Redistricting in Maryland

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Maryland's eight United States Representatives and 188 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Maryland was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information about redistricting in Maryland after the 2020 census.

HIGHLIGHTS

Following the 2020 United States Census, Maryland was apportioned eight congressional districts, which was unchanged from the number it had after the 2010 census.

Maryland's state legislature is made up of 47 districts, each of which elects one state senator and three state delegates.

In Maryland, the primary authority to draw both congressional and state legislative district lines rests with the state legislature.

On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Lamone v. Benisek, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims, such as that made against Maryland's congressional district plan, present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. To learn more, see here.

Maryland adopted new congressional district boundaries on April 4, 2022, when Gov. Larry Hogan (R) signed revised redistricting legislation that the General Assembly had finalized on March 30, 2022. Hogan signed the new map after state Attorney General Brian Frosh withdrew his appeal of Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia's ruling overturning the state's previous congressional redistricting plan. The state Senate approved the revised congressional district boundaries 30-13 with all votes in favor by Democrats and all votes opposed by Republicans on March 29, 2022. The House of Delegates approved the revised map on March 30, 2022, by a vote of 94-41 with all 'yes' votes by Democrats and 40 Republicans and one Democrat voting 'no.'

Maryland adopted legislative maps on January 27, 2022, when the Maryland House of Delegates approved new legislative district boundaries that had been approved on January 20, 2022, by the Maryland State Senate. The vote in the state Senate was 32-14 and in the House of Delegates was 95-42, both strictly along party lines.Since legislative maps are not subject to gubernatorial veto, the maps were therefore enacted.

Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Maryland
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Maryland
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Maryland's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

“	No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.	”
—Voting Rights Act of 1965

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Maryland was home to three congressional majority-minority districts.

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Maryland, the primary authority to adopt both congressional and state legislative district lines rests with the state legislature. The governor submits a state legislative redistricting proposal (an advisory commission appointed by the governor assists in drafting this proposal). The state legislature may pass its own plan by joint resolution, which is not subject to gubernatorial veto. If the legislature fails to approve its own plan, the governor's plan takes effect. Congressional lines are adopted solely by the legislature and may be vetoed by the governor.

The Maryland Constitution requires that state legislative districts be contiguous, compact, and "give 'due regard' for political boundaries and natural features." No such requirements apply to congressional districts.

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Maryland, inmates who were in-state residents prior to incarceration are counted in their last known residence's district population. Out-of-state residents and inmates with unknown previous residences are excluded from all district populations. Federal inmates are counted using the same standard as state inmates.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Maryland

Maryland comprises eight congressional districts. The table below lists Maryland's current U.S. Representatives.

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office	Date term ends
U.S. House Maryland District 1	Andrew Harris	Republican	January 3, 2011	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Maryland District 2	Dutch Ruppersberger	Democratic	January 3, 2003	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Maryland District 3	John Sarbanes	Democratic	January 3, 2007	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Maryland District 4	Glenn Ivey	Democratic	January 3, 2023	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Maryland District 5	Steny Hoyer	Democratic	May 19, 1981	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Maryland District 6	David Trone	Democratic	January 3, 2019	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Maryland District 7	Kweisi Mfume	Democratic	May 5, 2020	January 3, 2025
U.S. House Maryland District 8	Jamie Raskin	Democratic	January 3, 2017	January 3, 2025

State legislative maps

See also: Maryland State Senate and Maryland House of Delegates

Maryland comprises 47 legislative districts, each of which elects one state senator and three state delegates. In most districts, the three delegates are elected at large from the entire district. In some more sparsely populated areas of the state, the districts are further divided into subdistricts for the election of delegates. State senators and delegates are elected every four years in partisan elections. To access current and historic state legislative district maps, click here. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in Maryland after the 2020 census

Maryland was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Maryland adopted new congressional district boundaries on April 4, 2022, when Gov. Larry Hogan (R) signed revised redistricting legislation that the General Assembly had finalized on March 30, 2022. Hogan signed the new map after state Attorney General Brian Frosh withdrew his appeal of Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia's ruling overturning the state's previous congressional redistricting plan. The state Senate approved the revised congressional district boundaries 30-13 with all votes in favor by Democrats and all votes opposed by Republicans on March 29, 2022. The House of Delegates approved the revised map on March 30, 2022, by a vote of 94-41 with all 'yes' votes by Democrats and 40 Republicans and one Democrat voting 'no.'

After Gov. Hogan signed the maps, Greg Giroux at Bloomberg Government wrote, "The new map will continue to favor Democrats in seven of eight districts while restoring a strongly Republican district for Rep. Andy Harris (R)....The new map replaces a more aggressive Democratic proposal that the legislature enacted in December over Hogan’s veto. That map created seven safe Democratic districts and converted Harris’ eastern 1st District into a swing district, raising the possibility Democrats could win all eight districts. Democrats won seven of eight districts in the past decade of House elections."

After signing the revised map, Gov. Hogan said, "When these maps came out in December, I said they were unconstitutional and violated the law. The courts agreed, described it as extreme partisan gerrymandering, and a clear violation of the Constitution, ordered the legislature to go back and draw new maps, which they did. Now they weren’t, in my opinion, as good as the ones drawn by the citizen commission, and we shouldn’t have wasted so much time—but they are a huge improvement." After Gov. Hogan announced he would sign the revised district boundaries, Frosh released a statement which said, in part, "We are pleased Governor Hogan has agreed to sign the proposed congressional redistricting map approved by the General Assembly. This map, like the one previously passed by the General Assembly, is constitutional and fair. Both sides have agreed to dismiss their appeals, and our state can move forward to the primary election."

On March 25, 2022, Circuit Court Judge Lynne Battaglia overturned the state's enacted congressional map and ordered the General Assembly to develop a new congressional map. In her ruling, Battaglia said, "It is extraordinarily unlikely that a map that looks like the 2021 Plan could be produced without extreme partisan gerrymandering." Several Maryland residents had filed lawsuits in December 2021 challenging the new congressional map. On December 7, 2021, the House of Delegates passed the redistricting plan, 97-42, with all 'yes' votes coming from Democrats and 41 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting 'no.' The State Senate approved the congressional map, 32-15, on December 8, 2021, in a party-line vote. The Maryland Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission had released a final draft congressional redistricting proposal on November 23, 2021. Maryland was the 19th state to enact congressional district plans after the 2020 census.

According to David Collins of WBAL-TV, "The map allows Democrats to hold seven of the state's eight congressional seats and the First District on the Eastern Shore, held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, becomes more competitive." Legislators approved the congressional district plan developed by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission and rejected a map proposal developed by the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission, a citizen commission formed by Gov. Hogan. After vetoing the legislatively approved maps, Hogan tweeted, "The gerrymandered map passed by the legislature is an egregious violation of the civil rights of the people of Maryland. Today, we're calling on the Biden administration to immediately add the state of Maryland into their lawsuit." After approving the maps, Senate Majority Leader Nancy King (D) said, "Maryland’s geography is unique, and our population is varied. Taking all that into consideration, I am confident that this map is a fair one, and one that reflects the lived experience of Marylanders."

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Maryland Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Maryland Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Before the legislature began their special session to consider the congressional district plans, Senate Majority Leader Nancy King said, "The congressional map proposed in the bill has cleaner and significantly more compact districts than the current map. It demonstrates a commitment to the federal Voting Rights Act by ensuring minority voters retain their ability to elect their preferred candidates. And it ensures continuity of representation by keeping a majority of Marylanders in their current districts."In response, Senate Minority Leader Bryan Simonaire (R) said, "When you start with a gerrymandered map as the basis, and you say our goal was to keep as many people in the district as possible, how are you not going to end up with a gerrymandered map again?"

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Maryland
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Maryland's 1st	41.7%	56.3%	39.1%	58.8%
Maryland's 2nd	59.4%	38.6%	65.8%	32.4%
Maryland's 3rd	61.7%	36.2%	68.7%	29.4%
Maryland's 4th	89.6%	8.7%	79.1%	19.2%
Maryland's 5th	67.4%	30.9%	68.6%	29.7%
Maryland's 6th	53.9%	44.1%	60.6%	37.5%
Maryland's 7th	81.0%	17.5%	78.4%	20.0%
Maryland's 8th	80.5%	17.9%	69.3%	28.9%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Maryland adopted legislative maps on January 27, 2022, when the Maryland House of Delegates approved new legislative district boundaries that had been approved on January 20, 2022, by the Maryland State Senate. The vote in the state Senate was 32-14 and in the House of Delegates was 95-42, both strictly along party lines.Since legislative maps are not subject to gubernatorial veto, the maps were therefore enacted.

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Maryland after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

See also: Maryland Redistricting Referendum, Question 5 (2012), Benisek v. Lamone, and Lamone v. Benisek

On October 4, 2011, the governor's advisory redistricting commission released a proposal for new congressional districts. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) amended this plan and submitted his final proposal to the state legislature on October 15, 2011. The state legislature made further amendments and approved a final congressional map with a three-fifths majority vote. On October 20, 2011, O'Malley signed the map into law. The map was subject to a series of court challenges.

A referendum on the new maps was added to the November 6, 2012, ballot in Maryland. Voters approved the maps as drawn by the legislature.

On November 5, 2013, opponents of the state's newly approved congressional district map filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that the new district lines constituted a partisan gerrymander in favor of Democrats. The plaintiffs further requested that a three-judge panel be convened to hear the case. On April 8, 2014, Judge James Bredar rejected the plaintiffs' claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed Bredar's decision on November 12, 2014.

On February 10, 2015, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiffs argued that Bredar's decision violated the Three Judge Court Act (28 U.S.C. § 2284), which requires a three-judge district court panel to be convened for cases challenging the constitutionality of congressional or state legislative redistricting plans. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Goosby v. Osser that a single-judge panel will suffice if the claim presented to the court is considered to be "insubstantial."

On June 8, 2015, the high court agreed to hear the case. The following was the question before the court:

“	Whether a single-judge district court may determine that a complaint covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is insubstantial, and that three judges therefore are not required, not because it concludes that the complaint is wholly frivolous, but because it concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).	”
—SCOTUSblog

On December 8, 2015, the court issued its ruling in the case, reversing the decision of the Fourth Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings. The unanimous opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the following:

“	Because the present suit is indisputably 'an action ... challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts,' the District Judge was required to refer the case to a three-judge court. ... Respondents' alternative argument, that the District Judge should have dismissed the petitioners' claim as 'constitutionally insubstantial' under Goosby v. Osser is unpersuasive.	”
—Justice Antonin Scalia

In February 2017, a three-judge panel was named to hear the case. On August 24, 2017, the panel voted 2-1 to deny the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the maps. The panel also ordered a stay on the proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gill v. Whitford. The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to expedite the case. On September 13, 2017, the high court denied this request. However, on December 8, 2017, the high court announced that it would hear the case during the 2017-2018 term.

On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling in Benisek v. Lamone, affirming the district court decision that had denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a challenged congressional district map. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted. The court wrote the following in its unsigned opinion:

“

We now note our jurisdiction and review the District Court's decision for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that a preliminary injunction, as 'an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.' As a matter of equitable discretion, a preliminary injunction does not follow as a matter of course from a plaintiff's showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. Rather, a court must also consider whether the movant has shown 'that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.' Plaintiffs made no such showing below. Even if we assume—contrary to the findings of the District Court—that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, the balance of equities and the public interest tilted against their request for a preliminary injunction.

”

On November 7, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland struck down the congressional after finding that it constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander against Republicans. The court ruled unanimously that Maryland's congressional map "violates the First Amendment by burdening both the plaintiffs' representational rights and associational rights based on their party affiliation and voting history." The court prohibited the state from using the map in future congressional elections. The defendants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to take up the case and scheduled oral argument for March 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, the high court issued a joint ruling in this case and Rucho v. Common Cause, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. The high court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Associate Justice Elena Kagan penned a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The high court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

The governor's advisory redistricting commission released its proposal for new state legislative districts on December 16, 2011. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) amended this plan and submitted his final proposal to the state legislature on January 11, 2012. The state legislature failed to take further action; consequently, the governor's proposal became law on February 24, 2012. The maps were subject to court challenges, but these were ultimately rejected and the maps stood.

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Maryland state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

2017

On May 8, 2017, Governor Larry Hogan (R) vetoed legislation passed by the Maryland General Assembly that proposed changes to Maryland’s redistricting process. The bill—which passed the House 87-51 and the Senate 30-16—sought to establish an independent redistricting panel that would be responsible for drawing the boundary lines for congressional and state legislative districts in Maryland. Enactment of the bill, however, would have required passage of the same legislation in five other states: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. This type of legislation is called an interstate compact. In vetoing the proposal, Hogan said, “Instead of choosing fairness and real nonpartisan reform, [the Assembly] pushed through a phony bill masquerading as redistricting reform. It was nothing more than a political ploy designed with one purpose in mind: To ensure that real redistricting reform would never actually happen in Maryland.” In March 2017, Hogan backed legislation establishing a nonpartisan redistricting commission in Maryland (without participation from other states), but the Assembly rejected the proposal. Assembly leadership—Senate President Thomas Mike Miller (D) and House Speaker Michael Busch—released a joint statement in reaction to Hogan’s veto, saying, “Today's veto reveals that, instead of supporting a true, nonpartisan solution that could restore accountability and cooperation to Washington, Governor Hogan prefers his plan to simply elect more Republicans to Congress.”

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Maryland ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Maryland.

1. Maryland Legislative Elections and Districts, Question 5 (1970)
2. Maryland Legislative Districts, Amendment 1 (1922)
3. Maryland Changes in Congressional Districts, Amendment 6 (1962)
4. Maryland Redistricting Referendum, Question 5 (2012)

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

Maryland was not included in this study.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Maryland. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Redistricting in Maryland - Google News

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Maryland after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"