Judicial Watch Sues Maryland for
Gerrymandered Congressional Districts – Voters Challenge Unconstitutional
Plan
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. (No. 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
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 (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 “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
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. 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
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 (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
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,
 |
