In Re 2012 Legislative Districting: Maryland High Court Decision Exemplifies Lackluster Federal Guidance on Redistricting

Matthew LaGarde

Days after the beginning of his administration in January 2009, President Barack Obama shut down an argument with then-House Republican Whip Eric Cantor by informing Congressman Cantor that “[e]lections have consequences.” What has become increasingly clear in recent years is that state elections-- particularly state elections conducted immediately prior to a national census and subsequent redistricting--may have profound consequences on future elections. Since the Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable in Davis v. Bandemer nearly thirty years ago, state and federal judiciaries have wrestled with applying the Court's holding to claims of state partisan gerrymandering. In In re 2012 Legislative Districting, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the legislative apportionment plan (“the Redistricting Plan”) passed by the Maryland State Legislature in 2012 following the 2010 United States Census. This Note will argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it distinguished the Maryland Redistricting Plan from the Georgia apportionment plan reviewed in Larios v. Cox, and should instead have struck down the Redistricting Plan as partisan discrimination in violation of the “one person, one vote” principle of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. More fundamentally, this Note argues that the standard applied by the Court of Appeals in reaching its decision was internally incoherent and stands as an unfortunate descendant of the Supreme Court's ambiguous and impracticable opinion in Davis. The Court of Appeals' decision, including its failure to articulate a practicable standard by which to judge future redistricting efforts, marks another step in the continuing erosion of the public's faith in the integrity of the electoral system.