The Maryland Constitution grants the state supreme court original jurisdiction over disputes regarding boundaries of state legislative districts, Md. Const. art. III, § 5, which the Maryland Supreme Court has interpreted to include claims for partisan gerrymandering, see In the Matter of 2022 Legislative Districting of State, 282 A.3d 147, 175 (Md. 2022). Though the Maryland Supreme Court has yet to address whether partisan gerrymandering challenges to congressional maps are likewise justiciable, a trial court has exercised jurisdiction over such a challenge. See Szeliga v. Lamone, No. C-02-CV-21-001816, 2022 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 9, *11 (Md. Cir. Ct. Mar. 25, 2022).
According to the Maryland Supreme Court, a claim for partisan gerrymandering is cognizable under the state constitution’s compactness requirement for state legislative districts. In the Matter of 2022 Legislative Districting of State, 282 A.3d at 160 (citing Md. Const. art. III, § 4). In the context of such districts, the court has held that, to prove partisan gerrymandering, “an affirmative showing is ordinarily required to demonstrate that [] districts were intentionally so drawn to produce an unfair political result, that is, to dilute or enhance the voting strength of discrete groups for partisan political advantage or other impermissible purposes.” Id. (quoting In the Matter of Legislative Districting of State, 475 A.2d 428, 443 (Md. 1982)). “In other words, there must be a showing of ‘flagrant partisan abuse of the redistricting process’[.]” Id. (quoting Legislative Redistricting Cases, 629 A.2d 646, 664 (Md. 1993)). Applying this standard, the Maryland Supreme Court concluded that, based on a report produced by a special magistrate judge, the state’s legislative maps for the 2020 redistricting cycle did not violate the Maryland Constitution. Id. at 191. According to the court, the petitioners failed to prove that the plans “subordinate[d] the [state constitution’s compactness requirement] to partisan gerrymandering and other political concerns.” Id. at 211.
While the state supreme court upheld the state’s 2020 legislative maps, a state trial court invalidated the 2020 congressional map. Drawing on statistical outlier analysis, it concluded that the map was “an extreme gerrymander that subordinates constitutional criteria to political considerations.” Szeliga, 2022 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 9, *116, 124.
The Maryland Constitution directs the state supreme court to “grant appropriate relief, if it finds that [a] [state legislative map] is not consistent with the requirements of either the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of Maryland.” Md. Const. art. III, § 5. The Maryland Supreme Court has not considered how to apply this remedial provision since it has yet to find an illegal partisan gerrymander.[1] For congressional districts, no constitutional or statutory provision expressly details the process for remedying an unlawful gerrymander. In Szeliga, the legislature adopted a new congressional map following the trial court’s ruling, and the state then dismissed its appeal, ending the litigation. 273 A.3d 888 (Md. 2022).
Endnote
[1] The court, however, ordered the implementation of a revised legislative plan after it struck down the initial plan for violating the state constitution’s requirement of due regard for natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions. In re Legislative Districting of State, 805 A.2d 292, 329 (Md. 2002).