In Re Legislative Districting of the State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

In Re Legislative Districting of the State

317 A.2d 477, 271 Md. 320, 1974 Md. LEXIS 1042

DecidedMarch 22, 1974

Docket[Misc. Nos. 5 and 6, September Term, 1972 and Misc. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, September Term, 1973.]

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 317 A.2d 477 (In Re Legislative Districting of the State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Legislative Districting of the State, 317 A.2d 477, 271 Md. 320, 1974 Md. LEXIS 1042 (Md. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The legislative districting plan submitted by the Governor of Maryland to the General Assembly of Maryland, setting forth the boundaries of the legislative districts for the election of members of the Senate and House of Delegates, required by § 5 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland to be prepared following each decennial census of the United States, having become law on February 24, 1973, as Joint Resolution 1 of the Senate and Joint Resolution 2 of the House of Delegates (hereinafter referred to as the Governor’s Plan); and

The Governor’s Plan having provided, in accordance with, and in implementation of, §§ 2 and 3 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland, that the State of Maryland be *321 divided into forty-seven Districts for the election of members of the General Assembly, that each legislative district elect one Senator and three Delegates, that each legislative district may be subdivided into three whole Delegate subdistricts or one whole Delegate subdistrict and one multi-member Delegate subdistrict; and that in any legislative district which contains more than two counties or parts of more than two counties, and where Delegates are to be elected at large by the voters of the entire district, no county, or part of a county, shall have more than one Delegate residing in it; and

It being mandated by § 4 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland that each legislative district “shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form ... of substantially equal population . . . [and that] [d]ue regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions” ; and

It being mandated by § 5 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland that the Governor of Maryland, prior to submitting his legislative districting plan to the General Assembly, shall conduct public hearings; and

It also being provided by § 5 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland that the Court of Appeals, upon petition of any registered voter in this State, is vested with original jurisdiction “to review the legislative districting of the State and . . . [to] grant appropriate relief, if it finds that the districting of the State is not consistent with requirements of either the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Constitution of Maryland” ; and

The petitioners in these cases, all registered voters of the State, having challenged the constitutionality of the Governor’s Plan, by collectively asserting, in designated particulars, that (a) certain of the Districts were not compact in form; (b) that due regard was not given to certain natural boundaries and to the boundaries of designated political subdivisions; (c) that the Governor’s Plan constituted a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution; and (d) that the Governor’s Plan was invalid *322 for failure to comply with the requirement of § 5 that “public hearings” be held prior to preparation of the Plan and submission to the General Assembly; and

The Court having concluded, by Order dated July 31, 1973, that the Governor’s Plan was not validly promulgated and adopted for lack of compliance with the requirement of § 5 of Article III of the Constitution of Maryland that “public hearings” be held prior to preparation of the Governor’s legislative districting plan; and

The Governor’s Plan having thus been invalidated and the Court by its Order of July 31, 1973, having determined to exercise its constitutional authority under § 5 to “grant appropriate relief” in these proceedings; and

The Court, by its Order of July 31, 1973, having adopted the Governor’s Plan as the plan setting forth the proposed boundaries of the legislative districts for the election of members of the Senate and House of Delegates, subject to cause to the contrary being shown as provided in said Order; and

The Court having directed that public hearings be held before a Special Master to permit members of the general public to provide pertinent and relevant information in these proceedings; and

The Court having further directed that any registered voter of this State, in addition to the petitioners in these proceedings, who desired to show cause why the Governor’s Plan, or any part thereof, should not be duly adopted as the final legislative districting plan, should formally intervene and present his objections to the Plan on or before September 30,1973; and

Public hearings having been conducted by the Special Master on September 10, 1973, and October 17, 1973, and additional parties having formally intervened in the proceedings prior to September 30, 1973; and

The Special Master having reviewed the Governor’s Plan in the context of the complaints filed against it, together with the pleadings, the arguments of counsel on various motions for summary judgments, the stipulations, the *323 answers to requests for admissions, and the information and data provided by those at the hearings of September 10 and October 17, 1973; and

The Special Master having filed a “Tentative Report and Preliminary Recommendations” with the Court on December 4, 1973, setting forth his views with respect to the law governing the proceedings, the limited role to be exercised by the Court of Appeals in reviewing complaints of unconstitutionality of the Governor’s Plan, and his tentative recommendations for the redistricting of the legislative districts challenged by the petitioners on constitutional grounds; and

The Special Master having thereafter invited exceptions to his tentative and preliminary recommendations and having held a hearing in connection therewith on December 19, 1973, and having heard arguments on said date by counsel for the petitioners in these cases; and

The Special Master having thereafter invited views of any registered voter of the State who desired to present information or data in support of, or in opposition to, the legislative districting set forth in the Governor’s Plan, and in the tentative plan submitted by the Special Master, such information and data to be submitted in writing to the Special Master on or before January 4, 1974; and

The Special Master having considered all such information and data, together with the exceptions taken to his tentative recommendations, and arguments of counsel, and having filed a Final Report with the Court on January 24, 1974, setting forth his recommendations for a final legislative districting plan; and

The Court, by Order dated January 25, 1974, having directed all parties in the proceedings, and amici curiae appearing in the cases, to present reasons in support of, or opposition to, the adoption by the Court of the final legislative districting plan submitted by the Special Master, and having ordered oral arguments to be held before it on March 5 and 6,1974; and

Counsel representing the petitioners in these cases and amici curiae having filed briefs with the Court and having *324

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI