Case No. 17-333 | D. Md.
Petitioners claim that the 2011 redistricting of Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District was an impermissible retaliation against political affiliation and voting history that violates the First Amendment. Specifically, Petitioners allege that Respondents intentionally gerrymandered the state to secure a Democratic win in the Sixth District.
In order to abide by the one-person-one-vote rule, which states that districts must have equal populations to safeguard equal voting power among individuals, 10,189 individuals needed to move out of the Sixth District. Due to the complexities of redistricting and alleged political motives, more than 360,000 individuals were cut from the district and others were moved into the district to ensure a net loss of 10,189 individuals.
Republican Roscoe Bartlett had been the Representative for Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District for twenty years, and in 2010, he won by more than 68,000 votes (28%). In the 2012 election, Bartlett lost by more than 64,000 votes (21%) to Democratic Representative John Delaney, the current representative for the Sixth District. The 2014 election, however, was very close: Delaney beat out the Republican candidate by fewer than 2,800 votes (1.5%).
In the district court, the majority specifically cited the 2014 election as evidence that Petitioners did not meet their burden for a preliminary injunction. For the injunction to issue, Appellants needed to show that the gerrymandering caused the Democratic victory and was not a result of a myriad of other election variables. The majority conceded that Petitioners’ showing may establish causation, but it did not meet the standard necessary for a preliminary injunction. Petitioners maintain that the burden-shifting framework established in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) instead requires the Respondents to demonstrate that the district map would be the same without any political motives. In Mt. Healthy, this standard was applied to a teacher’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Here, however, the district court refused to apply that standard to a claim of retaliatory partisan gerrymandering.
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Professor Michael S. Kang, an expert on redistricting and election law, have filed briefs in support of Petitioners as amici curiae.
The States of Michigan, et al. (includes Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) have filed a brief in support of Respondents as amici curiae.