60% 311,002 54.90% 316,158 55.81% 2,187 0.39% 5,817 1.03% 15,895 2.81% 18,463 08 351,752 64.41% 363,022 66.48% 67,081 12.28% 71,178 13.03% 1,639 0.30% 4,324 0.79% 83,730 15.33% 89,780
Page 1

District % Adj_18+_AP_Asn Adj_18+_Hwn % Adj_18+_Hwn Adj_18+_AP_Hwn % Adj_18+_AP_Hwn Adj_18+_Oth % Adj_18+_Oth Adj_18+_AP_Oth % Adj_18+_AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cvF-0a3n22n0i-eRWLTouDoHcuammenet 1r-4AdFjiuledst1e1/d10V/11APPage 16 of 20
01 1.95% 311 0.06% 646 0.12% 6,664 1.20% 7,757 1.40% 02 8.56% 227 0.04% 703 0.13% 8,184 1.47% 10,246 1.84% 03 3.73% 461 0.08% 1,036 0.19% 9,696 1.77% 11,215 2.05% 04 6.81% 426 0.08% 1,383 0.25% 60,839 11.05% 68,632 12.47% 05 6.02% 309 0.06% 924 0.17% 14,525 2.66% 17,177 3.14% 06 2.92% 205 0.04% 530 0.10% 7,284 1.32% 8,560 1.55% 07 3.26% 273 0.05% 788 0.14% 9,704 1.71% 11,516 2.03% 08 16.44% 279 0.05% 965 0.18% 27,070 4.96% 32,419 5.94%
Page 2

District Deviation % Deviation Hispanic Origin % Hispanic Origin White % White AP_Wht % AP_Wht Black % Black AP_Blk % AP_Blk AmIndian % AmIndian AP_Ind

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 17 of 20
Fannie Lou Hamer Non Adjusted Population
01 678 0.09% 26,874 3.72% 577,894 80.00% 591,467 81.88% 104,569 14.48% 113,003 15.64% 1,910 0.26% 5,888 02 -1,335 -0.18% 33,301 4.62% 478,765 66.46% 494,682 68.67% 147,707 20.50% 157,825 21.91% 2,227 0.31% 6,599 03 2,810 0.39% 38,798 5.36% 555,326 76.65% 573,350 79.14% 109,233 15.08% 119,236 16.46% 2,382 0.33% 7,528 04 -1,541 -0.21% 157,313 21.84% 183,233 25.44% 201,329 27.96% 377,395 52.40% 390,200 54.18% 4,177 0.58% 9,982 05 -896 -0.12% 47,697 6.62% 229,632 31.86% 245,699 34.09% 405,789 56.30% 421,481 58.47% 2,902 0.40% 9,593 06 7,104 0.98% 30,874 4.24% 629,079 86.32% 643,083 88.24% 52,051 7.14% 59,708 8.19% 1,672 0.23% 5,058 07 -6,294 -0.87% 30,783 4.30% 254,985 35.64% 266,562 37.26% 409,727 57.27% 419,516 58.64% 2,830 0.40% 7,806 08 -526 -0.07% 104,992 14.56% 450,370 62.45% 472,715 65.55% 93,827 13.01% 102,930 14.27% 2,320 0.32% 6,203
Page 1

District % AP_Ind Asian % Asian AP_Asn % AP_Asn Hawaiian % Hawaiian AP_Hwn % AP_Hwn Other % Other AP_Oth % AP_Oth

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-4 Filed 11/10/11 Page 18 of 20
Fannie Lou Hamer Non Adjusted Population
01 0.82% 12,221 1.69% 15,876 2.20% 421 0.06% 1,001 0.14% 9,873 1.37% 11,899 1.65% 02 0.92% 59,771 8.30% 67,055 9.31% 286 0.04% 976 0.14% 11,760 1.63% 15,027 2.09% 03 1.04% 22,017 3.04% 28,993 4.00% 596 0.08% 1,577 0.22% 14,018 1.93% 16,772 2.31% 04 1.39% 41,059 5.70% 47,218 6.56% 522 0.07% 1,801 0.25% 87,623 12.17% 98,648 13.70% 05 1.33% 37,416 5.19% 44,003 6.10% 375 0.05% 1,332 0.18% 21,204 2.94% 25,517 3.54% 06 0.69% 19,293 2.65% 23,727 3.26% 281 0.04% 789 0.11% 10,819 1.48% 13,115 1.80% 07 1.09% 18,291 2.56% 22,181 3.10% 330 0.05% 1,046 0.15% 13,295 1.86% 16,038 2.24% 08 0.86% 108,785 15.08% 120,991 16.78% 346 0.05% 1,304 0.18% 38,240 5.30% 46,367 6.43%
Page 2

District H18+_Pop % H18+_Pop 18+_Wht % 18+_Wht 18+_AP_Wht % 18+_AP_Wht 18+_Blk % 18+_Blk 18+_AP_Blk % 18+_AP_Blk 18+_Ind % 18+_Ind 18+_AP_Ind % 18+_AP_Ind 18+_Asn

Case 8:1F1-acvn-0n3i2e20L-RoWuTHDaomcumeernNt 1o-4n FAileddju11s/1t0e/1d1 VPAagPe 19 of 20
01 17,312 3.11% 455,587 81.86% 461,155 82.86% 76,667 13.78% 79,319 14.25% 1,479 0.27% 4,245 0.76% 9,074 02 22,395 4.04% 386,120 69.57% 393,288 70.87% 105,032 18.93% 109,360 19.71% 1,629 0.29% 4,602 0.83% 44,066 03 25,543 4.64% 431,853 78.45% 439,778 79.89% 79,914 14.52% 83,465 15.16% 1,795 0.33% 5,197 0.94% 17,090 04 109,593 19.96% 150,093 27.33% 161,509 29.41% 283,951 51.71% 291,700 53.12% 3,008 0.55% 7,300 1.33% 33,769 05 31,836 5.84% 187,126 34.30% 195,149 35.77% 299,250 54.86% 307,150 56.30% 2,225 0.41% 6,843 1.25% 29,344 06 20,016 3.59% 489,297 87.71% 495,078 88.75% 38,941 6.98% 41,277 7.40% 1,277 0.23% 3,550 0.64% 14,054 07 22,148 3.95% 217,501 38.81% 223,787 39.93% 305,433 54.50% 310,589 55.42% 2,186 0.39% 5,816 1.04% 15,891 08 73,465 13.46% 351,621 64.43% 362,891 66.50% 66,864 12.25% 70,961 13.00% 1,639 0.30% 4,324 0.79% 83,726
Page 1

District % 18+_Asn 18+_AP_Asn % 18+_AP_Asn 18+_Hwn % 18+_Hwn 18+_AP_Hwn % 18+_AP_Hwn 18+_Oth % 18+_Oth 18+_AP_Oth % 18+_AP_Oth

Case 8:1F1-acvn-0n3i2e20L-RoWuTHDaomcumeernNt 1o-4n FAileddju11s/1t0e/1d1 VPAagPe 20 of 20
01 1.63% 10,830 1.95% 311 0.06% 646 0.12% 6,660 1.20% 7753 1.39% 02 7.94% 47,608 8.58% 227 0.04% 703 0.13% 8,180 1.47% 10242 1.85% 03 3.10% 20,447 3.71% 461 0.08% 1,036 0.19% 9,717 1.77% 11236 2.04% 04 6.15% 37,501 6.83% 426 0.08% 1,383 0.25% 60,832 11.08% 68625 12.50% 05 5.38% 32,878 6.03% 309 0.06% 924 0.17% 14,525 2.66% 17177 3.15% 06 2.52% 16,088 2.88% 205 0.04% 530 0.10% 7,308 1.31% 8584 1.54% 07 2.84% 18,459 3.29% 273 0.05% 788 0.14% 9,691 1.73% 11503 2.05% 08 15.34% 89,776 16.45% 279 0.05% 965 0.18% 27,061 4.96% 32410 5.94%
Page 2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 2
Attachment E

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-5 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-6 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 2
Attachment F

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-6 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-7 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 2
Attachment G

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-7 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-8 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 2
Attachment H

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-8 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-9 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 2
Attachment I

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 1-9 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 2

 </s> Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 17 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

PATRICIA FLETCHER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. LINDA H. LAMONE, et al.,
Defendants.

* * * * * Civil Case No.: RWT 11cv3220 * * * * * * ***

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 10 2011, Plaintiffs, a group of nine African-American registered voters

who reside in various Maryland congressional districts, filed a seven-count Complaint against

the Defendants. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that the newly enacted Maryland congressional

redistricting plan violates their civil rights because the plan (1) intentionally discriminates

against racial minorities in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution; (2) unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of African Americans in violation

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; (3) malapportions districts by violating Article One, Section

Two of the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) constitutes a

political gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Compl. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs seek

declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. ¶¶ 1-3.

Plaintiffs also filed a motion to convene a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284.

Doc. No. 2. Plaintiffs argue that “[w]hen challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment

of a statewide redistricting, federal law mandates that a three-judge panel hear the case.” Id. at 1

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a)). Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion on

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 17 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 5
November 18, 2011, in which they subsume their three-judge court opposition into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and argue that the Complaint fails to allege: (1) plausible claims that Maryland’s congressional redistricting plan intentionally discriminates on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, (2) a violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act or Article One, Section Two of the United States Constitution, or (3) political gerrymandering in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. No. 14. Plaintiffs filed their reply today in which they maintain that a three-judge court is appropriate because they have stated “substantial” constitutional claims that must be decided by a three-judge court. Doc. No. 16. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Court, Doc. No. 2, and will immediately notify Chief Judge Traxler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1).
Section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code states that “[a] district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). Subsection (b) discusses the procedure for the creation of a three-judge court as follows: “Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the judge to whom the request is presented shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit,” who is directed to designate two other judges, one of whom must be a circuit judge. Id. § 2284(b)(1).
Despite the seemingly mandatory language of § 2284(a), a single district judge may determine that a three-judge court need not be convened if “the compliant does not state a substantial claim for injunctive relief.” Maryland Citizens for a Representative Gen. Assembly v. Governor of Maryland, 429 F.2d 606, 611 (4th Cir. 1970); WRIGHT & MILLER 17A FED. PRAC. &
2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 17 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 5
PROC. JURIS. § 4235 (3d ed.) (“It has always been clear that the single judge must decide in the first instance whether a case is one in which three judges are required although that question can be reconsidered by the three-judge court after it is convened and it can dissolve itself and return the case to the single judge if it does not think a three-judge court is required by statute.”). “Insubstantiality in the claim may appear because of absence of federal jurisdiction, lack of substantive merit in the constitutional claim, or because injunctive relief is otherwise unavailable.” Maryland Citizens, 429 F.2d at 611; see Simkins v. Gressette, 631 F.2d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 1980) (quoting Maryland Citizens, 429 F.2d at 611).
Although the Fourth Circuit has not directly addressed when a constitutional claim has “substantive merit,” Maryland Citizens, 429 F.2d at 611, the Supreme Court offers guidance to what constitutes an “insubstantial” constitutional claim. See e.g., McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U.S. 21, 28 (1975) (finding that a constitutional claim is insubstantial if it is “obviously without merit or clearly concluded by this Court’s previous decisions”) (citations omitted); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 538 (1974) (“A claim is insubstantial only if its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.”) (quotation omitted); Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518 (1973) (finding that constitutional insubstantiality “has been equated with such concepts as essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, and obviously without merit”) (quotations omitted); WRIGHT & MILLER, supra (finding that a single judge “can dismiss, without calling for three judges, if the claim is so insubstantial that it does not invoke federal jurisdiction, although the Supreme Court in recent cases has indicated that cases in which dismissal on this ground is proper will be rare indeed”) (collecting cases).
3

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 17 Filed 11/21/11 Page 4 of 5
Here, Plaintiffs argue that this Court must convene a three-judge court. They maintain that “a single judge’s authority is limited to deciding questions of whether claims are constitutionally substantial, while the three-judge panel decides motions brought under 12(b)(6).” Doc. No. 16 at 4. Plaintiffs’ contend that their claims are constitutionally substantial, and thus this Court should grant their motion to convene a three-judge court. Id. at 2-5. In the alternative, Plaintiffs maintain that the Complaint is well-plead and that they are entitled to a three-judge court. Id. at 5-29. Defendants contend that “the single district court judge is called upon to test the substantive merit of the [Plaintiffs’] claims by applying the standard of review for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Doc No. 14 at 2. This Court disagrees.
The Fourth Circuit has never expressly held that a single judge should rely on the standard of review for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) to determine if a constitutional claim that seeks to invoke the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is “substantial.” The Supreme Court’s standard for determining if a claim is insubstantial dictates that a court should apply a distinct procedure and standard that differs from a 12(b)(6) motion. The Supreme Court has found that a claim is insubstantial if it is “obviously without merit,” McLucas, 421 U.S. at 28, if the “questions sought to be raised” fail to “be the subject of controversy,” Hagans, 415 U.S. at 538, or if it is “essentially fictitious” or “obviously without merit.” Goosby, 409 U.S. at 518. The Supreme Court “has indicated that cases in which dismissal on this ground is proper will be rare indeed.” WRIGHT & MILLER, supra.
The Court finds that the Complaint’s constitutional claims are substantial and that the convening of a three-judge court is appropriate.1 Plaintiffs assert that Maryland’s congressional redistricting plan unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of African Americans in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, intentionally discriminates against racial minorities in violation of
1 The Court, however, expresses no opinion about the merits of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
4

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 17 Filed 11/21/11 Page 5 of 5
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, malapportions districts by violating Article One, Section Two of the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, and constitutes a political gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. These claims are not “obviously without merit or clearly concluded by [the Supreme Court’s] previous decisions.” McLucas, 421 at 28. Additionally, previous decisions of the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court do not “foreclose” the claims alleged by Plaintiffs to the extent that they “leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.” Hagans, 415 U.S. at 538.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Court. Doc. No. 2. A separate Order follows.

November 21, 2011 Date

/s/ Roger W. Titus United States District Judge

5

 </s> Fletcher v. Lamone, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011) 2011 WL 6097770
2011 WL 6097770 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.
Patricia FLETCHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Linda H. LAMONE, et al., Defendants.
No. RWT 11cv3220. | Dec. 5, 2011.
Attorneys and Law Firms
James Paul Mayes, Law Office of James P. Mayes, Jamestown, NC, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.
*1 On November 10, 2011, Plaintiffs, a group of nine African–American registered voters who reside in various Maryland congressional districts, filed a seven-count Complaint against the Defendants. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that the newly enacted Maryland congressional redistricting plan violates their civil rights because the plan (1) intentionally discriminates against racial minorities in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of African Americans in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; (3) malapportions districts by violating Article One, Section Two of the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) constitutes a political gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Compl. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. ¶¶ 1–3.Plaintiffs also filed a motion to convene a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Doc. No. 2.
The Court entered a memorandum opinion and order on November 21, 2011, granting Plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three-judge court. Doc. Nos. 17, 18.On November 23, 2011, Chief Judge William Traxler, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered an order designating Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., and Judge Roger Titus to serve on the three-judge court. Doc. No. 20. The three judges conferred and this Court entered an expedited scheduling order on December 1, 2011. Doc. No. 21.
On December 1, 2011, six individuals (“Petitioners”), registered voters in various Maryland congressional districts, filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. No. 22. Some of the legal issues of Petitioners’ claims are the same as those of the original Plaintiffs, namely that Maryland’s redistricting plan violates Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Doc. No. 22 ¶ 5. Petitioners also allege that the redistricting plan violates Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and violates the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Election laws.
Defendants filed their opposition to the motion to intervene on December 2, 2011, in which they argue that the motion should be denied. Doc. No. 30. They contend that “the claims asserted by the proposed intervenors are insubstantial and are therefore not properly brought before a three-judge panel.”Id. at 1. Defendants also argue that Petitioners “cannot demonstrate that
1

Fletcher v. Lamone, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2011) 2011 WL 6097770
their intervention would assist the Panel in resolving the claims already before it,” which will result in “delay[ing] proceedings that, by necessity, must be conducted expeditiously.”Id. at 6–7.
For the following reasons, Petitioners motion to intervene will be denied.
*2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 allows for “Intervention of Right” and “Permissive Intervention.” Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows intervention of right when:
The applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by the existing parties.
FED. R. CIV. PRO. 24(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit interprets Rule 24(a)(2) to require that proposed intervenors demonstrate four factors in order to intervene as a matter of right: (1) their motion is timely; (2) they possess a “direct and substantial interest” in the subject matter of the litigation; (3) the denial of intervention would significantly impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and (4) their interests are not adequately protected by the existing parties. See Richman v. First Woman’s Bank, 104 F.3d 654, 658–59 (4th Cir.1997).
Here, Petitioners fail to satisfy the final requirement. While the “burden of showing an inadequacy of representation is minimal .... [w]hen the party seeking intervention has the same ultimate objective as a party to the suit, a presumption arises that its interests are adequately represented, against which the petitioner must demonstrate adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance.”Commonwealth of Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir.1976).
Here, although the burden of showing inadequacy of representation is minimal, Petitioners share the same ultimate concerns as Plaintiffs, namely their contention that Maryland’s congressional boundaries must be redrawn to comply with state and federal law. Because they share the same ultimate goal, Petitioners are required to overcome the presumption that their interests are adequately represented, which requires a showing of “adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance.”Id. Petitioners have failed to make such a showing. Thus, intervention of right is improper.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) governs when permissive intervention is proper. “On a timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”FED. R. CIV. PRO. 24(b)(1)(B). The decision to grant or deny a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(b)“lies with the sound discretion of the trial court” although “some standards have been developed to guide the courts in making intervention determinations.”Hill v. W. Elec. Co. Inc., 672 F.2d 381, 386 (4th Cir.1982). A court, in exercising its discretion, “must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”FED. R. CIV. PRO. 24(b)(3). The Fourth Circuit has indicated an important factor to consider for permissive intervention is whether the original parties will be prejudiced. See W. Elec. Co. Inc., 672 F.2d at 386.
*3 Here, permissive intervention is inappropriate because of the undue delay that it is likely to cause in this case. As discussed above, this Court’s scheduling order established an expedited timeline. See Doc. No. 21. Allowing Petitioners whose claims are already adequately represented by Plaintiffs to intervene would likely delay proceedings that must be conducted expeditiously.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Petitioners’ Motion to Intervene, Doc. No. 22, but will grant leave for Petitioners to submit a memorandum as amicus curiae by December 7, 2011. A separate order follows.
2

 </s> Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 1 of 55

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*

PATRICIA FLETCHER, et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

Case No.: RWT-11cv3220

*

LINDA H. LAMONE, et al.,

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

*

________________________________________________________________

Jason Brett Torchinsky, Warrenton, Virginia, and James Paul Mayes, Jamestown, North Carolina, for plaintiffs.

Dan Friedman, Annapolis, Maryland, and Steven M. Sullivan, Baltimore, Maryland, Assistant Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, for defendants.

Filed: December 23, 2011

Before Niemeyer, Circuit Judge, and Williams and Titus, District Judges:

OPINION OF THE THREE-JUDGE COURT

Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judges Williams and Titus joined. Judges Williams and Titus wrote concurring opinions.

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

After the 2010 decennial census, Maryland enacted a new redistricting plan in October 2011 for its eight congressional districts. The plaintiffs, nine African-American residents of Maryland, commenced this action against election officials of Maryland (―Maryland‖ or ―the State‖), contending that the

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 2 of 55
redistricting plan violates their rights under Article I, § 2, of the U.S. Constitution; the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because the plan dilutes African-American voting strength within the State and intentionally discriminates against African-Americans. For the same reasons, plaintiffs also challenge Maryland‘s ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ (―the Act‖), which purports to correct census data for the distortional effects of the Census Bureau‘s practice of counting prison inmates as residents of their place of incarceration.
This three-judge court, convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), heard arguments on December 20, 2011, on the plaintiffs‘ motion for preliminary injunction and Maryland‘s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, as well as on the merits of the case. By agreement of the parties, the court received the testimony of all witnesses by affidavit.
For the reasons given herein, we deny Maryland‘s motion to dismiss based upon an inappropriate convening of the three-judge court, deny the plaintiffs‘ motion for an injunction -preliminary or permanent -- and grant Maryland‘s motion for summary judgment, obviating its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
2

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 3 of 55

I. Factual Context

The 2010 census determined Maryland‘s population to be

5,773,552.

This number entitled the State to eight

congressional seats, the same number it had after the 2000

census.

On July 4, 2011, Governor Martin O‘Malley appointed the Governor‘s Redistricting Advisory Committee (the ―GRAC‖),1 and

that committee held twelve public meetings across the state

between July 23 and September 12, 2011. Over the course of

these meetings, the GRAC received more than 350 comments from

members of the public. Among these comments were several

proposed redistricting plans from third-party groups, including

one from the Fannie Lou Hamer Political Action Committee. The

Fannie Lou Hamer plan differed from all the other third-party

submissions in that it proposed the creation of three, rather

than two, majority African-American districts.

The GRAC presented its proposed plan to the Governor on

October 4, 2011. (Compl. Attach. B.) After posting the plan

online and receiving additional comments from the public, the

1 The GRAC‘s five members were:

Chairperson Jeanne

Hitchcock, Maryland‘s Secretary of Appointments, State Senate

President Thomas V. Mike Miller, State House Speaker Michael

Busch, Prince George‘s County businessman Richard Stewart, and

James King, a small business owner and former member of the

House of Delegates.

3

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 4 of 55
Governor announced that he would submit to the legislature a plan that was ―substantially similar‖ to the GRAC proposal.
The Governor‘s proposed redistricting map (Compl. Attach. C) was introduced as House Bill (H.B.) 1 and Senate Bill (S.B.) 1 in an emergency legislative session beginning October 17, 2011. H.B. 1 was assigned to the House Rules Committee but was never reported out of committee. The Senate Committee on Reapportionment and Redistricting, however, held a joint hearing on S.B. 1 with the House Rules Committee on the same day the bill was introduced. After the hearing, the Senate Committee approved the bill and sent it to the floor of the Senate. While the bill was being debated, State Senator E.J. Pipkin moved to amend the bill. Like the Fannie Lou Hamer plan, Senator Pipkin‘s proposed amendment created three majority AfricanAmerican districts. (Compl. Attach. C.) Specifically, the Pipkin map proposed the creation of a new Fifth District that would stretch from the southern portion of Charles County, through Prince George‘s County, and into the western Baltimore suburbs. The Senate rejected Pipkin‘s amendment and, after adopting minor technical amendments, passed the bill. The bill was then sent to the House of Delegates on October 18, 2011.
During the House debate, several substantive amendments to the bill were proposed and rejected. On October 19, after
4

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 5 of 55
making some technical amendments, the House passed the bill. It then returned the bill to the Senate, which concurred in the House‘s technical amendments and enacted the bill on October 20, 2011. The Governor signed S.B. 1 into law later that day.
Like the redistricting plan passed after the 2000 census, the enacted State Plan creates two majority African-American congressional districts. The Seventh District, which includes large portions of Baltimore City and its surrounding suburbs, has an African-American voting age population (―VAP‖) of 53.75%, and a non-Hispanic white VAP of 35.75%. The Fourth District, which is centered in Prince George‘s County, has an AfricanAmerican VAP of 53.72% and a non-Hispanic white VAP of 28.65%.
The plaintiffs in this case, who are African-American residents of Maryland, commenced this action on November 10, 2011, naming Linda H. Lamone in her official capacity as Maryland‘s Administrator of Elections and Robert L. Walker in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Elections. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the State Plan was deficient in several respects, claiming specifically (1) that the State Plan‘s creation of two, rather than three, majority African-American districts intentionally discriminates against minorities, in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (Counts 1 and 2), and unlawfully
5

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 6 of 55
dilutes African-American voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (Count 5); (2) that the State Plan is unconstitutionally malapportioned (Counts 3, 4, and 6); and (3) that the State Plan is a partisan gerrymander, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count 7). At the time the plaintiffs filed their complaint, they also filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 to convene a three-judge court to adjudicate their claims, as well as a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on Counts 3 and 6.
The State opposed convening a three-judge court. And after it was convened, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, and a Request for Review of the Order Convening a Three-Judge Panel.
The parties thereafter filed responsive and reply briefs and, upon agreeing to present the testimony of witnesses by affidavit, the affidavits of numerous witnesses.
II. Three-Judge Court
At the outset, Maryland requests that we review the singledistrict judge‘s ruling that the plaintiffs‘ complaint is sufficiently substantial to justify convening a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. It argues that the ruling failed
6

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 7 of 55
to take into account the Fourth‘s Circuit‘s precedent in Duckworth v. State Administration Board of Election Laws, 332 F.3d 769 (4th Cir. 2003). In that case, the Fourth Circuit held that when a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ―by definition [it is] insubstantial and so properly [is] subject to dismissal by the district court without convening a three-judge court.‖ Id. at 772-73. The State‘s argument rests on an assumed distinction between a complaint that ―does not state a substantial claim for . . . relief‖ and the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. For purposes of construing § 2284, we find no material distinction, and deny Maryland‘s motion.
The Rule 12(b)(6) standard is a threshold condition for proceeding with an action, testing the sufficiency of a complaint to state a claim for relief. See Brzonkala v. Va. Polytechnic & State Univ., 169 F.3d 820, 829 (4th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In applying the standard, we have required more than formulaic, conclusory allegations. See Duckworth, 332 F.3d at 774-75. Indeed, the Supreme Court has required that a complaint must have sufficient ―heft‖ in alleging facts so as to state a ―plausible‖ claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
7

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 8 of 55
Here, the single-judge court reviewed the complaint and concluded that the claims presented were sufficiently substantial to proceed with convening a three-judge court. Under the standard for convening a three-judge court, which is informed by the standard for granting Rule 12(b)(6) motions, we agree. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56; Duckworth, 332 F.3d at 773-75; Simkins v. Gressette, 631 F.2d 287, 295 (4th Cir. 1980) (noting that convening a three-judge court is not required to address insubstantial claims). Accordingly, we deny the State‘s motion to dismiss the three-judge court.
III. ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ (Counts 3, 4, and 6)
The plaintiffs challenge as unconstitutional Maryland‘s ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ (―the Act‖), 2010 Md. Laws, ch. 67, codified at Md. Code Ann., Art. 24 § 1-111, Election Law (―EL‖) § 8-701. They contend that the adjustments made under the Act result in malapportionment, in violation of Article I, § 2, of the Constitution, and racial discrimination, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Maryland enacted the ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ in 2010. According to the State, the Act is intended to ―correct for the distortional effects of the Census Bureau‘s
8

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 9 of 55
practice of counting prisoners as residents of their place of
incarceration.‖ (Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J. 1.) These distortional
effects stem from the fact that while the majority of the
state‘s prisoners come from African-American areas, the state‘s
prisons are located primarily in the majority white First and
Sixth Districts. As a result, residents of districts with
prisons are systematically ―overrepresented‖ compared to other
districts. In other words, residents of districts with prisons
are able to elect the same number of representatives despite in
reality having comparatively fewer voting-eligible members of their community.2
To rectify this perceived imbalance, the Act requires that
for purposes of drawing local, state, and federal legislative
districts, inmates of state or federal prisons located in
Maryland must be counted as residents of their last known
residence before incarceration. Prisoners who were not Maryland
residents prior to incarceration are excluded from the
2 The manner in which counting prisoners where they are incarcerated results in overrepresentation can be seen most clearly at the local level. For example, District 1 of the Somerset County Council was created as a majority-minority district in order to settle a Voting Rights Act lawsuit brought in the 1980s. However, because the largely minority population of Eastern Correctional Institute was counted in the district‘s population for redistricting purposes, only a small number of African Americans who ―reside‖ in the district were actually eligible to vote. As a result, an African-American was not elected to fill the seat until 2010.
9

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 10 of 55

population count, and prisoners whose last known address cannot

be determined are counted as residents of the district where

their facility is located.

The Maryland Department of Planning (the ―MDP‖)

accomplished the necessary population count adjustments by

performing a multistep analysis of the records for prisoners housed in the Maryland Division of Correction.3 As a result of

the MDP‘s analysis, 1,321 inmates who reported a pre-

incarceration address outside of Maryland were excluded from the

redistricting database. Other prisoners were reassigned to

their prior residences.

The largest changes from these

reassignments occurred in the Sixth District, which contains the

majority of the prisons and lost 6,754 individuals, and the

Seventh District, which includes Baltimore City and gained 4,832

individuals. In no case did the adjustments made by the MDP

exceed 1% of a district‘s population. (Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J.

10.)

After the 1,321 out-of-state prisoners were excluded,

Maryland‘s adjusted population base for redistricting fell to

3 Because the Federal Bureau of Prisons rejected Maryland‘s Freedom of Information Act request for information on the home addresses of individuals incarcerated in federal prisons within Maryland, the MDP counted approximately 1,500 individuals in federal custody as residents of the Federal Correctional Institute Cumberland and Camp Cumberland facilities.
10

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 11 of 55
5,772,231. This figure resulted in a new ideal Congressional district size of 721,528.875 individuals. Because the new ideal district size was not a whole number, the State set the size of the Eighth District to 721,528 individuals and the size of the remaining districts to 721,529 individuals.
The plaintiffs first contend that Maryland‘s adjustments to the census data result in malapportionment, in contravention of the ―One Person, One Vote‖ standard established in Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), under Article I, § 2, of the Constitution.
Article I, § 2 provides that the members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen ―by the People of the several States.‖ U.S. Const. art I, § 2. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, this provision mandates that ―as nearly as is practicable one man‘s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another‘s.‖ Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1964). ―[T]he ‗as nearly as practicable‘ standard requires that the State make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality.‖ Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 530–31 (1969). ―Unless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such effort, the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.‖ Id. States do not have unlimited discretion in performing the
11

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 12 of 55
calculations required to meet the ―One Person, One Vote‖ standard. In Kirkpatrick and again in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), the Supreme Court concluded that because the census count represents the ―‗best population data available,‘ it is the only basis for good-faith attempts to achieve population equality.‖ Karcher, 462 U.S. at 738 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Kirkpatrick, 394 U.S. at 528).
Relying on these statements in Karcher and Kirkpatrick, the plaintiffs contend that ―for determining congressional districts the only [population] number that can be used is the number generated by the U.S. census.‖ (Pls.‘ Mot. Supp. Mot. Prelim. Inj. 7.) Accordingly, they argue that Maryland‘s decision to adjust the census number is unconstitutional.
We believe that the plaintiffs fail to read the Karcher and Kirkpatrick statements in their fuller context. Although Karcher and Kirkpatrick do require states to use census data as a starting point, they do not hold, as the plaintiffs maintain, that states may not modify this data to correct perceived flaws. A more complete reading of the opinion in Karcher makes this point clear. The Court there recognized that ―the census may systematically undercount population, and the rate of undercounting may vary from place to place.‖ 462 U.S. at 738. It cautioned, however, that ―[i]f a State does attempt to use a
12

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 13 of 55
measure other than total population or to ‗correct‘ the census figures, it may not do so in a haphazard, inconsistent, or conjectural manner.‖ Id. at 732 n.4 (citing Kirkpatrick, 394 U.S. 534 – 35). Thus, the New Jersey redistricting plan at issue in Karcher was rejected not because the state used adjusted census data, but because the state failed to perform its adjustments systematically. See id. at 738 (―Attempts to explain population deviations on the basis of flaws in census data must be supported with a precision not achieved here‖ (emphasis added)). Taken together, these Karcher statements suggest that a State may choose to adjust the census data, so long as those adjustments are thoroughly documented and applied in a nonarbitrary fashion and they otherwise do not violate the Constitution.
Although the case law on this issue is sparse, the majority of the courts to consider the issue have similarly concluded that Karcher and Kirkpatrick do not bar the use of adjusted census data. For example, in City of Detroit v. Franklin, 4 F.3d 1367 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit considered a challenge to the Census Bureau‘s alleged undercounting of the primarily African-American residents of the City of Detroit. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claim against the Census Bureau because the allegedly
13

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 14 of 55

harmful act -- the decision to use unadjusted census data in the

redistricting process -- had been made by the Michigan

legislature. In reaching this conclusion, the Sixth Circuit

rejected the plaintiff‘s argument that the Michigan legislature

was constitutionally compelled to use unadjusted census data:

The Court in Karcher did not hold that the states must

use census figures to reapportion congressional

representation. The Supreme Court merely reiterated a

well-established rule of constitutional law: states

are required to use the ―best census data available‖

or ―the best population data available‖ in their

attempts to effect proportionate political

representation.

Nothing in the constitution or

Karcher compels the states or Congress to use only the

unadjusted census figures.

Id. at 1374 (quoting City of Detroit v. Franklin, 800 F. Supp. 539, 543 (E.D. Mich. 1992)); see also Senate of State of Cal. v. Mosbacher, 968 F.2d 974, 979 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating in dicta that ―[i]f the State knows that the census data is unrepresentative, it can, and should, utilize noncensus data in addition to the official count in its redistricting process‖); Perez v. Texas, No. 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR, slip op. at 24 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2011) (holding that ―the State could enact a constitutional amendment or statute that modifies the count of prisoners as residents of whatever county they lived in prior to incarceration . . . [but] there is no federal requirement to do so‖).
14

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 15 of 55
The plaintiffs‘ contrary argument rests primarily on the decision in Travis v. King, 552 F. Supp. 554 (D. Haw. 1982), which, they argue, is the only case directly on point. In Travis, the Hawaii legislature had decided to exclude from its population measure the entire military population, without attempting individual assignment, but allowed ―the presence of this large military population . . . [to] aid[] in achieving its two congressional seats.‖ Travis, 552 F. Supp. at 571. A three-judge court subsequently held that Hawaii‘s actions violated the ―One Person, One Vote‖ principle. But Travis was decided before the Supreme Court‘s decision in Karcher, and the district court in Travis therefore did not have the benefit of Karcher‘s elaboration on the requirements of Article I, § 2. Further, after the categorical exclusion of all military personnel in Travis, the congressional districts still varied by over 300, id. at 569, whereas the Maryland legislature in this case drew districts as equally as possible after adjusting the census figures.
The conclusion that States may adjust census data during the redistricting process is also consistent with the practices of the Census Bureau itself. According to the Census Bureau, prisoners are counted where they are incarcerated for pragmatic and administrative reasons, not legal ones. The Bureau has
15

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 16 of 55

explained that counting prisoners at their home addresses would

require ―collecting information from each prisoner individually‖

and necessitate ―an extensive coordination procedure‖ with

correctional facilities.

U.S. Census Bureau, Tabulating

Prisoners at Their ―Permanent Home of Record‖ Address, at 10

(2006). Such an effort would likely cost up to $250 million.

Id. And although the Census Bureau was not itself willing to

undertake the steps required to count prisoners at their home

addresses, it has supported efforts by States to do so. For the

2010 census, the Bureau released its population data for

prisoners and other inhabitants of ―group quarters‖ early to

enable States to ―leave the prisoners counted where the prisons

are, delete them from redistricting formulas, or assign them to

some other locale.‖ So, How Do You Handle Prisons?, Director‘s

Blog,

U.S.

Census

Bureau

(March

10,

2010),

http://blogs.census.gov/directorsblog/2010/03/so-how-do-you-

handle-prisons.html.

The question remains whether Maryland‘s adjustments to

census data were made in the systematic manner demanded by

Karcher. It seems clear to us that they were. As required by

the regulations implementing the Act, see Md. Code. Regs.

34.05.01 (2011), the MDP undertook and documented a multistep

process by which it attempted to identify the last known address

16

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 17 of 55
of all individuals in Maryland‘s prisons. The MDP and its redistricting contractor, Caliper Corporation, then used this information to make the relevant adjustments to the data it had received from the Census Bureau. (Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J. Ex.s 2, 3, 4.) This process is a far cry from the ―haphazard, inconsistent, or conjectural‖ alterations the Supreme Court rejected in Karcher.
The plaintiffs do not dispute that the MDP followed the prescribed process, but they raise two objections to the result. First, they argue that if Maryland wishes to correct for prisoner-related population distortions, it must also make similar adjustments to account for the distortionary effects of college students and members of the military. (Pls.‘ Resp. Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J. 24.) Second, they contend that contrary to the MDP‘s assumption, most prisoners do not return to their last known residence after release. (Pls.‘ Resp. 26.)
Neither of these objections, however, is probative of whether the adjustments made were proper. To be sure, Maryland might come closer to its goal of producing accurate data if it assigned college students or active duty military personnel to their permanent home addresses for purposes of redistricting. But as with prisoners, Maryland is not constitutionally obligated to make such adjustments. Moreover, the State‘s
17

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 18 of 55

failure to improve its redistricting data even more by

determining students‘ and soldiers‘ home addresses has little

bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs‘ Article 1, § 2 claim

made with respect to prisoners.

We also observe that the plaintiffs‘ argument on this point

implies that college students, soldiers, and prisoners are all

similarly situated groups.

This assumption, however, is

questionable at best. College students and members of the

military are eligible to vote, while incarcerated persons are

not. In addition, college students and military personnel have

the liberty to interact with members of the surrounding

community and to engage fully in civic life. In this sense,

both groups have a much more substantial connection to, and

effect on, the communities where they reside than do prisoners.

As to the plaintiffs‘ second argument that the adjustments

are improper because most prisoners do not return to their last

known addresses after release, it would certainly be true that

at least some prisoners will return to their old communities

even if the plaintiffs are correct. See Nancy G. La Vigne et

al., Urban Institute, A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland

39 (reporting that 59% of Maryland prisoners returned to

Baltimore City after their release from prison). Because some

correction is better than no correction, the State‘s adjusted

18

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 19 of 55
data will likewise be more accurate than the information contained in the initial census reports, which does not take prisoners‘ community ties into account at all.
In sum, we conclude that the State did not violate Article I, § 2 by adjusting the raw census data as it did.
The plaintiffs also contend that the Act‘s exclusion of incarcerated non-Maryland residents from the population base constitutes intentional discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, because, of the 1,321 prisoners who were excluded, 71.08% are African American. (Compl. ¶¶ 49 – 53, 70.)
We find no support in the record for this contention. It is well-established that allegations of disparate impact alone are insufficient to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976). Instead, plaintiffs are required to prove purposeful discrimination. Id. Our review of the record reveals no evidence that intentional racial classifications were the moving force behind the passage of the Act. In fact, the evidence before us points to precisely the opposite conclusion. As the amicus brief of the Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic and other civil rights organizations makes clear, the Act
19

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 20 of 55
was the product of years of work by groups dedicated to advancing the interests of minorities.
IV. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (Count 5)
The plaintiffs contend, as alleged in Count 5 of their complaint, that the State Plan violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the ―VRA‖), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, because it fails to create a third majority African-American congressional district. To support this contention, the plaintiffs recite the census data that show that 30.9% of the Maryland population is AfricanAmerican, representing 28% of the VAP, and they offer four maps that they contend demonstrate how a third African-American district could be created while still respecting traditional districting principles. These maps are the Fannie Lou Hamer Plan (Compl. Attach. A), Senator Pipkin‘s Plan (Compl. Attach. D), and two plans by Antonio Campbell (Pls.‘ Resp. Ex. 14). In each of these maps, a third majority African-American congressional district is formed by connecting residents of the Washington, D.C. suburbs with residents of the Baltimore suburbs.
Section 2(a) of the VRA prohibits the imposition of any electoral practice or procedure that ―results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account
20

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 21 of 55
of race or color.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). ―A violation of [§ 2(a)] is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes . . . are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens . . . in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.‖ Id. § 1973(b).
In 1982, Congress amended § 2 to make clear that plaintiffs need not prove intentional discrimination. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 35 (1986). Instead, a violation of § 2 may be demonstrated through discriminatory effect alone. Id. District line-drawing is therefore impermissible where its result, ―interact[ing] with social and historical conditions, impairs the ability of a protected class to elect its candidate of choice on an equal basis with other voters.‖ Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 153 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the redistricting of a single member constituency, the most common means of manipulating the voting strength of a politically cohesive minority group are ―cracking‖ and ―packing.‖ ―Cracking‖ occurs when redistricting lines are drawn in order to ―divid[e] the minority group among various districts
21

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 22 of 55
so that it is a majority in none.‖ Voinovich, 507 U.S. at 153. ―Packing‖ occurs when a redistricting plan results in an excessive concentration of minorities within a given district, thereby depriving the group of influence in surrounding districts. Id. at 153–54.
In Thornburg v. Gingles, the Supreme Court established three preconditions (the ―Gingles preconditions‖) that a plaintiff must satisfy in order prove a violation of § 2 of the VRA:
First, the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority‘s preferred candidate. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50–51. Only after all of these three preconditions are met will a court evaluate the totality of the circumstances. Although the failure to create a majority-minority voting district may be the basis of a § 2 violation, § 2 does not obligate States to create the maximum possible number of majority-minority districts. See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1016–17 (1994); Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 90 (1997).
22

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 23 of 55
Rather, to succeed on their claim, plaintiffs seeking the creation of an additional majority-minority district must first independently establish the existence of each of the Gingles preconditions for their proposed district. Our analysis will address the first and third.
The first Gingles precondition requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that a minority group is ―sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a singlemember district.‖ Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. The Supreme Court has explained that ―[w]hile no precise rule has emerged governing § 2 compactness, the ‗inquiry should take into account traditional districting principles such as maintaining communities of interest and traditional boundaries.‘‖ League of United Latin Am. Citizens (―LULAC‖) v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 433 (2006) (quoting Abrams, 521 U.S. at 92) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As their primary proof of compactness, the plaintiffs offer two affidavits from Dr. Ronald Keith Gaddie, a political science professor from Oklahoma. (Pls.‘ Resp. Ex. 16; Pls.‘ Mot. Prelim. Inj. Surreply Ex. 4.) Dr. Gaddie evaluates the majority-minority districts drawn in the Fannie Lou Hamer and Pipkin plans and concludes that they are sufficiently compact to warrant the creation of a third majority African-American
23

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 24 of 55
district. Dr. Gaddie‘s analysis also indicates that the additional majority African-American districts in both plans are more compact than several of the districts in the enacted State Plan.
Dr. Gaddie‘s statistical analysis, however, blurs the meanings of the technical term ―compactness.‖ Within the Supreme Court‘s voting rights jurisprudence, the word ―compactness‖ refers to two distinct concepts. ―In the equal protection context, compactness focuses on the contours of district lines to determine whether race was the predominant factor in drawing those lines.‖ LULAC, 548 U.S. at 433 (2006). By contrast, the Gingles ―compactness‖ inquiry focuses on the compactness of the minority population itself, not the shape of the proposed minority district. Id. Thus, the evidence of statistical compactness offered by Dr. Gaddie is of only limited relevance to our § 2 analysis.
Even focusing our review to the statistics, however, that evidence does not prove the plaintiffs‘ compactness conclusion. On page six of his report on demographic trends in Maryland, the plaintiffs‘ expert, Dr. Peter Morrison, provides a graph entitled ―Concentration of Population by Race and Hispanic Origin in Maryland‘s Jurisdiction.‖ (Pls.‘ Resp. Ex. 18.) The graph clearly shows that Maryland has two -- and only two --
24

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 25 of 55

distinct concentrations of African-Americans, one in the D.C.

suburbs and another in the Baltimore area.

The plaintiffs attempt to shore up their § 2 claim by

arguing that the areas combined by their proposed third

majority-minority district constitute a single ―community of

interest.‖

Among other things, they argue that the

Baltimore/Washington area forms an integrated transportation

corridor and that residents of Howard County -- which links

Baltimore and Washington in their proposed plans -- are equally

likely to work in Baltimore City and the Washington D.C. area.

This argument is deficient in two respects. Although the

distances at issue here are not as dramatic as in some cases

courts have considered -- the two Latino communities connected

in LULAC were 300 miles apart, for instance -- the differences

between the two areas are real. While Baltimore‘s economy has

traditionally been based on industry, medical services, and its

port, Washington‘s economic strength derives primarily from the

federal government. The two cities may share an airport, but

they have separate cultural institutions and root for rival

sports teams. And most importantly for election issues, both

areas are in different media markets and have different

newspapers. In light of these differences, we believe the

plaintiffs have not shown sufficiently that residents of their

25

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 26 of 55

proposed additional majority-minority district form a single

community of interest.

We also emphasize that for purposes of the § 2 analysis, a

plaintiff must demonstrate that the minority population at issue

is sufficiently compact. Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 997 (1996)

(Kennedy, J., concurring).

The crucial weakness in the

plaintiffs‘ evidence is that it concerns residents of their

proposed congressional district in general, and not minority

residents specifically. In the absence of this kind of specific

evidence, we may not accept bare assertions that the area‘s

African-American residents share the same characteristics,

needs, and interests. See LULAC, 548 U.S. at 433 (―[A] State

may not assum[e] from a group of voters‘ race that they think

alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the

same candidates at the polls‖ (internal quotation marks

omitted)) (Op. of Kennedy, J.).

Although the failure of plaintiffs to satisfy the first

Gingles precondition is sufficient to dispose of the § 2 issue,

we are also skeptical that the plaintiffs have satisfied the

third Gingles precondition. Commonly referred to as ―racially

polarized voting,‖ this precondition requires plaintiffs to

prove that ―the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to

enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority‘s preferred

26

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 27 of 55

candidate.‖ Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51. Courts often conduct

their review of this precondition on the basis of expert

testimony.

The experts for both sides have analyzed a number of

federal, state, and local elections in Maryland over the past

decade to evaluate trends in racial voting. The State‘s expert,

Dr. Bruce E. Cain, a resident of Maryland and a professor at the

University of California, Berkeley, reports that African-

American candidates can in fact win contested elections in

predominately white areas. (Defs.‘ Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 7-

11.) Dr. Cain‘s analysis found high levels of white support for

minority candidates in several races, including the 2004

Democratic primary race for the Fourth Congressional District.

Dr. Cain further notes that three statewide Democratic primary

races in the past decade have paired white candidates against

African-American candidates:

the 2006 race for Attorney

General, the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, and the 2008 race for

President. In each of these cases, the African-American

candidate‘s share of the white vote differed significantly,

suggesting that factors other than race influenced electoral

decisions.

The results of the 2006 Democratic primary elections in

Montgomery County are of particular interest, as they provide,

27

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 28 of 55

what Dr. Cain terms, a natural social science experiment. In

that election, African-American Attorney General candidate

Stuart Simms received 25% of the white vote in Montgomery County

against a white opponent. In the same election, African-

American candidate for County Executive, Ike Leggett, who was

also running against a well-funded white opponent, received 65%

of the white vote in Montgomery County. Thus, the evidence at

the local level also demonstrates a pattern of varying support

for African-American candidates among the white electorate.

Dr. Gaddie offers a competing take on the electoral

evidence. He contends that Barack Obama‘s primary victory over

Hillary Clinton was atypical and should be attributed to

resource and organization.

More instructive, Dr. Gaddie

insists, is the low share of the white vote received by then-

Congressman Kweisi Mfume, an African-American, during his 2006

U.S. Senate campaign. Dr. Gaddie also points out that most

African-Americans who hold state legislative offices have been

elected from majority African-American districts.

To be sure, the evidence suggests that some instances of

racial voting occur in Maryland. Even Dr. Cain concludes that

Maryland experiences ―moderate‖ racial polarization. But proof

of occasional racial block voting is insufficient to fulfill the

third Gingles precondition, which requires the showing that the

28

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 29 of 55
white majority must be able ―usually to defeat the minority‘s preferred candidate.‖ Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51; see also Rollins v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 89 F.3d 1205, 1213 (5th Cir. 1996) (concluding that although special circumstances ―may explain a single minority candidate‘s victory . . . [e]very victory cannot be explained away as a fortuitous event‖).
On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the white electorate in Maryland is sufficiently racially polarized to satisfy the third Gingles precondition for a § 2 claim.
V. Equal Protection Violations (Counts 1 and 2)
The plaintiffs also contend that Maryland‘s redistricting plan violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment.4 They assert that the state has intentionally discriminated against minorities by splitting minority communities when drawing district lines. According to the plaintiffs, the ―bizarre‖ shapes of some of Maryland‘s congressional districts and the State‘s decision to create two minority influence districts in the Second and Fifth District, are only explainable by
4 It is unclear whether the Fifteenth Amendment applies to vote dilution claims like the one being brought by the plaintiffs here. The Supreme Court has raised the issue, but has not yet issued a definitive holding. See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 159 (1992). But we need not resolve this question in the present circumstances.
29

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 30 of 55
discriminatory intent. The plaintiffs also maintain that the Pipkin map better serves many of the State‘s alleged redistricting goals. Specifically, they argue that Pipkin map splits fewer county lines and ―census designated places,‖ and that the Pipkin map concentrates Maryland‘s military installations in fewer districts.
As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from using race as the sole or predominant factor in constructing district lines, unless doing so satisfies strict scrutiny. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 241 (2001); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 958–59 (1996) (plurality op. of O‘Connor, J.). At the same time, however, the Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause does not preclude any consideration of race in the redistricting process. Indeed, the Court has acknowledged that ―[r]edistricting legislatures will . . . almost always be aware of racial demographics.‖ Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995). The question presented here is whether the State has subordinated traditional, legitimate districting principles to racial considerations. Vera, 517 U.S. 959.
The plaintiffs have submitted several affidavits and reports discussing lamentable incidents of racism in Maryland. They also highlight various areas on the map where they claim
30

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 31 of 55
the line-drawing has moved African-Americans in and out of districts in order to strengthen the Democratic Party‘s advantage. For example, Professor Todd Eberly, a political scientist working in Maryland, suggests that African-American voters were used to balance out the effect of Republican-leaning white voters in the Baltimore suburbs. (Pls.‘ Resp. Ex. 16.)
But this evidence does not suggest, much less prove, that the political process in general or the redistricting process in particular is so infected with racial considerations that a desire to dilute African-American voting strength was the predominate factor in the creation of the State Plan.
As an initial matter, we note that the plaintiffs have not shown that the State moved African-American voters from one district to another because they were African-American and not simply because they were Democrats. Moving Democrats for partisan purposes does not establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), ―even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen to be African-American Democrats and even if the State were conscious of that fact.‖ Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 551 (1999). Distinguishing racial from political motivations is all the more important in a State like Maryland, where the vast majority of African-American voters are registered Democrats.
31

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 32 of 55
Moreover, the plaintiffs offer little evidence suggesting that African-Americans are especially disadvantaged by the State Plan. The State Plan makes two out of the eight congressional districts majority African-American districts. This ratio of minority/majority seats -- 25% -- is thus in proportion to African-Americans‘ share of the total voting-age population -28%. The State Plan also creates two districts, the Second and the Fifth, with significant and growing minority populations. Assuming population trends remain consistent, both of these districts could conceivably elect minority candidates on the basis of majority/minority coalition voting. Thus, while the State Plan may not be maximizing African-American political power in Maryland, it does give the African-American community a strong electoral position, which will continue to strengthen according to current trends.
This result is unsurprising given that the redistricting map drew the support of many members of Maryland‘s AfricanAmerican community. Indeed, even a brief review of the process leading to the State Plan‘s enactment reveals that Maryland‘s African-American political leadership played an integral part in its creation. Both GRAC Chair Jeanne Hitchcock and GRAC member Richard Stewart are African-American. While the GRAC was developing its initial proposal, Maryland‘s Legislative Black
32

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 33 of 55
Caucus submitted two proposed redistricting plans, both of which contained only two majority African-American congressional districts. The Legislative Black Caucus also submitted a document outlining its goals for the redistricting process, which included:
Maintain[ing] the existing opportunity for Black voters to elect candidates of their choice in current District 7 . . . . Maintain[ing] the existing opportunity for Black voters to elect candidates of their choice in current District 4 . . . . Unify[ing] Prince George‘s County into Districts 4 and 5. (Defs‘. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 14.) Each of these requests was fulfilled in the enacted State Plan. Furthermore, during the legislative hearings on S.B. 1, the Redistricting Committee heard testimony from several prominent African-Americans who spoke in favor of the bill -- Prince George‘s County Executive Rushern Baker, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Of course, not every member of the African-American community supports the State Plan. The plaintiffs in this case clearly do not. But as counsel for the State suggested at oral argument, accepting the plaintiffs‘ argument that discriminatory motivations predominated in the redistricting process would require us to conclude that ―the entire African-American
33

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 34 of 55

leadership in the State of Maryland was hoodwinked.‖ We cannot reach such a conclusion on this record.
Our finding that the plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof should not be read as a complete endorsement of the State Plan. Admittedly, the shapes of several of the districts in the State Plan are unusually odd.5 Many obvious communities of interest are divided. For instance, Baltimore City, which could be placed in one congressional district given its current population, is instead split between three. Other districts combine citizens with widely divergent interests. That a farmer in Oakland should share a Representative with a federal contractor living in Potomac is, we think, a suspect proposition.
Yet the Supreme Court has made clear that ―[t]he Constitution does not mandate regularity of district shape‖;

5 Maryland‘s Third Congressional District merits special

discussion. The District begins in Pikesville, a northwest

suburb of Baltimore City; leaks eastward to capture the

northeast suburbs of Baltimore City; then drops down into

Baltimore City, taking a slice of the City on its way to

Montgomery County, a northwest suburb of Washington, D.C.; then

veers eastward in a serpentine manner to include Annapolis, a

city on the Chesapeake Bay. In form, the original Massachusetts

Gerrymander looks tame by comparison, as this is more

reminiscent of a broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate

across the center of the State. The Third District is rated at

or near the bottom of all congressional districts in multiple

measures of statistical compactness. See Redistricting the

Nation,

Top

10,

http://www.redistrictingthenation.com/top10.aspx.

34

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 35 of 55
rather, for strict scrutiny to apply, ―traditional districting criteria must be subordinated to race.‖ Vera, 517 U.S. 962. In its briefs and during oral argument, the State offered several plausible, nonracial reasons why the districts ended up looking as they do. For example, the decision to split majority African-American Prince George‘s County between two districts was necessary because the county is more populous than the ideal district. Additionally, the basic shape of some districts has not changed substantially since the last redistricting, suggesting that incumbent protection and a desire to maintain constituent relationships might be the main reasons they take their present forms.
And even if the plaintiffs are correct that the Pipkin map is more effective than the State Plan in vindicating some legitimate redistricting interests, that fact alone does not render the State Plan illegitimate. As the Supreme Court has explained, States may consider a wide variety of factors during the redistricting process. Easley, 532 U.S. at 242 (―[T]he legislature ‗must have discretion to exercise the political judgment necessary to balance competing interests,‘ and courts must ‗exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race‘‖ (quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 915)). The State‘s constitutionally
35

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 36 of 55

permissible decision to prioritize certain interests over others, without more, does not establish that racial motivations predominated in the state‘s decisionmaking.
Accordingly, we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden.

VI. Political or Partisan Gerrymandering (Count 7)

In the final count of their complaint, the plaintiffs

allege that Maryland‘s redistricting plan is an impermissible

partisan gerrymander.

Specifically, they argue that the

redistricting map was drawn in order to reduce the number of

Republican-held congressional seats from two to one by adding

Democratic voters to the Sixth District, which covers Western

Maryland and portions of the Washington, D.C. suburbs.

Although this claim is perhaps the easiest to accept

factually -- Maryland‘s Republican Party regularly receives 40%

of the statewide vote but might well retain only 12.5% of the

congressional seats -- it is also the plaintiffs‘ weakest claim

legally, if they have standing to assert it at all. Since it

first recognized the issue‘s justiciability in Davis v.

Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the Supreme Court has struggled

to define the parameters of a successful partisan gerrymandering

claim. Recent cases have reaffirmed the conceptual viability of

36

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 37 of 55
such claims, but have acknowledged that there appear to be ―no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims.‖ Vieth v. Jubilirer, 541 U.S. 267, 281 (2004) (plurality opinion of Scalia, J.); see id. at 307–08 (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also LULAC, 548 U.S. 447 (op. of the Court by Kennedy, J.) (finding no ―reliable measure of impermissible partisan effect‖). Faced with ―an unbroken line of cases declining to strike down a redistricting plan as an illegal partisan gerrymander,‖ Henderson v. Perry, 399 F. Supp. 2d 756, 761 (E.D. Tex. 2005), all of the lower courts to apply the Supreme Court‘s Vieth and LULAC decisions have rejected such claims. See, e.g., Perez, et al. v. Texas, No. 11-360, slip. op. at 21–22 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2011); see also Radogno v. Ill. Bd. of Elections, No. 11-4884, slip op. at 5–7 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2011) (reviewing seven proposed standards the Supreme Court has rejected).
The plaintiffs here likewise offer no reliable standard by which to adjudicate their gerrymandering claim. At best, they appear to argue for a sort of hybrid equal protection/political gerrymandering cause of action, which would be judged under the standards applicable to discrimination challenges. The Supreme Court, however, has previously dismissed similar claims, emphasizing that although ―[r]ace is an impermissible
37

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 38 of 55
classification . . . [p]olitics is quite a different matter.‖ Vieth, 541 U.S. at 307 (op. of Kennedy, J.). Absent a clear standard to apply, we must reject the plaintiffs‘ arguments on this count.
VII. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, we conclude that the plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of proof with respect to any of the Counts alleged in their complaint. Accordingly, we will deny the State‘s motion to dismiss the three-judge court; deny the plaintiffs‘ motion for a preliminary injunction; and grant the State‘s motion for summary judgment. A separate paper entering judgment for the State is filed herewith.
Paul V. Niemeyer Alexander Williams, Jr. Roger W. Titus

December 23, 2011

___________/s/_______________ by Paul V. Niemeyer, for the court

38

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 39 of 55
TITUS, District Judge
I concur in the excellent opinion for the Court by Judge Niemeyer, but write separately to express concerns about the current, unsatisfactory state of the law on claims of political gerrymandering.
Count 7 of the Complaint alleges that five of the congressional districts were politically gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and are the result of ―gross partisan gerrymanders, which violate the United States Constitution‘s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantee by fragmenting cohesive communities of interest and political subdivisions between districts in support of no legitimate, consistently applied state policy.‖ Compl. ¶ 78. Count 7 goes on to allege that ―[n]o legitimate consistently applied state policy is supported or furthered by these plans‘ needless division of these communities.‖ Id. ¶ 79.
In their papers and in oral argument before the Court, however, the Plaintiffs premised their claim of political gerrymandering on allegedly improper racial motivations in the drawing of the congressional district boundary lines, and eschewed the more general allegations in the Complaint of a partisan gerrymander. Since the Plaintiffs‘ claims are tethered to a claim of racial animus in the drawing of congressional
39

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 40 of 55
district boundaries, and because the Court has found that claim wanting, it is difficult for the Court to address the more basic question of whether Maryland has engaged in improper partisan gerrymandering in its recently adopted congressional districting plan.
Had the Plaintiffs pressed the issue, they would, of course, have run headlong into the confusing, at best, nature of the decisional law on this subject by the Supreme Court. At least four members of the Court in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) would have eliminated entirely the justiciability of political gerrymandering claims. Vieth was only decided by the concurrence of Justice Kennedy in the result, but he would not join in abandoning justiciability of such claims. The inability of the Supreme Court to agree upon a standard for evaluating claims of partisan gerrymandering is chronicled in the plurality opinion of Justice Scalia in Vieth, and as yet, a discernable standard has not been developed and approved by the Supreme Court.
This is a tragic and unfortunate circumstance. Never before has the United States seen such deep political divisions as exist today, and while the courts are struggling in their efforts to find a standard, the fires of excessive partisanship are burning and our national government is encountering deadlock
40

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 41 of 55
as never before. In his concurrence in Vieth, Justice Kennedy invited the formulation of standards, and for the sake of the country, one should be developed lest the extreme political divisions plaguing this country continue.
While a claim of political gerrymandering, untethered to a claim of racial discrimination, was not pursued by the Plaintiffs, it is clear that the plan adopted by the General Assembly of Maryland is, by any reasonable standard, a blatant political gerrymander. If the claim had been pressed by the Plaintiffs and an acceptable standard existed for judging it, I would not have hesitated to strike down the Maryland plan. The question, however, is on the basis of what standard?
It is clear that partisan considerations in the development of reapportionment plans are something that will not go away and, standing alone, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a reapportionment plan. The question, as posed by Justice Kennedy, is whether, in a given case, ―de facto incorporation of partisan classifications burdens rights of fair and effective representation (and so establishes the classification as unrelated to the aims of apportionment and thus is used in an impermissible fashion.‖ Id. at 312 (Kennedy, J., concurring). In determining whether the rights to fair and effective representation have been impacted by a reapportionment plan,
41

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 42 of 55
Justice Kennedy noted that First Amendment concerns may be appropriate for consideration, especially ―where an apportionment has the purpose and effect of burdening a group of voters‘ representational rights.‖ Id. at 314.
I would suggest that the focus of the inquiry should steer away from whether partisan interests have been advanced or suppressed, and focus instead on communities and whether the voters in these communities have seen their right to fair and effective representation compromised by having their community of interests ignored. I realize, of course, that during the redistricting process partisan considerations and incumbency protection inevitably play a role, but the blatant actions taken here demonstrate to me an impermissible political gerrymandering that ―crossed the line.‖
Two perfect examples are found in the plan before this Court: the sixth and third districts. First, it is not a wellkept secret that the plan for the sixth congressional district was developed for the purpose of disadvantaging an incumbent Republican legislator and, as previously noted, that is insufficient, standing alone, to strike down a gerrymander. However, when creating a legislative district for such a purpose, community interests simply cannot be completely disregarded as they were in the case of this district.
42

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 43 of 55
Prior to the reapportionment, the sixth district consisted of predominately mountain, rural, farming or low density suburban communities that had a broad commonality of interests. The new district dramatically differs from the old in that several hundred thousand residents of far more densely populated Montgomery County were added to the district, in the process fracturing Montgomery County into three separate congressional districts. The result is to create a district in which any commonality of community interests has been shattered.
Citizens of Garrett County are at a higher altitude, have a different climate, root for different sports teams, and read different newspapers than their counterparts in Montgomery County. As a result, the interests of two widely diverse regions of the state are paired, and both are compromised in their right to fair and effective representation. Those who have an interest in farming, mining, tourism, paper production, and the hunting of bears, are paired with voters who abhor the hunting of bears and do not know what a coal mine or paper mill even looks like. Both of their interests thus have been compromised.
The shape of congressional district three is almost impossible to describe. It includes a snippet of Baltimore City, portions of Baltimore County, a small segment of
43

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 44 of 55
Montgomery County, a large chunk of Anne Arundel County, and an isolated snippet that includes Annapolis that is detached from the rest of the district and can only be reached by water. To suggest that there is a community of interest between residents of Brookeville in Montgomery County, Owings Mills in Baltimore County, and Annapolis in Anne Arundel County is absurd. One reason for this Rorschach-like eyesore is the fact that the incumbent Congressman lives in Baltimore County, but still ―wanted to continue to represent the capital city Annapolis.‖ Pls.‘ Resp. to Defs.‘ Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J., Ex. 16, Decl. of Prof. Eberly ¶ 34 (quoting Maryland State President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.).
As has already been chronicled by Justice Scalia in his opinion in Vieth, numerous standards have been proposed, and rejected, by the Supreme Court. And, while congressional district three would probably be a prime candidate for the ―I know it when I see it‖ test,6 that test has already been rejected by the Supreme Court.
There are, however, fairly neutral and objective standards that could and should be considered for adoption by the Supreme Court. Had a claim of partisan gerrymandering been pursued in
6 See Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Potter, J., concurring).
44

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 45 of 55
this case, untethered to a claim of racial discrimination, I believe that a finding of political gerrymandering could have been made applying a rational standard that could be utilized in future cases. In my judgment, the question of whether political considerations played a role is both irrelevant and naïve. Politics will always play a role in the establishment of congressional boundaries. The real question is whether those considerations ―though generally permissible, were applied in an invidious manner or in a way unrelated to any legitimate legislative objective‖ so as to interfere with the right of fair and effective representation. Vieth, 541 U.S. at 307 (Kennedy, J., concurring). In other words, did ―politics‖ go too far?
In resolving that question, a number of benchmarks should be considered similar to those that are already contained in Maryland‘s Constitution in Article III, Section 4, pertaining to reapportionment of the state legislature. Those criteria clearly were not applied in this case, and had they been, it would be difficult to conceive how the plan adopted by the General Assembly could have passed muster under the State‘s own Constitution. Maryland‘s Constitution sets forth reasonable and objective standards for reapportionment of the General Assembly, including substantial equality of population, compactness,
45

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 46 of 55
contiguity and giving due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.
When voters go to the polls to elect a representative to the national legislature, their rights to fair and effective representation are compromised when they are jumbled together with persons with whom they have little, if any, community of interest. Had Maryland‘s own constitutional standards for reapportionment of the General Assembly been applied, we would likely not be in the unfortunate situation we are in today.
What I would propose for consideration in future cases is a burden-shifting process similar to that embraced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Where a partisan political gerrymander is alleged and the Plaintiff demonstrates that the districts chosen have been drawn with substantial disregard of political boundaries or natural boundaries, or are not compact, and the result has been the separation of identifiable communities, there should be a presumption that the right to fair and effective representation has been violated. The burden would then shift to the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest (other than incumbent protection or endangerment) that supports the boundaries chosen based on a legitimate public policy.
46

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 47 of 55
Had such a test been available to this Court and had the Plaintiffs pressed their claim of a partisan gerrymander separate and distinct from racial discrimination, I would have invalidated the redistricting plan without hesitation. Unfortunately that is not a choice available to this Court because we have neither a ship for the voyage nor a compass to guide us.
Williams, District Judge Although I join the Court‘s comprehensive and well-reasoned
opinion, I write separately to articulate my own views in reference to these sensitive and politically charged issues. This action—brought by nine African-American voters against a state plan favoring Democrats—fostered a unique and complex coalition of interests. It was this strange and oftcontradictory interplay of interests that ultimately toppled Plaintiffs‘ racial and partisan gerrymandering claims. Although my friend and respected colleague in his concurring opinion voiced concern at what he terms a ―blatant political gerrymander,‖ I emphasize that the Court, upon finding that the map withstood constitutional scrutiny, properly employed its judicial restraint in upholding the State Plan in its entirety.
47

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 48 of 55
I. ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ (Counts 3, 4, and 6)
As indicated by the majority, Plaintiffs‘ claim that the ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ intentionally discriminates against African-Americans in violation of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment can be summarily disposed with.7
From the outset, Plaintiffs struggled in making any sort of intentional discrimination claim since a significant portion of the legislative and community leaders advocating in favor of the State Plan were African-Americans. Several African-American politicians and community members testified in favor of the State Plan, including: Prince George‘s County Executive Rushern Baker, Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett, and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake. The Black Legislative Caucus proposed two redistricting plans, neither of which called for the three majority African-American districts proposed by
7 While Plaintiffs initially premised their intentional discrimination claims on both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, they conceded at the hearing that their Fifteenth Amendment claim holds little weight under current jurisprudence. Post-Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), the Supreme Court has consistently focused on the Fourteenth Amendment as the proper vehicle for resolution of intentional discrimination claims.
48

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 49 of 55
Plaintiffs. Eight out of nine African-American senators and 31 of 34 African-American delegates voted for the State Plan. In fact, Defendants contended during the hearing that the very Chair of the legislative redistricting committee was AfricanAmerican, as were a substantial portion of the individuals on that committee. It was represented at the hearing that even Representative Donna Edwards, initially a vocal dissident of the State Plan on racial grounds, has now voiced her support.
As indicated by the majority, this Court refuses to entertain Plaintiffs‘ supposition that all of these individuals— leaders in the African-American community—were somehow bamboozled into promoting a state plan infected by invidious discrimination. Plaintiffs have produced no other evidence from which the Court could infer that traditional districting principals were subordinated to racial considerations.
Plaintiffs have shown no evidence, and in fact do not even allege in Count IV, that the ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ has a discriminatory purpose. Nor would Plaintiffs succeed in such a claim; the legislative history of the Act reveals that it was heralded as a civil rights bill focused on eradicating ―prison-based gerrymandering.‖ I found particularly impressive and persuasive Howard University School of Law‘s amicus brief on the matter. The Howard Amicus provided
49

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 50 of 55
a thorough account of the promulgation and purpose of the Act, emphasizing that the Act received the full support and advocacy of the NAACP of Maryland, the ACLU of Maryland, and the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland. Given Plaintiffs‘ failure to plead or prove a discriminatory purpose or invidious discrimination in the promulgation of the law, Plaintiffs‘ claims fail to meet even the threshold showing required by Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976). Although I decline to reach the issue of discriminatory effect here, the Howard Amicus has persuasively demonstrated that the Act empowers all voters, including African-Americans, by counteracting dilution of votes and better aligning districts with the interests of their voting constituents.
I find especially thorough the majority‘s analysis of Plaintiffs‘ Article I, Section 2 claim with regard to the ―No Representation Without Population Act‖ and address it no further here.
II. Political or Partisan Gerrymandering (Count 7)
One of the most striking aspects of Plaintiffs‘ partisan gerrymander claim is its strange alliance between AfricanAmerican voters and Republican officials. Plaintiffs allege
50

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 51 of 55

that Maryland‘s redistricting plan diminishes Republican

influence by reducing Republican-held congressional seats from

two to one.

Although Plaintiffs never specify their political

affiliation, the pleadings, briefs, and record contain all the

trappings that would lead one to plausibly conclude that

Plaintiffs are Democrats. Plaintiffs themselves proclaim,

―African-Americans are the most reliable Democratic voting bloc

. . .‖ (Doc. 16 at 22). Furthermore, Plaintiffs detail the

State‘s purported plot to move politically cohesive African-

American voters to the Sixth District—currently a Republican-

controlled seat—to secure seats for White Democrats. This

conjecture presumes that Plaintiffs, and the African-Americans

on whose behalf they speak, are dependable Democrats. This

atypical dynamic—where the plaintiffs argue a plan benefiting

their

party

constitutes

unconstitutional

political

gerrymandering—differs from other partisan gerrymander claims.

See, e.g., Vieth v. Jubilirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004); Davis v.

Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986).

Setting aside this fusion of unexpected bedfellows, I agree

with the Court‘s opinion that Plaintiff‘s inability to

articulate a justiciable standard for constitutionality defeats

their political gerrymander claim.

In fact, Plaintiffs‘

51

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 52 of 55
proposed standard—incorporating an intentional invidious racial component—mirrors previous standards already rejected by the Supreme Court. See Vieth, 541 U.S. at 286, 292–95 (rejecting both appellants‘ and Justice Stevens‘s proposed standards because racial and political gerrymandering are not analogous).
While the concurring opinion of my respected colleague Judge Titus characterizes the State Plan as a blatant political gerrymander, I take a different view. It is important to bear in mind that the Supreme Court has recognized that politics is an inherent part of any redistricting plan, and that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional only when it is so excessive as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Here, the evidence was too scarce to confidently assert that Maryland‘s redistricting plan constituted patently unconstitutional political gerrymandering.
Taking into account the enormous challenge of crafting an acceptable standard, it is unclear that the standard proposed in my colleague‘s concurrence would be acceptable to the Court. First, the concurring opinion focus on the preservation of particular communities is not a requirement found in the Constitution, pertinent statutes, or applicable precedents.8
8 Although communities of interest is one factor that a legislature may consider in redistricting, no provision of the
52

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 53 of 55
Nevertheless, the Court has rejected standards that ―are not discernible in the Constitution‖ and have ―no relation to Constitutional harms‖ See Vieth, 541 U.S. at 295. Second, the Vieth plurality rejected Justice Souter‘s proposal requiring a five-step prima facie showing by the plaintiffs, which the state would then rebut with evidence of a legitimate governmental interest. According to the plurality, each of the findings required by the prima facie test was overly vague and immeasurable. See Vieth, 541 U.S. at 295–97. (―What is a lower court to do when, as will often be the case, the district adheres to some traditional criteria but not others?‖). One of Justice Souter‘s requirements for establishing a prima facie case was the state paid little or no heed to traditional districting principles, such as those advocated by the concurring opinion (i.e. disregard of political boundaries or natural boundaries, separation of identifiable communities). Moreover, this standard requires the state to demonstrate a government interest aside from incumbent protection. However, the Supreme Court has determined that incumbent protection is a legitimate consideration when creating redistricting plans.
Constitution or federal law requires states to preserve particular communities when redistricting.
53

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 54 of 55
Finally, it bears emphasis that this Court correctly declined Plaintiffs‘ invitation to tinker with the State Plan. Throughout this action, Plaintiffs‘ contentions have revealed a complex interplay of racial and partisan interests; interweaving, sometimes inextricably, fully justiciable issues with matters best left to the legislature. Upon determining that the perceived infirmities in the State Plan withstood constitutional scrutiny, my inquiry ended.
Certainly the district lines could have legitimately been drawn in a thousand different and perhaps more coherent ways that would have been more amenable to Plaintiffs, the community, or this Court. These redistricting decisions necessarily involve a sensitive and often complex array of value judgments. When entering this political thicket, one is confronted by the plethora of conflicting interests at play and quickly realizes that it is a zero sum game; the promotion of one legitimate interest inures to the detriment of others. Given the State Plan before this Court and the current state of the case law on political gerrymandering claims, I emphasize that this Court reached the proper outcome in upholding the State Plan in its entirety, rather than unfettering its judicial restraint by directing legislative revisions. In my view, the State Plan and its partisan line-drawing are the product of sensitive political
54

Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 54 Filed 12/23/11 Page 55 of 55 choices and compromises best vested in the legislature‘s wise discretion.
For all of these reasons, I join in the opinion and judgment of the Court.
55

 </s> Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 63 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 1
Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk
Washington, DC 20543-0001

June 25, 2012

William K. Suter Clerk of the Court (202) 479-3011

Clerk United States District Court for the District of Maryland United States Courthouse 101 West Lombard Street Baltimore, MD 21201-2691

Re: Patricia Fletcher, et al. v. Linda H. Lamone, et al. No. 11-1178 (your No. RWT-11cv3220)
Dear Clerk:

_FILED _lCGGFf"l

_ENTERED

JUN 27 t, I

BY
~

1\1 .~nLI I~'vl H.
l-lERK. U S DISTRICT Cl"" DISTRICT OF MARYlANf'

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The judgment is affirmed.

Sincerely,
W~!~
William K. Suter, Clerk

 </s> Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 1 of 10
APPEAL,CLOSED
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:11−cv−03220−RWT

Fletcher et al v. Lamone et al Assigned to: Judge Roger W Titus Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Patricia Fletcher Ms.
Plaintiff Trevelyn Otts Mr.
Plaintiff Donald M. Glover Mr.
Plaintiff Janis Hagey Ms.

Date Filed: 11/10/2011 Date Terminated: 01/13/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by James Paul Mayes Law Office of James P Mayes 4721 Chesterfield Pl Jamestown, NC 27282 12022552031 Fax: 13368415275 Email: mayesfedlaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Brett Torchinsky Holtzman Vogel PLLC 45 N Hill Dr Ste 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 15403418808 Fax: 15403418809 Email: jtorchinsky@holtzmanlaw.net PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Brett Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Brett Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Brett Torchinsky

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 2 of 10

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Winnie Mae Campbell Ms.

represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Brett Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Harris Mr.

represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Brett Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Thompson Mr.

represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Brett Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Julia L. Williams Ms.

represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Brett Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robina Spruill Ms.

represented by James Paul Mayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Brett Torchinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 3 of 10

Intervenor Plaintiff C. James Olson

represented by Clarence Paul Smith Law Office of C Paul Smith 308 W Patrick St Frederick, MD 21701 13017620033 Fax: 13016202240 Email: cpaulsmith@verizon.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff C. Paul Smith

represented by Clarence Paul Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Ronald George

represented by Clarence Paul Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Carl F. Middledorf

represented by Clarence Paul Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Antonio Wade Campbell

represented by Clarence Paul Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Philip J. Smith

represented by Clarence Paul Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Linda H. Lamone in her official capacity as State Administrator of elections for the State of Maryland

represented by Dan Friedman Maryland Office of the Attorney General Counsel to the General Assembly 90 State Circle Room 104 Annapolis, MD 21401 14109465600 Fax: 14109465601 Email: dfriedman@oag.state.md.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M Sullivan State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Pl Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766300 Fax: 14105766955 Email: ssullivan@oag.state.md.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 4 of 10

Adam Dean Snyder Office of the Attorney General Division of Opinions &Advice 200 St. Paul Place 20th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 14105766398 Fax: 14105767036 Email: asnyder@oag.state.md.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn M Rowe State of Maryland Office of the Attorney General Legislative Services Bldg 90 State Circle Room 104 Annapolis, MD 21401 14109465600 Fax: 14109465601 Email: krowe@oag.state.md.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robert L. Walker in his official capacity as chairman of the State Board of Elections

represented by Dan Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Sullivan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Dean Snyder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn M Rowe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches

represented by Deborah A Jeon American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland Foundation 3600 Clipper Mill Rd Ste 350 Baltimore, MD 21211 14108898555 Fax: 14103667838 Email: jeon@aclu−md.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Somerset County Branch of the NAACP

represented by Deborah A Jeon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland

represented by Deborah A Jeon (See above for address)

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 5 of 10

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
DEMOS: A Network for Action and Ideas

represented by Ajmel Quereshi National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th St NW Seventh Fl Washington, DC 20005 12023934930 Fax: 12023934931 Email: aaquereshi@law.howard.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deborah A Jeon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brenda Wright Demos 358 Chestnut Hill Ave Ste 303 Brighton, MA 02135 16172325885 Fax: 16172327251 Email: bwright@demos.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Prison Police Initiative

represented by Deborah A Jeon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aleks Kajstura Prison Policy Initiative 69 Garfield Ave Floor One Easthampton, MA 01027 14135270845 Fax: 16178495915 Email: akajstura@prisonpolicy.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Wagner Prison Policy Initiative 69 Garfield Ave Floor One Easthampton, MA 01027 14135270845 Fax: 16178495915 Email: pwagner@prisonpolicy.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Howard University School of Law, Civil Rights Clinic

represented by Ajmel Quereshi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus

represented by

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 6 of 10

NAACP Legal Defense &Education Fund, Inc.

Ajmel Quereshi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dale E Ho NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc 99 Hudson St Ste 1600 New York, NY 10013 12129652252 Fax: 12122267592 Email: dho@naacpldf.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/10/2011
11/10/2011
11/10/2011
11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/16/2011
11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 84637018140.), filed by Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Janis Hagey, Winnie Mae Campbell, Robina Spruill, Julia L. Williams, Patricia Fletcher, Michael Thompson, Donald M. Glover. (Attachments: # 1 A, # 2 B, # 3 C, # 4 D, # 5 E, # 6 F, # 7 G, # 8 H, # 9 I, # 10 Civil Cover Sheet)(ranks, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
2 MOTION to Convene Three−Judge Court by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams Responses due by 11/28/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(ranks, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
3 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Jason Torchinsky by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams(Receipt # 84637018140 Filing Fee $50.00) (ranks, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
4 Summons Issued 21 days as to Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker. (ranks, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
5 Case Reassigned to Judge Roger W Titus. Judge William D Quarles, Jr no longer assigned to the case. (pkf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER scheduling a telephone status conference on November 16, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/15/11. (cms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven M Sullivan on behalf of All Defendants (Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Dean Snyder on behalf of All Defendants (Snyder, Adam) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
9 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 3 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Jason Torchinsky on behalf of Winnie Mae Campbell, Donald Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, and Julia L. Williams. Directing attorney Jason Torchinsky to register on−line for CM/ECF at https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attyregB/inputProHac.asp. Signed by Clerk on 11/16/11. (cmns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Dan Friedman on behalf of All Defendants (Friedman, Dan) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathryn M Rowe on behalf of All Defendants (Rowe, Kathryn) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
12 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER directing defendants to file any opposition to plaintiff's motion to convene by 11/18/2011 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiffs are directed to file their reply by 11/21/11 at 2:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 7 of 10

11/18/2011
11/18/2011 11/21/2011 11/21/2011
11/21/2011 11/21/2011 11/27/2011 11/28/2011 12/01/2011 12/01/2011
12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011

11/16/11. (cms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams Responses due by 12/5/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Text of Proposed Order, # 12 Certificate of Service)(Torchinsky, Jason) Modified on 12/5/2011 (courtesy copy rec'd &submitted to chambers 12/5/11 rs)(rss, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 11/18/2011)
14 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker Responses due by 12/5/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Opposition to Motion for Three−Judge Panel and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Proposed Order)(Friedman, Dan) Hard copies received 11/21/11. Modified on 11/21/2011 (cms, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 11/18/2011)
15 MOTION Proposed Schedule by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams Responses due by 12/8/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
16 RESPONSE re 14 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Torchinsky, Jason) Modified on 12/5/2011 (courtesy copy rec'd &submitted to chambers 12/5/11 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 11/21/2011)
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/21/2011. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
18 ORDER granting 2 Motion to convene a three−Judge. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/21/2011. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
19 RESPONSE re 15 MOTION Proposed Schedule filed by Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Snyder, Adam) (Entered: 11/27/2011)
20 ORDER appointing a three judge court. Signed by Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit) on 11/23/11. (cms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Plaintiffs Motion to Propose Schedule. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 12/1/11. (cms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
22 MOTION to Intervene by C. James Olson, C. Paul Smith, Ronald George, Carl F. Middledorf, Antonio Wade Campbell, Philip J. Smith Responses due by 12/19/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A − proposed Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B − Exhibit Maps, # 3 Supplement Memorandum in Support, # 4 Supplement Attachment C − Circuit Ct. Memo, # 5 Text of Proposed Order Order, # 6 Affidavit Certificate of Service)(Smith, Clarence) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Deborah A Jeon on behalf of Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, Somerset County Branch of the NAACP, American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland (Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
24 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Brenda Wright ( Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0416−3269149.) by DEMOS: A Network for Action and Ideas, Prison Police Initiative (Jeon, Deborah) Modified on 12/7/2011 (cmnss, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/02/2011)
25 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Aleks Kajstura ( Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0416−3269271.) by Prison Police Initiative (Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 8 of 10

12/02/2011

26 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Peter Wagner ( Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0416−3269329.) by Prison Police Initiative (Jeon, Deborah) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

27 NOTICE of Appearance by Ajmel Quereshi on behalf of Howard University School of Law, Civil Rights Clinic (Quereshi, Ajmel) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

28 (FILED IN ERROR) MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Dale Ho ( Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0416−3269681.) by Howard University School of Law, Civil Rights Clinic (Quereshi, Ajmel) Modified on 12/7/2011 (cmnss, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

30 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Intervene filed by Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker. Replies due by 12/19/2011. (Brockman, William) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

31 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus by Howard University School of Law, Civil Rights Clinic Responses due by 12/19/2011 (Quereshi, Ajmel) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

32 Supplemental to 31 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus filed by Howard University School of Law, Civil Rights Clinic Proposed Amicus Brief. (Quereshi, Ajmel) Modified on 12/5/2011 (courtesy copy rec'd &submitted to chambers 12/5/11 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

33 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and Review by Three−Judge Panel by Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker Responses due by 12/19/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, Opposition to Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Errata 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24)(Snyder, Adam) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/02/2011

34 MOTION Leave to Exceed Page Limit re 33 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and Review by Three−Judge Panel by Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker Responses due by 12/19/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Leave to Exceed Page Limit)(Sullivan, Steven) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

12/03/2011

35 Text of Proposed Order re 33 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, and Review by Three−Judge Panel (Proposed Order) by Robert L. Walker Responses due by 12/22/2011 (Snyder, Adam) Modified on 12/6/2011 (cms, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/03/2011)

12/05/2011

36 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 12/2/2011. (rss, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/05/2011

37 ORDER Denying 22 MOTION to Intervene by C. James Olson, C. Paul Smith, Ronald George, Carl F. Middledorf, Antonio Wade Campbell, Philip J. Smith. Petitioners are granted leave to file a memorandum as amicus curiae onor before December 7, 2011. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 12/2/2011. (rss, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

12/07/2011

38 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 24 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Brenda Wright on behalf of Demos. Directing attorney Brenda Wright to register on−line for CM/ECF at https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attyregB/inputProHac.asp. Signed by Clerk on 12/7/11. (cmnss, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/07/2011

39 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 25 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Aleks Kajstura on behalf of Prison Policy Initiative. Directing attorney Aleks Kajstura to register on−line for CM/ECF at https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attyregB/inputProHac.asp. Signed by Clerk on 12/7/11. (cmnss, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/07/2011

40 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 26 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Peter Wagner on behalf of Prison Policy Initiative. Directing attorney Peter

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 9 of 10

12/07/2011 12/07/2011
12/07/2011 12/07/2011 12/09/2011 12/09/2011 12/13/2011
12/16/2011 12/18/2011 12/20/2011 12/21/2011 12/22/2011

Wagner to register on−line for CM/ECF at https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attyregB/inputProHac.asp. Signed by Clerk on 12/7/11. (cmnss, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
42 OPENING BRIEF Brief of C. James Olson et al by C. James Olson. Responses due by 1/9/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Smith, Clarence) Hard copies received 12/9/11. Modified on 12/9/2011 (cms, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/07/2011)
43 RESPONSE to Motion re 33 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and Review by Three−Judge Panel filed by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams. Replies due by 12/27/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Affidavit, # 6 Affidavit, # 7 Affidavit, # 8 Affidavit, # 9 Affidavit, # 10 Affidavit, # 11 Affidavit, # 12 Affidavit, # 13 Affidavit, # 14 Affidavit, # 15 Affidavit, # 16 Affidavit, # 17 Affidavit, # 18 Affidavit)(Torchinsky, Jason) Hard copies received 12/12/11. Modified on 12/12/2011 (cms, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/07/2011)
44 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams Responses due by 12/27/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
45 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 12/7/11. (cms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
46 Second CORRECTED 29 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Dale Ho by NAACP Legal Defense &Education Fund, Inc.. The fee has already been paid.(Quereshi, Ajmel) Modified on 1/12/2012 (nrm, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/09/2011)
47 NOTICE by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix)(Torchinsky, Jason) Hard copies received 12/13/11. Modified on 12/13/2011 (cms, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/09/2011)
48 REPLY to Response to Motion re 33 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and Review by Three−Judge Panel filed by Linda H. Lamone, Robert L. Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 26, # 2 Exhibit 27, # 3 Exhibit 28, # 4 Exhibit 29, # 5 Exhibit 30, # 6 Exhibit 31, # 7 Exhibit 32, # 8 Exhibit 33, # 9 Exhibit 34, # 10 Exhibit 35)(Snyder, Adam) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
49 Memorandum re 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Surreply filed by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
50 NOTICE by Linda H. Lamone re 33 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, and Review by Three−Judge Panel Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Authority)(Snyder, Adam) (Entered: 12/18/2011)
51 Bench Trial held on 12/20/2011 before Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer and District Judges Alexander Williams, Jr. and Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter: Tracy Dunlap) (hbm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
52 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Clarence Paul Smith on behalf of C. James Olson. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Smith, Clarence) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
53 MOTION for Leave to File Post Trial Brief by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina

Case: 8:11-cv-3220 As of: 06/02/2013 05:15 PM EDT 10 of 10

12/23/2011 12/23/2011
12/27/2011 12/27/2011 12/27/2011 01/12/2012 01/20/2012 01/23/2012
01/25/2012 06/27/2012 10/16/2012

Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams Responses due by 1/9/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Post Trial Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
54 OPINION of the Three−Judge Court. Signed by Judge Paul V. Niemeyer for the Court on 12/23/2011. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
55 ORDER denying 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying 14 Motion to dismiss for Failure to State a claim; denying Defendants' Motion to dismiss and Defendants' alternative Motion for Summary Judgment 33 and 35 is granted; granting 34 Motion for leave to Exceed Page Limit ; granting 31 Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief; granting 46 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 53 Motion for Leave to File Post Trial Brief; entering judgment for costs for Defendants; and directing the Clerk to CLOSE this case. Signed by Clerk on 12/23/2011. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
56 BENCH TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST received on 12/20/2011 by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson and Julia L. Williams. (hbm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
57 BENCH TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST received on 12/10/2011 by Linda H. Lamone and Robert L. Walker. (hbm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
58 Stipulation re: Return of exhibits to Counsel. (hbm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
59 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 46 Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Dale Ho on behalf of NAACP Legal Defense &Education Fund, Inc. Directing attorney Dale Ho to register on−line for CM/ECF at https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attyregB/inputProHac.asp Signed by Clerk on 1/12/12. (nrm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
60 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the U.S. Supreme Court by Winnie Mae Campbell, Patricia Fletcher, Donald M. Glover, Janis Hagey, Michael Harris, Trevelyn Otts, Robina Spruill, Michael Thompson, Julia L. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Torchinsky, Jason) Modified on 1/24/2012 (krc, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 01/20/2012)
61 FILED IN ERROR] Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 60 Notice of Appeal,. IMPORTANT NOTICE: To access forms which you are required to file with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit please go to http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov and click on Forms &Notices. (krc, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 1/24/2012 (krc, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 01/23/2012)
62 ORDER of USCA "ADMINISTRATIVELY" closing the appeal as to 60 Notice of Appeal, filed by Patricia Fletcher, Michael Harris, Michael Thompson, Winnie Mae Campbell, Robina Spruill, Donald M. Glover, Julia L. Williams, Trevelyn Otts, Janis Hagey (krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
63 Correspondence from the Supreme Court of the United States regarding entry of Order Affirming the Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(kns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
64 Correspondence re: Certified Copy of Judgment from Supreme Court. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(bas, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2012)


[CONTENT] November 10, 2011 | nine | African-American | Maryland | the U.S. District Court | Maryland | Maryland | 2 | the Voting Rights Act | 42 | 1983 ||| Maryland | the 2010 Census | two | eight | 40% ||| Maryland | the Voting Rights Act ||| 70% ||| The District Court | Roger Titus | three | six | Maryland | 2011 WL 6097770 ||| December 23, 2011 | three | Paul Niemeyer | Maryland | 831 | 887 ||| The Supreme Court | June 25, 2012 | 133 | S.Ct ||| 29 [SUMMARY] On November 10, 2011, nine African-American voters in Maryland filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Maryland, under Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked for both declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that Maryland intentionally violated minority rights after the 2010 Census by only creating two minority-majority districts (out of eight total) despite 40% of the population being a minority.

The plaintiffs argued that Maryland's approach to census data that required prisoners to be considered at their last known address, rather than at their correctional facility (and eliminating any prisoners whose last known address was outside the state from consideration) violated the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Over 70% of those not considered were black. The District Court (Judge Roger Titus) granted a motion allowing for a three-judge panel to hear the case (2011 WL 5854636) and later denied a motion to intervene by six additional Maryland residents (2011 WL 6097770).

On December 23, 2011, the three-judge panel (opinion written by Judge Paul Niemeyer) granted Maryland's motion for summary judgment because states are allowed to tinker with census data as long as their method was not haphazard, inconsistent, or conjectural (831 F.Supp.2d 887). The Supreme Court summarily affirmed (without opinion) on June 25, 2012, 133 S.Ct. 29.