Trial Set in Our Lawsuit Challenging
Maryland’s Gerrymandering Abuse
A Maryland court has set a trial date for our lawsuit against the State of
Maryland challenging the state’s 2021 Congressional redistricting plan.
In moving forward with the case, the court denied
the motion of the State of Maryland and its election officials to dismiss
our suit. The trial is scheduled for March 15-18, 2022.
We filed the lawsuit
on behalf of 12 registered Maryland voters who object to Maryland’s 2021
congressional redistricting plan on the grounds that it is a partisan
gerrymander that diminishes their rights to participate in free and fair
elections for the U.S. Congress on an equal basis with other Maryland
voters, in violation of the Maryland Constitution (Parrott
et al. v Lamone et al. (No. C-02-CV-21-001773)).
The trial will also include plaintiffs from a separate lawsuit against the
Maryland gerrymander. We are being assisted by Gardner M. Duvall of
Whiteford Taylor Preston in Baltimore, and by William J. Holtzinger, Esq.,
of Frederick, Maryland.
Our lawsuit
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 5th 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.
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.
Some background: In June 2015, we filed a lawsuit
in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s
gerrymandered congressional district map. We filed on behalf of voters in
each of Maryland’s congressional districts—including Maryland Delegate
Neil Parrott, who is also the lead plaintiff in this new state-court
lawsuit. In December 2016, we filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in
response to Maryland’s attempt to retain the gerrymandered voter
districting plan.
This historic challenge and trial are necessary because Democrats in the
legislature abused power in setting up Maryland’s gerrymandered
congressional maps. This trial is about protecting the rights of all voters
and citizens. Politicians shouldn’t get to pick their voters.
Illegal Immigrant Murders Four in County of Sheriff Sued for
Reporting Alien Criminals
The horrors of California’s coddling of illegal immigrant criminals
continue to mount. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the details
of the latest tragedy, this one involving three murdered children.
Months after a California sheriff got sued
for reporting undocumented criminals to federal authorities, an illegal
immigrant with a criminal history murdered four people in the veteran law
enforcement official’s jurisdiction just days after being released from
jail. The brutal crimes occurred in Sacramento, California, where Sheriff
Scott Jones was recently sued by a leftist civil rights group for
transferring illegal alien offenders to Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) for removal rather than release them back into the community under
state sanctuary laws known as the TRUTH
Act and the California
Values Act. The first one, which went into effect in 2017, requires
that local police give criminals in the U.S. illegally a written notice of
their transfer to ICE. The second, which was enacted a year later, forbids
all California law enforcement agencies from using funds or employees to
“investigate, interrogate, detain or arrest persons for immigration
enforcement purposes.” The measure is also known as SB
54.
The Golden State’s outrageous sanctuary laws protected 39-year-old
Mexican national David Mora-Rojas from deportation after at least two
encounters with the law. In April 2021, the mother of his three children
obtained a restraining
order against him after a domestic violence incident, according to the
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, which confirms that the order
specifically states Mora-Rojas cannot own or possess firearms or
ammunition. On February 23, 2022, Mora-Rojas was arrested in Merced County
about 115 miles south of Sacramento for driving under the influence,
assaulting a police officer, and assaulting medical staff. ICE served a
detainer on the jail, but state sanctuary laws prohibited Merced officials
from holding Mora-Rojas or communicating with ICE about his release, so the
illegal immigrant walked out of jail on a $15,000 bond.
Five days later Mora-Rojas shot
his three daughters and a court-ordered chaperone at a Sacramento
church before shooting himself. The girls were nine, 10 and 13 years old.
Mora-Rojas used an Armalite Rifle (AR) style gun with no serial number or
manufacturer makings, according to the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office, which
describes it as a Privately Made Firearm (PMF). The rifle had an extended
30-round magazine inserted and 17 casings were found at the scene. The
horrific crimes occurred on February 28 at around 5 p.m. at the Church in
Sacramento which is located in a residential neighborhood. The church
issued a
statement expressing shock and sadness, “resulting in the deaths of
five of our members,” which seems to include the shooter. One Sacramento
news report says court documents paint a disturbing
picture of verbal and physical abuse inflicted by Mora-Rojas on the
mother of his three kids, yet he was allowed to remain in the country
illegally.
In the tragedy’s aftermath, Sheriff Jones is publicly expressing outrage.
The 33-year law enforcement veteran is currently serving his third term as
the top cop in the central California county of around 1.6 million that
includes the state’s capitol. In a social
media post Jones writes that “there is only ONE thing that allowed
this horrific tragedy to occur with certainty: the deplorable state of our
national immigration policies, and California’s Sanctuary State Laws.”
Jones warns that liberals and activists will try to spin the narrative,
dredge up sympathy for the monster that killed the victims and focus on the
horrors of ghost guns. “When I was invited to the White House by
President Trump in 2018 to discuss immigration failures in our country, I
described California’s Sanctuary State law as creating ‘spectacular
failures’ all over this state,” Jones writes. “I was criticized in
The [Sacramento] Bee and elsewhere for that statement, but I defy them now
to color this tragic event any other way.”
In November Jones was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for
transferring illegal immigrants convicted of state crimes to federal
authorities. The group claims
that collaborating with the feds—rather than releasing illegal alien
offenders back into the community—compounds racial disparities in the
policing, immigration, and criminal justice systems, in which black and
Latinx communities are disproportionately targeted for arrest, detention,
and deportation. In the federal complaint
the ACLU accuses Jones and his agency of violating California sanctuary
laws by reporting illegal immigrants jailed for committing local crimes to
ICE upon completing their sentence. The offenders are eligible to return to
their home and communities in the U.S. but instead are enduring a “cruel
double punishment,” according to the ACLU attorney who filed the lawsuit
on behalf of the illegal aliens. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s
“anti-immigrant agenda” harms communities, the ACLU lawyer asserts. The
group has failed to issue a statement or comment on the Mora-Rojas murders,
which could have been prevented if he were deported after his first
encounter with local law enforcement.
New York City’s War on Election Fairness
New York City is a mess. Crime is rampant. Schools are failing. Residents
are bailing out by the thousands. And the city’s officials continue their
march into madness by encouraging anarchy in the electoral process. In our
Investigative Bulletin Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison
outlines
the problem.
Gotham’s new mayor is getting kudos for standing up to radicals on guns
and crime and schools, but when it comes to election integrity the Left is
taking him to the cleaners. Unchecked, it’s an electoral death sentence
for Mayor Eric Adams and fair elections in New York City.
The war on election fairness is being waged on two fronts — one in broad
daylight, and the other from the shadows. In both cases, the vehicle for
the radical takeover of New York is the city’s failed Board of Elections
(BOE).
In the daylight war, Mr. Adams in January allowed radical City Council
legislation granting 800,000 noncitizens the right to vote in local
elections to pass into law. Any noncitizen who is legally documented and a
resident for 30 days — 30 days! — can vote in contests for mayor, City
Council, comptroller, public advocate and borough presidents. The Board of
Elections is tasked with managing the hundreds of thousands of new
noncitizen voters.
In the shadow war, Mr. Adams is mute while possibly thousands of voters
remain illegally on voter rolls. Under federal law, the National Voter
Registration Act, the states must make “a reasonable effort” to remove
from voting rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have been
disqualified from voting due to death or failure to provide notification of
change of residence. The Board is responsible for keeping voter rolls
honest.
Dirty voter rolls matter. Leaving the names of inactive voters on
registration rolls creates opportunities for fraud, such as dead people
voting or double voting. Sometimes it only takes a few votes to swing an
election. The 2019 election for Queens district attorney, for example, was
won by 60 votes.
In November, Judicial Watch sent letters to BOE officials in all five
boroughs warning of apparent serious violations of the voter registration
act. The law requires states to remove registrations of voters who fail to
respond to an address confirmation request and then fail to vote in two
consecutive elections.
In New York City, the numbers of potential violators ignored by the Board
of Elections are staggering. Mining statutory reporting data, Judicial
Watch found that in Manhattan, with 1.2 million registered voters, state
authorities removed a grand total of two ineligible voters from voting
rolls.
In Brooklyn, with 1.7 million registered voters, the number removed:
zero.
In Queens, with 1.3 million registered voters, the number removed:
zero.
In Staten Island, with 344,000 voters: zero.
In the Bronx, with 867,000 voters: One ineligible voter was removed.
“About 10% of Americans move every year,” notes Robert Popper, Judicial
Watch’s director of voting integrity efforts. “Those counties should
generate hundreds of thousands of canceled registrations. There is simply
no way to comply with federal law while removing so few outdated
registrations under its key provision.”
BOE’s response? A stonewall of silence on dirty voter rolls. And a punt
on noncitizen voting: It sent a letter to Albany asking for a “review”
of the new law.
The BOE has a long history of incompetence and cronyism, most recently
badly bungling the initial ranked-choice voting rollout in last year’s
municipal elections. Under the new law, it likely would have to create a
dual-ballot system for election day — one ballot for state and federal
races for citizens, and one for municipal races that would include
noncitizen voters.
Dual ballots are an invitation to corruption. So is the 30-day residency
requirement of the new law. Both open the door to all sorts of unscrupulous
operatives who manipulate ballots and voters.
Legal challenges are mounting. A group of prominent New York Republicans
has filed a lawsuit against Mr. Adams, the Board of Elections, and the City
Council, seeking to overturn the noncitizen voting law as
unconstitutional.
And Judicial Watch has warned
that city officials–well as other government entities around the
country–will face court action if they remain out of compliance with the
voter registration act.
“New York City’s Board of Elections is a national disgrace,” says
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The idea that it can manage an
entirely new list of noncitizen voters when it can’t even keep ineligible
voters of its current list under federal law, is absurd.”
Until next week...
|