Happy New Year!

[INSIDE JW]

JUDICIAL WATCH SUES MARYLAND FOR GERRYMANDERED CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
– VOTERS CHALLENGE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PLAN

[[link removed]]

Although everything seems to slow down during the holidays, we have
been busy on your behalf.

We just filed a lawsuit for 12 Maryland voters who object to a 2021
congressional redistricting plan because it diminishes their rights to
participate in elections equally with other voters in violation of the
state’s Constitution. (We are assisted by William J. Holtzinger,
Esq., of Frederick, Maryland.)

Our new lawsuit (_Parrott et al. v Lamone et al. _
[[link removed].
8683397)) details:

Maryland’s recent history of partisan gerrymandering is no secret.
[Its 2011] congressional district map … remains one of the most
notorious partisan gerrymanders in U.S. history. A federal district
judge openly doubted that it could provide “fair and effective
representation for all citizens.” Another called it “absurd” to
suggest ‘that there is a community of interest” in a district
described as a “Rorschach-like eyesore.” [A federal appeals court]
famously described the same district as “a broken-winged
pterodactyl, lying prostrate across the center of the state.”
The lawsuit relates that a bipartisan commission recommended a map
to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan on November 5 that he approved, but
the legislature passed a different proposal in a straight party-line
vote. On December 9, 2021, Hogan vetoed this proposal, and, the same
day, the state legislature overrode his veto on another party-line
vote.

Our suit points out that the new map “is similar to the
gerrymandered map that was the subject of universal abuse ten years
ago as the worst gerrymander in the country.” The lawsuit details
how the map distorts district lines, deviates from and crosses
existing political boundaries, and fractures and divides communities
of interest:

Maryland’s Plan splits Anne Arundel County into three congressional
districts. The middle of Anne Arundel County is … connected to the
Eastern Shore’s First Congressional District. The two areas are held
together solely via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge…. Baltimore is divided
among three congressional districts…. Montgomery County is divided
among four congressional districts…. A roughly 20-mile trip north on
the Baltimore-Washington Parkway from Cheverly, Maryland, a DC suburb,
to Jessup, Maryland, an area outside [BWI] Airport, would cross
congressional boundaries six times and lead a traveler through five
different congressional districts.
The lawsuit highlights how Maryland’s Fifth District features an
“umbilical cord” designed to include Democratic voters in College
Park to “counterbalance” the more Republican voters in the
southern part of the state. And the Sixth Congressional District
connects Garrett County, “the westernmost rural county which borders
Pennsylvania and West Virginia,” with Potomac, Maryland, a wealthy
DC suburb:

As a federal court commented about the Sixth District in 2011, which
made a similar linkage between these populations, it brings together
voters “who have an interest in farming, mining, tourism, paper
production, and the hunting of bears … with voters who abhor the
hunting of bears and do not know what a coal mine or paper mill even
looks like.” These two groups have “different climate[s], root for
different sports teams, and read different newspapers.”
Outside experts agree that the plan is flawed, with the nonpartisan
Princeton Gerrymandering Project giving it a grade of “F” for
fairness and geographic compactness. In 2020, Republicans accounted
for approximately 35% of Maryland’s Congressional votes, but they're
unlikely to win even a single seat under this plan. This outcome
wouldn't be possible without political gerrymandering.

We argue that the plan violates Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration
of Rights, which guarantees voters the right to “free and
frequent” elections and the “right of suffrage.” Article 7 has
been held to be “even more protective of rights of political
participation than the provisions of the federal Constitution.”

Additionally, the plan violates Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland
Constitution, which provides that, “Each legislative district shall
consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of
substantially equal population. Due regard shall be given to natural
boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.”

Unfortunately, Democrats in the legislature went beyond politics to
abuse of power in setting up Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional
maps. This lawsuit seeks to protect the rights of all voters and
citizens. Simply put: politicians shouldn’t get to pick their
voters.

JUDICIAL WATCH WINS APPEAL ON RELEASE OF SALLY YATES’ RECORDS ON
REFUSAL TO ENFORCE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN

The corrupt acts of Obama holdovers against President Trump were some
of the worst corruption cases in American history.

So it was nice to see U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia
Circuit order
[[link removed]]
a lower court to directly review records withheld by the Justice
Department about former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates related to
her outrageous 2017 refusal to enforce President Donald Trump’s
travel ban executive order (_Judicial Watch vs. U.S. Department of
Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No.
20-5304)).

The appellate court reversed a lower court ruling that the Justice
Department could withhold certain records under the Freedom of
Information Act’s Exemption 5
[[link removed]]
“deliberative process privilege,” which can be used to keep secret
“pre-decisional” agency records. The appeals court ordered the
lower court to directly review the records at issue _in camera_ to
determine if they qualify for withholding as “deliberative.”

We appealed
[[link removed]]
the district court’s ruling on February 11, 2021. At issue are four
records described as “working drafts” of a January 30, 2017,
statement by Yates instructing DOJ officials not to defend the
executive order issued by then-President Trump. Trump fired Yates for
insubordination after she issued the one-page statement
[[link removed]].
The “working drafts” were sent as attachments in a chain of emails
sent without messages between Yates and her deputy Matthew Axelrod.

We filed a May 2017 FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
after the DOJ failed to respond to a February 2017 FOIA request
seeking Yates’ emails from her government account (_Judicial Watch
v. U.S. Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:17-cv-00832)) for the time period she served as Acting Attorney
General for President Trump.

In our appeal, we highlighted how the Justice Department was
undermining the FOIA reforms passed into law Congress under the FOIA
Improvements Act in 2016 that “established a new, heightened
standard of proof that agencies must meet when making discretionary
withholdings of records requested under FOIA. Congress intended the
FIA to shore up FOIA, not preserve a years-long, unsatisfactory status
quo of ‘withhold-it-because-you-want-to’ exemptions and
‘knee-jerk secrecy.’”

The appeals court ruled the Justice Department “failed to satisfy
its burden” to demonstrate that the Yates attachments “are
deliberative” and reversed the district court's grant of summary
judgment:

Because the district court chose to rely on the government's
declarations, and because we expect the attachments are relatively
brief, we remand with instructions to review the attachments _in
camera_ and determine, consistent with the principles set forth
herein, whether they qualify as deliberative. Should the district
court conclude that the attachments are deliberative, it must then
determine, consistent with the principles set forth in _Reporters
Committee_, whether DOJ also satisfied its burden under the FOIA
Improvement Act. 3 F.4th at 369-72.
This appeals court decision is a victory for transparency in the
face of the Justice Department’s casual contempt for transparency.
In an act of seditious and unethical conduct, Obama holdover Sally
Yates sought to subvert then-President Trump by interfering with his
lawful travel ban. That the Justice Department would try to cover up
the details of this lawlessness is yet another scandal.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

A few days before New Year’s Day 1777, General George Washington led
his men across the icy Delaware River through hail, snow and sleet to
attack the British. This daring feat boosted the morale of not only
his army but of colonists in general.

The army’s failures to this point had many worried
[[link removed]]
that the fledgling nation would not endure. The Declaration of
Independence was only six months old. Washington knew that something
had to be done, and he did it.

“Courage is contagious,” the evangelist Billy Graham said. “When
a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often
stiffened.”

As we cross over into a new year, with chilling winds all about, we
are called to press on with courage. And you can be sure Judicial
Watch will.

And on behalf of my colleagues and I wish you a safe, prosperous and
Happy New Year!

Until next week,



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2021, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]