Questioning Maryland Democrats and Their New Found Religion on Redistricting Reform

In response to Governor Hogan's call for redistricting reform, Democratic members of Maryland's congressional delegation have argued instead for national reform. Representatives Hoyer and Van Hollen have each argued that Democrats in Maryland should not surrender the redistricting power so long as Republicans hold onto the power in other states. So only bilateral disarmament is acceptable. 

I have advocated national redistricting reform for years. Nothing would please me more or be better for our democracy than national reform. But forgive me for not placing much stock in Md Democrats' new found redistricting faith. Rather I think they are calling for national reform in an effort to provide cover for state Democrats who don't want to give up the power pick and choose their voters. Why am I so dismissive? Let's just say our Democratic delegation sang a different tune when their party controlled Congress AND the White House a few years ago and had the power to enact reform.

In 2008 and 2009, a bipartisan group of Representatives sponsored legislation to enact nation-wide, non-partisan redistricting reform and called on then Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold hearings - but it went nowhere. Democrat Zoe Lofgren sponsored the Redistricting Reform Act, but it died as well - and no one in the MD delegation co-sponsored it.

2008 offered a perfect storm for reform - under divided government and 2 years prior to a new Census neither party knew who would be in control of drawing new district lines. That uncertainty would have made reform achievable.

If you think that President Bush would have vetoed the measure, the legislation was reintroduced in 2009. At that time Democrats controlled the whole process - the House, the White House, and held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. President Obama was on record as opposing gerrymandering having once commented "too often, our representatives are selecting their voters, as opposed to the voters selecting the representatives. That is a situation that I think the American people should not accept."

But these efforts at bilateral disarmament went nowhere. In fact, as sponsors of the bill were advocating nationwide, bilateral disarmament, Nancy Pelosi joined an effort opposing non-partisan redistricting reform in her home state of California.

None of the members of the MD delegation co-sponsored or expressed any support for Lofgren's measure. None.* And all of MD's current Democratic incumbents, except for John Delaney, were in Congress at the time. In fact, Steny Hoyer was Majority Leader at the time. Van Hollen was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the fifth-ranking position among House Democrats. Support from either man would've guaranteed passage of the bill - but both were silent. Both knew all too well that it was the gerrymandering efforts of Parris Glendening in 2001 that transformed Maryland's 4 to 4 congressional delegation into a 6 to 2 delegation. Gerrymandering was specifically responsible for Van Hollen's defeat of liberal Republican Connie Morella in 2002. 

Why else did Democrats refuse to reform? Because 2006 and 2008 were great years for Democrats. The party regained control of the House and Senate in 2006 and won the White House in 2008. In both elections, the party made gains in state legislatures and governorships.  In 2009 talk was of a Democratic realignment and a new coalition of voters that would continue to deliver for Democrats. In short, the party gambled on winning big in 2010 and being in control of redistricting in states across the nation. They saw an opportunity to undo Republican gains made after the 2000 Census and secure a Democratic House majority for a decade.

Of course, they lost big on that gamble. In 2010, Republicans made the largest gains in state legislatures by a single party in a century. They used that new power to do what Democrats had planned to do - they gerrymandering the hell out the states they controlled (with especially egregious examples in PA, NC, and TX.  Democrats did the same in the few states they controlled (with their own equally egregious examples in IL and MD).

So when you hear a Democratic member of Congress calling for national reform or condemning Republican gerrymandering, do a quick search to see if he or she supported reform in 2009 when their party faced no obstacles to reform. If they were in Congress at the time, and the answer is "No", then feel free to cast a cynical eye upon them. They had the chance to reform the process, but their commitment to reform lost out to their avarice.

Now let me get to the Republicans (of course there's only one Republican in MD's delegation, but his party controls Congress). There is redistricting reform legislation in Congress right now (and 3 of MD's 6 congressional Democrats are co-sponsors). Republicans control the House and Senate and there remains every reason to believe that President Obama would sign a reform bill. The ball is their court now. If they refuse to reform, they easily could find themselves on the losing end of redistricting after the 2020 Census.

It's a perfect time for reform as neither party can predict who will be in charge after 2020. So call on Speaker Boehner, on Steny Hoyer, on Elijah Cummings, on Dutch Ruppersberger, on John Delaney and on Andy Harris to lend their support to the Redistricting Reform Act of 2015. Let's end this nonsense once and for all.

* Though this article references sponsorship of Zoe Lofgren's Redistricting Reform Act, which has been reintroduced in every Congress for the last decade, John Sarbanes was a co-sponsor of John Tanner's Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2007. But did not co-sponsor the bill when it was reintroduced in subsequent Congresses. Chris Van Hollen signed on as a co-sponsor of the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2009, signing on a year after it was introduced, but did not co-sponsor the bill when it was reintroduced in the following Congress.

Maryland Needs Redistricting Reform Now

During his State of the State address, MD Governor Larry Hogan called for redistricting reform in Maryland. As he condemned the process of partisan Gerrymandering (used by both parties to create artificial party strength by disenfranchising members of the minority party) most Democrats in the General Assembly sat on their hands and refused to embrace his call. Their reluctance is easy to understand once one looks at Maryland's state legislative and congressional district maps (see below).

Democrats outnumber Republicans in Maryland by roughly 2 to 1, but that voter registration advantage overstates the actual electoral strength of Democrats. As I have detailed in prior posts, the effective partisan breakdown in Maryland is closer to 1.5 to 1. It's an advantage sufficient to explain Democrats' dominance in statewide elections, but insufficient to explain their 3 to 1 domination in the General Assembly and their 7 to 1 advantage in the state's Congressional delegation. In order to maintain those tremendous advantages, Democrats have rigged the game. They have manipulated the states legislative and Congressional districts so as to effectively disenfranchise non-Democratic voters.

Maryland's state legislative districts look as though they were created by an over-caffeinated 4 year old with a paint gun. But the haphazard appearance obscures what is actually a carefully crafted map. Jagged and sprawling districts have been created solely to serve a single purpose - maximize the number of Democratic seats. Each of Maryland's legislative districts elect 3 members to the House of Delegates. The districts can either elect all of the members at large or a district can be subdivided into 3 single member or into a 1 single member and 2 two member districts. As originally intended, single member districts were to be reserved for geographically large rural districts. Democrats have used the district structures to carve out Democratic districts in otherwise Republican regions - this is clearly evident in Districts 2, 3, 30 and 37. Democrats have leveraged their effective map making into a nearly 3 to 1 majority in the General Assembly.

But Maryland's legislative districts cannot hold a candle to the state's Congressional districts when it comes to political manipulation. During much of the 1990s, Maryland had a 4-to-4 congressional delegation. But during the 2001/2002 redistricting process then Governor Parris Glendening and state Democrats dedicated themselves to correcting that "flaw." The new map resulted in a 6-to-2 Congressional delegation and elevated Maryland to the proud status as one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation. Casper Taylor (D-Allegany), then Speaker of the Maryland House, said the plan was the best way to elect more Democrats, arguing "We Democrats deserve six [Democrats] and two [Republicans]." 

In 2011, Governor O'Malley had a chance to correct the abuse of process committed in the name of petty partisanship in 2002, but instead he doubled-down and gerrymandered Maryland so drastically that the state now stands side-by-side with the Rorschach test that is the gerrymandered mess created by the GOP in Texas. The O'Malley map created a 7-to-1 Congressional delegation in Maryland. According to data from the 2010 Census, only 174,000 Marylanders actually needed to be placed into new districts in order to create districts with equal populations. The O'Malley plan placed over 1.5 million Marylanders - nearly a third of the state's residents - into new districts.

So brazen were the efforts to gerrymander the map that few bothered to disguise their motives. Maryland's 3rd District is considered to be one of the most gerrymandered districts in the nation. Why does it look like "broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate” across Central Maryland? According to Senate President and map co-author Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) the answer is simple, the map was gerrymandered to meet the needs to the 3rd District's Democratic representative. "Congressman Sarbanes lived in Baltimore County, but wanted to continue to represent the capital city Annapolis." Why do so many districts claim a part of the Baltimore region? Again, according to Miller, because so many of the state's incumbent Democrats live in the Baltimore region. But such accommodations were not afforded to the state's Republican incumbents. Republican Roscoe Bartlett saw his once conservative sixth district fundamentally altered in a successful effort to create a new Democratic district.

Miller attempted to defend the map with a rather peculiar argument. He stated, "Maryland is a small state ... and it doesn’t have many rural, conservative areas that would vote for Republicans that could comprise a district of 700,000 people." This is of course wrong. The reason the map is so gerrymandered is because Maryland is full of regions that would and do vote Republican and these regions surround four counties and Baltimore City that represent the bulk of the Democratic vote. If Democrats were to produce a map containing compact districts that respected existing county lines then there would be 4 or 5 Democratic districts packed along the I-95 corridor and Republicans would carry the rest of the state.

Miller's response to Larry Hogan's call for redistricting reform - "It's not going to happen... this is an issue that needs to be settled nationally." Miller cited Republican gerrymandering in other states and a reason to not reform the process in Maryland. Maryland Democratic Party executive director Pat Murray criticized Hogan's proposal as "dabbling in national politics instead of focusing on issues that impact middle-class families."  Both are just sorry statements. There is perhaps no issue of greater import to state and local politics than the issue of gerrymandering. And there is perhaps no issue more important to middle and working class families than that of fair representation. At it's heart gerrymandering represents the concerted effort by partisans to undermine the fundamental right democratic representation. Gerrymandering creates a system in which those in office choose their voters instead of a system where voters choose those in office. Miller understands this all to well as he took advantage of his position on the redistricting committee to redraw his own district in an effort to boost his electoral fortunes. 

Of course it would be preferable to have national redistricting reform, but those who represent the people of Maryland have first and foremost an obligation to the people of Maryland. As such, any effort to avoid reform of Maryland's redistricting process by calling for national reform is simply an excuse to put the interests of the people of Maryland secondary to the interests of the national party. Maryland needs redistricting reform now.

Intra-State Secessionist Movements a Symptom of a More Serious Disease

A small group of Western Marylanders are pursuing a quixotic secessionist movement that would see the state's 4 western counties break away and form a new state. Led by Scott Strzelczyk, the secessionists argue Maryland is controlled by a single party and by folks elected from 3 jurisdictions - Baltimore, Montgomery County, and Prince Georges County. Everyone else, they say, is being ignored.

Given that western Maryland is overwhelmingly white and rural, some have been quick to dismiss the secessionist movement as a race-based action motivated by white voters fearful of growing diversity in the state. Though such arguments may hold a kernel of truth, they obscure the more fundamental cause for these movements in Maryland and elsewhere. These intra-state movements are driven by a complex mix of issues that go to the very heart of a representative Democracy.

It's important to understand that what's happening in Western MD is not unique to the region or to MD.  For decades there has been a secessionist movement on the Eastern Shore. The movement's strength ebbs and flows much like the tides that surround the region. Proposals for a new state date back to the 1830s. In 1998, legislation was introduced that would have put the question of Eastern Shore secession on the ballot. Eastern Shore secessionists argue the region is not well represented in Annapolis, that tax dollars generated by tourists are not appropriately reinvested in the area, and that transportation monies are consistently directed elsewhere.

In Colorado multiple rural counties have pursued secession in an effort to create one or more new states. Movement organizers, including elected officials from the secessionist counties, argue their interests are not being represented in a state legislature dominated by officials from more suburban and urban counties. Recent gun control legislation as well as new renewable energy standards placed on electric cooperatives (common in rural areas) have bolstered the movement.

Lest you think the secession movements are all the result of disgruntled conservative, understand that disgruntled liberals are looking to secession as well. As recently as 2008 and again in 2012 Democratic officials in southern Florida sought to separate from the Republican rest of the state. And liberals in southern Arizona, frustrated by Republican dominance in the state capital, have pursued secession as well.

And these are just a selection of the intra-state secession movements active in the U.S. today. It's important to understand that intra-state secession movements are quite different from the secession movements seeking to separate from the United States altogether. Intra-state secessionist are not disillusioned with the United States, rather they are frustrated by a political system that they believe to be ignoring them - and the reality is, they probably are being ignored.

Given the deep divide between elected Democrats and Republicans, being a political minority in a state or legislative district likely means being marginalized. In truly competitive states and legislative districts, elected officials cannot afford to alienate voters not in their party. In such states and districts, fellow partisans lack sufficient numbers to ensure victory. As the parties have polarized and Democrats have become more consistently liberal and Republicans more consistently conservative some states that were once competitive no longer are. Maryland is a good example. Though Maryland has been dominated by Democrats since Reconstruction, Republicans were once more successful in the state. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush carried MD in 1984 and 1988. Mac Mathias represented the state in the U.S. Senate for 18 years until 1987. But the parties were not as polarized then. There were plenty of moderate Democrats and Republicans and substantial bipartisan cooperation. In such an environment, conservative leaning voters are more comfortable voting for Democrats and liberal leaning voters are more comfortable voting for Republicans. In such an environment, competitive states and districts are more likely.

In the present era, however, voting Republican only makes sense if you have a preference for conservatism over liberalism - even if it's a slight preference. Voting Democrat only makes sense if you have a preference for liberalism over conservatism - even if it's slight. As a result, once competitive states have become less competitive. The number of landslide states has grown (states where one party typically wins the presidential vote by at least 10 points). It's important to understand this can happen even if the voters themselves have not become more liberal or conservatives - more polarized. It's not that voters polarized, it's that the parties and therefor candidates polarized. In an election between two polarized candidates, a non-polarized electorate can make polarized choices.

In Congressional and state legislative districts a similar dynamic has been playing out, but it has been assisted by power hungry partisans and frustrated people voting with their feet. As recently as 1992, there were about 103 truly competitive swing districts in Congress and about 123 landslide districts. Today, there are roughly 35 swing districts and 242 landslide districts. Some of this reflects the reality of voters choosing between two polarized candidates, but it also reflects substantial advances in the gerrymandering of congressional districts - drawing districts to either advantage or disadvantage a particular political party. The same thing has been going on with state legislative districts. In states dominated by Republicans, districts have been drawn to marginalize Democratic representation and Democrats have returned the favor in the states they dominate.

We see this in Maryland. Though Democrats do enjoy a 2-to-1 voter registration advantage in the state (57% to 27%) actual election results reveal a different balance. Republicans routinely receive 40% of the vote in the state and win in the counties and areas outside of the Baltimore/Washington corridor. That 40% largely precludes Republicans from winning statewide, but should ensure reasonable representation in the state legislature and some presence in the states Congressional delegate- especially given the significant swaths of Maryland where Republicans routinely outpoll Democrats . Yet the GOP claims only 1 of the state's 8 U.S. House seats (12.5%), only 12 of the 47 state senators (25%), and only 43 of the 141 delegates (30%). This under-representation is driven largely by the gerrymandering of MD's congressional and state legislative districts. Republicans are either packed into the 1st congressional district on the Eastern shore and northern MD or they are cracked and divided among the remaining 7 districts.

In the legislature, state senate districts defy county and city boundaries and divide neighborhoods and school districts all in the name of maximizing the number of Democratic seats. In the MD House most districts elect three delegates at large with the top three candidates winning a seat. As originally intended some districts were to be divided into subdistricts - either into three one-delegate subdistricts or into one two-delegate subdistrict and one one-delegate subdistrict. Democrats have used the subdistrict allowance to carve out Democratic subdistricts in otherwise Republican areas (see map below).

 

Almost without fail, the presence of subdistricts in MD redound to the benefit of Democrats.

 

Which brings me back to the secessionists... if you are a Republican in Maryland, or even an independent who leans a bit more to the right than to the left, then forget being represented in Annapolis. The deck has been stacked against you. And because the districts have been so meticulously drawn the majority party has no reason to care what minority Republicans or unaffiliated voters want. Simply stated, being a Republican in Maryland is like being a Democrat in Texas - you're invisible. It's this feeling of invisibility and irrelevance that's motivating folks in Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Maryland and elsewhere.

 

A recent study by Professor Philip Jones at the University of Delaware determined that political competition boosts accountability of elected officials, increases participation, and motivates voters to be more informed. We increasingly live in a system that has less and less competition, which means less accountability and less participation.

 

Intra-state secessionists are frustrated by a polarized and heavily manipulated political system that seeks to marginalize minority party voters in states. Nationally, the two parties may be well balanced, but it's a balance brought about by the representative imbalance in individual states.

 

Our system of government was not designed to ensure representation of two extreme and polarized factions. It was designed to force extremes to compromise, cooperate, and moderate. In the absence of such compromise and cooperation, the folks who are marginalized will seek alternatives ways to be heard. Alternatives that may or may not succeed, but that nevertheless point to significant problems at the heart of our representative form of government. We would do well to listen to what these marginalized voters are saying and ask whether the system is simply failing them or failing us all.

 

Though I understand the motivations for these secessionist movements, they are a cure worse than the disease. Were we to allow regions of states to breakaway and create politically homogenous new states we would make worse our existing problems. We already see some evidence of frustrated voters deciding to vote with their feet and move to states or districts that better represent their preferences. Such actions only make matters worse. By removing themselves from one area they contribute to the majority party's strength there and by relocating to an area where they are part of the majority they help further marginalize the minority in their new area. The solution is not ever more homogenous states and districts, the solution is to remove the impediments to true competition and representation.

Maryland Democrats "Provide" Weak Argument Against Redistricting Petition

The full text of the Maryland Democratic Party's legal challenge to the successful petition effort to place the state's egregiously gerrymandered congressional map has been filed and is available on-line.

The meat of the legal arguments appears in Section V starting at paragraph 31. The first argument is against the petition process as employed by MDPetitions.com - an innovative website that allows voters to download petitions with information from voter registration records already populated on the form. This is an important step because Maryland laws makes it very easy for the state Board of Elections to reject petitions over missing middle initials, missing zip codes, or other common errors.

The MDpetitions.com process minimizes the possibility of errors. That process is the primary bases for the Maryland Democratic Party's legal objection (text from the legal filing presented in red:

34. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law Art. § 6-203(a) provides that, to sign a petition, "an individual shall," in addition to signing the individual's name, "include the following information, printed or typed, in the spaces provided: (i) the signer's name as it was signed; (ii) the signer's address; (iii) the date of signing; and (iv) other information required by regulations adopted by the State Board." The statute this makes clear that the individual signer must print in her name and address next to her signature.

35. That requirement is also set forth in the State Board's regulation, COMAR § 33.06.03.06(B), which provides that when signing the signature page, "each signer shall . .. (2) Provide the following information to be printed or typed in the appropriate spaces: (a) Date of signing, (b) Signer's name as it was signed, and (c) Current residence address, including house number, street name, apartment number (if applicable), town and ZIP code" (emphasis added).

36. On the "Pre-Filled Petition" forms generated by MdPetitionis.com, the signer has not, as required by section 6-203(a) "included" her printed name and address, nor has the signer "provided" that information as required by COMAR § 33.06.03.06(B). Rather, the information has been "included" and "provided" by a computer program created and operated by the petition sponsors, MDPetitions.com, through the Internet.

Essentially the Democrats' arguments comes down to the meaning of the word "provide." They argue that petition signers who used MDPetitions.com to download their petitions did not provide the necessary information - rather MDPetitions.com did. This is a poor argument and rests on a very specific and inappropriate understanding of the word "provide." The Democrats clearly argue that a petitioner can only provide the required information if they personally type or hand write it. But a full reading of Maryland election law concerning petitions makes rather clear that provide actually means - a petitioner must provide the needed information to the appropriate election authority and the information is to be contained in the petition document.

So, when a person goes to MDPetitions.com and enters their information and downloads a petition with much of their information already filled in they are simply taking the steps necessary to provide the proper election authority with the required information. By printing and signing the form the petitioner has provided the information.

In a subsequent paragraph, Democrats claim the MDPetitions.com process is equivalent to providing a pre-filled petition,

38. That such "Pre-Filled Petitions" violate the requirements of state law even as interpreted by the State Board itself is confirmed by the current version of the State Board's Petition Signature Gathering "Frequently Asked Questions," posted on the State Board's website during 20 II, which stated:

"Can a petition sponsor pre-print signatures pages with voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voters need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth, and date of signing?

No."

39. The current updated version of those Petition Signature Gathering "Frequently Asked Question," posted on the State Board's website as of the date hereof, similarly states:

"Can a petition sponsor use a 'walking list' containing all registered voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voter need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing?

No."

The "Pre-Filled Petition" form constitutes precisely such a "walking list." If a voter wanted to sign the pre-filled petitions generated by MdPetitions.com, the voter would "need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing."

Again, the Democratic Party's argument is a bit too narrow here. A petition downloaded from MDPetitions.com is not precisely the same as a "walking list" or a "pre-filled petition" as discussed on the State Board of Elections FAQ. MDPetitions.com does not pre-print signatures pages with voters' names and addresses. Rather the person downloading and signing the petition prints the form after accessing it using their voter registration information.

Likewise, MDPetitions.com does not provide a 'walking list' containing all registered voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voter need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing? Again, the actual petition signator must access and download the form that they then sign and submit. In both the case of a walking list and pre-filled petition the signer is a passive participant at every stage accept signing the form. The MDPetitions.com process requires that the signer actively initiate the process - there is a clear difference.

Democrats then turn to the "fraud" argument:

40. There are sound policy reasons for requiring, as the statute and regulations clearly do, the  petition signer to fill in his or her own information on the form, rather than allowing that information to be filled in by someone else. Anyone-including someone other than the voter-using the MDPetitions.com website who knows the name, zip code and birth date of any Maryland voter could have the website generate a "Pre-Filled Petition Form" with that voter's information pre-printed, both in the signing block and the circulator's affidavit. The user (who is not the voter) could then print out the form, sign the voter's name in the signature space and in the circulator's affidavit and mail the form to MDPetitions.com for submission to the Secretary of State and State Board.

41. In the situation described in the preceding paragraph, there is absolutely no procedure or step in the statute, regulations or State Board practice that could detect the fraud. Nothing in the statute or regulations requires the local boards or State Board to check the signature of the person purportedly signing against the voter registration records, and it is the practice of the local boards and State Board not to do so.

The Democrats' argument here being that the MDPetitions.com has made petition fraud almost as easy as vote fraud - given that it would still be a bit easier to vote as someone else in Maryland than to download a petition pretending to be someone else.

In one of the most infuriating arguments put forth by the Maryland Democratic Party, they argue that no person may be a witness to her or his own signature.

44. Article XVI, section 4 of the Maryland Constitution provides that, "There shall be attached to each paper of signatures filed with a petition an affidavit of the person procuring those signatures that the signatures were affixed in his presence that, based upon the person's best knowledge and belief, every signature on the paper is genuine and bona fide .... "

45. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-204(a) requires that "Each signature page shall contain an affidavit made and executed by the individual in whose presence all of the signatures on that page were affixed and who observed each of those signatures being affixed." Section 6204(b) provides that, "The affidavit shall contain the statements, required by regulation, designed to assure the validity of the signatures and the fairness of the petition process."

46. The State Board's regulations, COMAR § 33.06.03.08, provides that the circulator's affidavit "shall state that ... (3) The circulator personally observed each signer as the page was signed; and (4) To the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief, all (a) signatures on the petition are genuine, and (b) Signers are registered voters in the State."

47. The manifest purpose of the requirements set forth in Md. Constitution Art. XVI, § 4 and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §§ 6-204(a) and (b) is to help prevent fraud by having an individual witness persons signing the petition and having that individual-the circulator swear that the person who signed the petition actually tilled in her own information and signed her own name in the presence of the circulator. That purpose is utterly defeated by allowing a circulator to attest to his or her own signature.

48. Permitting a circulator to attest to his or her own signature is contrary to the plain language ofMd Const. Art. XVI, § 4 and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-204(a) that the signature be affixed "in the presence of the" circulator and that the circulator "personally observe" each signer as the page was signed. No person can serve as a witness to his or her own actions.

49. Nevertheless, the State Board counted as valid a number of signatures of persons who attested to their own signature as the circulator. Those signatures are invalid as a matter of law.

So, according the Democrats' argument, you can only submit your signature on a petition if someone else was circulating the petition. According to them, if you were the sole signatore too bad. If you were the circulator and signed your own petition in addition to other voters - too bad - your signature should be tossed.

The actual section of state law reads (in purple):

§ 6-204. Circulators; affidavit of the circulator.

(a) In general. — Each signature page shall contain an affidavit made and executed by the individual in whose presence all of the signatures on that page were affixed and who observed each of those signatures being affixed.
(b) Requirements. — The affidavit shall contain the statements, required by regulation, designed to assure the validity of the signatures and the fairness of the petition process.
(c) Age of circulator. —A circulator must be at least 18 years old at the time any of the signatures covered by the affidavit are affixed. (An. Code 1957, art.33, § 6-204; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4.)

Nowhere does this indicate that a person cannot be witness to their own signature. In fact, Article XVI, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution reads:

SEC. 4. A petition may consist of several papers, but each paper shall contain the full text, or an accurate summary approved by the Attorney General, of the Act or part of Act petitioned. There shall be attached to each paper of signatures filed with a petition an affidavit of the person procuring those signatures that the signatures were affixed in his presence and that, based upon the person's best knowledge and belief, every signature on the paper is genuine and bona fide and that the signers are registered voters at the address set opposite or below their names. The General Assembly shall prescribe by law the form of the petition, the manner for verifying its authenticity, and other administrative procedures which facilitate the petition process and which are not in conflict with this Article (amended by Chapter 548, Acts of 1976, ratified Nov. 2, 1976; Chapter 849, Acts of 1982, ratified Nov. 2, 1982).

Again, there is no suggestion that the person procuring the signatures cannot as well be a signator. To suggest that state law prohibits a person from being the sole signator on a petition is to deny the very right to petition as provided by the state Constitution.

Finally, in paragraphs 50-65 Democrats resort to the Sauerbrey argument. They argue based "On information and belief" - and one can assume it is more the latter than the former that the state Board of Elections improperly accepted as valid petitions where the signator's printed name and signature were not a perfect match or where there was a discrepancy with the signature matching the voter registration information. Also based "On information and belief" they argue some addresses were not provided in a matter consistent with state law. They further argue some contained dates that were not in the proper format and that some signatures were simply fraudulent. In paragraph 62 they simply declare some some signatures are null and void because they believe the same person signed for more than one person. Having made that declaration, they then make the logical next step - if indeed one person signed for two people then the circulator's affidavit of authenticity must be null and void as well, meaning every signature on the submitted petition should be tossed.

In 1994, Republican Ellen Sauerbrey lost the gubernatorial election to Parris Glendening by a scant 5,993 votes. Almost immediately Sauerbrey contended massive vote fraud - one assumes based "on information and belief." Sauerbrey acted as if she was the governor-elect even attending a meeting of the National Governors Association held weeks after the election. Her lawsuit and allegations of massive vote fraud went nowhere. Her refusal to accept the outcome of the election destroyed her reputation and made her a punchline in Maryland politics.

By law, the state Board of Elections is tasked with validating signatures on petitions for referenda. They check for correct addresses, correct dates, matching signatures. The Board of Elections determined that roughly 10% of the signatures submitted were invalid - but that  59,201 signatures were accepted by the board - roughly 4,000 more than the 55,736 needed to put the map on the ballot for a referendum. Maryland Democrats' are now claiming the Board of Elections did not do it's job.

In all, I find the arguments put forth by the Maryland Democratic Party to be very weak. That they had to resort to parsing the meaning of "provide" or claiming that a person could not be the sole signator on a petition is evidence of the weak case. The claims of fraud... well they sound like the same unsubstantiated fraud claims the GOP has used in other states to justify voter ID laws. One hopes a judge will simply dismiss the case. Either way, the legal challenge does great damage to the credibility of the Maryland Democratic Party. The congressional map at the center of the petition drive is itself an insult to the voters of the state. As argued by the editors of the Washington Post:

"The map, drafted under Mr. O’Malley’s watchful eye, mocks the idea that voting districts should be compact or easily navigable. The eight districts respect neither jurisdictional boundaries nor communities of interest. To protect incumbents and for partisan advantage, the map has been sliced, diced, shuffled and shattered, making districts resemble studies in cubism... Federal officials or the courts will ultimately judge whether Mr. O’Malley’s plan is illegal under the Voting Rights Act. The broader question is whether it promotes fair and rational democracy. Anyone looking at the map can answer that one."

Denied the right to fair representation under the map adopted by the General Assembly and signed by the governor voters exercised the only option they had to prevent the partisan power grab represented by the map - the right to petition. State Democrats now want to deny that right as well.

No one disputes that this kind of brazen partisan gerrymandering is employed by Republicans and Democrats. These maps undermine the concept of representative Democracy and do harm to the nation. Not all voters enjoy the same rights as do Marylanders to challenge the map via petition and referendum. If Marylanders stand up against this abuse of process and reject the map, it may be just the push needed to convince Congress to impose on all states a non-partisan process for redistricting.

One can only hope the Democratic Party's legal challenge is dismissed and that the people will be heard.

The Unholy Trinity: Redistricting, Closed Primaries, and the Money Chase

America's Dysfuntional Politics
In a report released last Winter, National Journal determined "the overall level of congressional polarization last year (2010) was the highest... recorded... every Senate Democrat compiled a voting record more liberal than every Senate Republican—and every Senate Republican compiled a voting record more conservative than every Senate Democrat." In the House "five House Republicans in 2010 generated vote ratings more liberal than the most conservative House Democrat" and "four Democrats produced ratings more conservative than the most liberal Republican... Every other House Republican produced a more conservative vote rating than every other House Democrat... Of the nine members who were outliers last year, only one... is still in Congress."

How have times changed? "In 1982... fully 344 House members received... vote ratings between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat." As for the Senate, " In... 1982... 36 Senate Democrats compiled records at least as conservative as the most liberal Republican... 24 Senate Republicans compiled voting records at least as liberal as the most conservative Democrat."

Put simply - Congress has no political center. This absence of a center makes compromise a near impossibility. That would not be a problem if one party clearly dominated in an era of unified government, but the present era is marked by a high level of party competition, tenuous holds on power, and divided government. The result? Gridlock.

Noted Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein summarized it like this "close partisan margins, which gave rise to high-stakes legislative politics and sharply reduced incentives for lawmakers to work across party lines to solve problems."

So what has caused the polarization? This is actually a point of much contention. Scholars like Alan Abramowitz argue the polarization in Congress is reflective of an increasingly polarized public. Others, like Morris Fiorina contend the polarization is elite-driven. As argued in prior posts, I clearly agree with the Fiorina camp.

So if not reflective of a polarized public, what is driving the polarization. There is likely no one explanation, but rather a combination of factors. I put my money of the unholy trinity of partisan redistricting, closed nominating primaries, and the cost of campaigns.

Partisan Redistricting
Gerrymandering is not new (the terms dates to the early 1800s), but technological advances and high levels of political competition have elevated it to new levels. Some scholars argue gerrymandering cannot explain the polarization in House, because the Senate is polarized as well and polarization is evident in state legislatures and county councils. These scholars often fail to consider the prior elective experience of U.S. Senators. In the current Congress (and it's not an outlier) roughly two-thirds of the Senate held prior elective office in a seat subject to partisan redistricting - ranging from a U.S. House seat to a state legislative seat. And state legislative districts are often more gerrymandered than Congressional districts - one need look no farther than Maryland's state legislative districts.

In a study by Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal the authors concede that it is nearly impossible for a moderate to win in the nation's currently manipulated Congressional districts, but they see little evidence to support gerrymandering as the cause.  They contend it's difficult to gerrymander many states due to size and population and many have few districts, but this also ignores the impact of gerrymandered state legislative districts and the prior elective experience of U.S. House members. McCarty et al. determined as well that within the same district Democratic and Republican representatives compile distinctly divergent records. This of course can only be studied in districts that are competitive and where candidates from either party can win. Most districts in the U.S. are safe and the out-party has no hope of winning.

The authors note "Republicans are more likely to represent conservative districts, and Democrats are more likely to represent liberal ones" and concede "such an effect is consistent with the gerrymandering hypothesis,
but it is also consistent with a general geographic polarization of voters along ideological and partisan lines." Finally, they determined ideological sorting of candidates began in the 1980s, but this was before the upswing of polarization and before the decline in electoral competition in the House. There are problems with these conclusions as well.

As will be discussed later, the rise in the use of primary elections to select nominees began in the early 1970s and had become the norm by the 1980s. Most primary elections are cosed - meaning only Democrats can vote in Democratic primaries and only Republicans in a Republican primary. I dispute as well the contention that 1980s were not an era of increased competition in the House. In the election of 1980, Republicans won 34 seats and completely recovered from the electoral devastation of Watergate. At 192 seats, the GOP saw a path back to a majority. With a high number of conservative southern Democrats at times the GOP seemed to have a working control of the agenda in the early years of the Reagan presidency. Republicans suffered a setback in 1982, but the era of Democratic dominance was clearly over.

Closed Primaries
Following a series of party reforms in the late 1960s primary elections became the typical approach to selecting candidates for general election contests by the end of the 1970s. In an open primary voters are allowed to vote outside of their declared political party. This allows independents and moderates to have more of a say in government and in their elected officials. However, most states have closed primaries, where only partisans can participate. The result being a system where very few people determine the candidates on the general election ballot and those candidates reflect the preference of dedicated partisan - this means liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. As such, even in a competitive district the eventual winner is likely to be a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican (explaining one the findings by McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal).

Karen Kaufmann, James Gimpel, and Adam Hoffman studied the issue of open primaries and determined they attract more demographically representative voters; attract more centrist voters; and produce more moderate nominees than closed primaries.

As noted earlier, most Congressional districts are not competitive - somewhere in the neighborhood of 360 seats. In these seats, a Representative faces little threat from the opposing party in a general election. The greater threat comes from within the party in a primary election. This means Representatives must work to ensure support among their party's base voters (again liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans). As the chart below Demonstrates, partisan loyalty increases and increased significantly the safer the Congressional district. If primaries were open to all voters, regardless of party, the pressure would be quite different. Even if the Congressional districts were safe, base voters would not be selecting the candidates and the candidates would need to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate to secure a nomination. Of course the power of incumbency and safe seats make it quite difficult to challenge a sitting Representative - challenging and expensive.

Relationship between Partisan Loyalty and District Safety
(Source: National Journal - Pulling Apart)

The Money Game
According to OpenSecrets.org, the average House incumbent raised $1.5 million for their reelection campaign in 2010. The average challenger raised $265,000. The tremendous expense of House elections puts pressure on incumbents to raise money - just over $2,000 each day they are in office. Those voters with deeply held beliefs are the ones most likely to donate money. As demonstrated in a prior post, few folks make political contribution and those that do are far more ideologically polarized than those who do not.

Joseph Bafumi and Michael Herron have shown that members of Congress are not only more partisan than the median voter in their respective states, they are more partisan than their fellow partisan voters. Democrats in Congress are to the left of the median Democratic voter and Republicans to the right of the median Republican voter. The exception being campaign donors - elected officials are quite ideologically aligned with the folks who write the checks.

In “The Price of Leadership: Campaign Money and the Polarization of Congressional Parties,” Eric Heberlig, Marc Hetherington, and Bruce Larson determine the parties are driven by the need for money and support is given to candidates or incumbents who can raise it. The authors conclude, "a plausible new route into party leadership is by demonstrating fundraising capacity for the benefit of the party” and this has “changed the ideological composition of leadership." Once, parties sought to nominate candidates capable of building a coalition or managing legislation, but today fundraising has become the critical deciding factor.

The Unholy Trinity
Taken collectively, the unholy trinity of partisan redistricting, closed primaries, and the money chase offer a plausible explanation for our present levels polarization and dysfunction. Reforms aimed at fixing any one of the three would likely have little effect - rather all must be addressed. Legislation is pending in Congress that would require all states to adopt non-partisan redistricting reform, but such legislation has been introduced before and has been ignored. Seven states have adopted non-partisan, or bipartisan redistricting reforms - but these states hold only 88 of 435 seats. In most states, the parties are simply unwilling to surrender the power to gerrymander.

Roughly 28 states have closed or semi-closed primaries or closed caucuses. The structure and rules for primary elections are left up to the states and are often determined by the parties as independent entities. In states where citizens have pushed for open primaries, the parties have fought to maintain control over the candidate nomination process.

Public financing of presidential elections has been in place since the 1970s, but no such system exists for Congress. Though the Supreme Court has ruled you cannot place limits on private campaign spending, it is lawful to put limits on spending if an individual accepts public funding. Proposals for public funding of Congressional elections have been introduced in nearly every Congress since the early 1970s - but to no avail. Public financing would immediately remove a tremendous advantage enjoyed by incumbents and they do not appear eager to let that advantage go. Kenneth R. Mayer, Timothy Werner, and Amanda Williams studied state legislative elections in five states that offer public financing and determined competition generally increased after public financing was enacted, both in terms of the number of incumbents facing challengers, and the number of “competitive” races.

Competitive races, open primaries, and competition for the median voter instead of the partisan campaign donor. Congressional districts where voters pick their representative instead of incumbent representatives picking their voters.  Collectively these changes offer the hope of decreased polarization in Congress and the return to a functioning government. But the folks who would need to change the rules of the game are the same folks who know how to play the game as it is currently structured.  There is little indication that they are willing to rewrite those rules and invite a new group of players. So for now, let the dysfunction resume.

Shelby Perkins, a Political Science and Spanish major at St. Mary's College of Maryland contributed significantly to this post.

O'Malley's Amazing Opportunity

Update:
Martin O'Malley has decided to ask African-American voters to wait at least another decade for fair representation in Maryland... and apparently African-American leaders are ready to give up and say "thank you." At least Donna Edwards had the courage to protest, and hats off to the folks who walked out on the caucus capitulation meeting...

So when asked to choose between creating a third majority-minority district or creating a marginally Democratic district in Western Maryland, O'Malley decided that the mere chance of electing another white Democrat mattered more than boosting minority representation in Congress. So much for people asking Andrew Cuomo who?

Original Post:
Just last night I wrote that I did not envy Martin O'Malley and the choice he needs to make in the state redistricting battle.

Well that was so yesterday... O'Malley has just been presented with a golden opportunity to win and win big. Just as minority groups increased the pressure on presidential aspirant O'Malley to create a third majority-minority district in Maryland and on gubernatorial aspirant Doug Gansler (State Attorney General) to not support the legality of the proposed map (under a Voting Rights challenge) word comes that Marylanders for Marriage Equality will make a push for marriage equality legislation during next week's special session of the General Assembly.

Whether they realize it or not, Marylanders for Marriage Equality may have solved O'Malley's redistricting problem and delivered a big boost to his presidential aspirations. The real test will be whether O'Malley is ready to deal.

Marriage equality legislation died in the House of Delegates last Spring largely due to opposition from African-American community leaders and delegates in the Prince Georges and Montgomery County area - the same folks angry about the proposed redistricting map.

O'Malley needs to make the following deal:

He needs to propose a new map that creates a third majority-minority district in the Montgomery/Prince Georges region. In exchange for the new map, African-American leaders agree not to oppose marriage equality legislation and area senators and delegates agree to support the bill during the special session. This is a good deal for O'Malley and for the African-American community.

O'Malley scores a significant victory in the fight for marriage equality, earning him the respect of national Democratic party leaders and party activists (also known as donors and primary voters). African-American delegates and senators as well as community leaders score a victory as well, by agreeing to support a measure that in no way harms their communities they likely gain a new African-American member of Congress.

So what's the downside?  Creating a third majority-minority district would mean restoring the 6th Congressional district to a Republican district. The 330,000 Montgomery County voters that were to be added to the 6th would be removed and the voters in Frederick and most of Carroll county would be put back. This frees O'Malley to reconfigure the 8th congressional district. Presently, the 8th district is 37% minority, under the current proposal it would fall to 25% minority. O'Malley could restore the minority voters to the 8th, add additional voters from the 5th Congressional district (in exchange for some Anne Arundel voters currently in the 4th), and in pretty short order turn the 8th district into a majority-minority district.

Proposed Redistricting Map

This does mean that O'Malley would fail to deliver a new House seat to the Democratic party, harming their quest to reclaim the majority. But no party leader would hold that against him. No party activist would view this as a bad deal. In fact, O'Malley would likely earn tremendous respect for being willing to cut such a deal to secure marriage equality. What Democrat could possibly be upset over the twofer of marriage equality and increased minority representation?

Additionally, one can imagine a future debate where O'Malley decries the Republican party's petty partisanship and points out that while Republicans were engaging in egregious acts of gerrymandering in Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere O'Malley rose above the partisan fray and put the interests of the people of his state ahead of all other considerations.

I have been critical of O'Malley for what often seems a lack of bold leadership and risk taking - with this deal all of that past criticism would fall away. If O'Malley can strike this deal he would demonstrate that he is not only ready for prime time, but that he'll be must see TV in the quest for 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.  If he pulls this off, people will start asking Andrew Cuomo who?

(An important side note - the one loser in all of this would be Chris Van Hollen. Van Hollen is a rising star in the Democratic party, but he would likely lose his district. But any effort to create a new majority-minority district would imperil one of the state's incumbent Democrats - this is simply unavoidable. Of course, Van Hollen may want to consider 2016 and the possibility of an open Senate seat.)

Maryland Redistricting Plan is an Affront to Representative Democracy

Looking for my map? Check it out here.

Update: Want to learn more about gerrymandering and ask me questions? Come to St. Mary's College on October 12 for a screening of the documentary "Gerrymandering."


At the height of the national debate over raising the debt ceiling, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley wrote a column for the Huffington Post in which he excoriated the Tea Party and Republicans in Congress.

"Over the past few weeks, we've seen divisiveness and political gamesmanship like we've never seen before. We've seen a new wing of the Republican party emerge with one goal and one goal only and that is to defeat President Obama in the upcoming election -- even if it means killing the jobs recovery and risking our country's financial stability."

Indeed, since becoming chair of the Democratic Governors' Association O'Malley has frequently criticized the GOP for placing party before country and for being partisan hostage takers - willing to risk our nation's very future in an effort to defeat President Obama in 2012.

I happen to think that much of O'Malley's criticism of the GOP and the Tea Party, though a bit hyperbolic, was often correct.

Unfortunately for O'Malley, recent events suggest that he is every bit as partisan and unconcerned with the health of our democracy as are the Republicans he so often criticizes.

As reported by the Washington Post, O'Malley's Redistricting Commission appears to have settled on two possible options for redrawing Maryland's congressional districts (see below). Each map represents no less than an assault on the very concept of democratic representation. Each map represents an act of puerile political cowardice drawn for the express purpose of suppressing the will of the people in the state of Maryland.

With these maps Governor O'Malley appears ready to embrace divisiveness and political gamesmanship with one goal and one goal only and that is to help Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives in 2012 - even if it means effectively disenfranchising four in ten Marylanders and risking our country's future by exacerbating the problem of polarized politics.

Simply stated, the O'Malley plans (as reported by the Washington Post) seek to alter Maryland's current Congressional delegation of six Democrats and two Republicans and create a delegation that is seven Democrats to one Republican, or, under a particularly egregious plan, eight Democrats.

As I demonstrated in a prior post, talk of Maryland being a two-to-one Democrat over Republican state often ignores the fact that Democrats represent only 56% of the state's registered voters - a clear majority, but hardly indicative of a one party state. More important than voter registration statistics, my analyses of statewide and district-specific elections showed that the Free State's growing bloc of unaffiliated voters vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. In truth, Maryland is not a two-to-one Democratic state - it is a 60/40 Democratic state - so more like 1.5-to-1. It makes sense that Democrats routinely win all statewide races, but they have regional weaknesses on the eastern shore, southern and western Maryland and in northern Baltimore and Harford counties.

If one were to apply the 1.5-to-1 ratio to the state's eight-seat congressional delegation the split would be five Democrats and three Republicans. The current six-to-two split is not too far off, but is the result of a particularly messy redistricting process completed in 2002. At the time of the state's last redistricting, Maryland had a four-to-four congressional delegation (also not far off the 1.5-to-1 ratio) and then Governor Parris Glendening and state Democrats dedicated themselves to correcting that "flaw." The result was the current map, which elevated Maryland to the proud status as one of the worst gerrymandered states in the nation. Casper Taylor (D-Allegany), then Speaker of the Maryland House, said the plan was the best way to elect more Democrats, arguing "We Democrats deserve six [Democrats] and two" Republicans.

Governor O'Malley had a chance to correct the abuse of process committed in the name of petty partisanship in 2002, but instead it seems he has doubled-down and bowed before the pressure of the national Democratic party and appears ready to gerrymander Maryland so drastically that the state will likely stand side-by-side with the Rorschach test that is the gerrymandered mess created by the GOP in Texas.

Under either of the maps attributed to the Redistricting Commission, Maryland's 2nd and 3rd congressional districts would continue to defy all logic and Baltimore City would continue to be treated like a ATM simply dispensing Democratic voters used to dilute more conservative voters in surrounding suburban counties. Under Option 1, the 4th, 6th, and 7th districts would throw down the gauntlet and openly compete for the title of most egregious affront to democracy. Counties would be sliced and diced, communities divided, and parts of the state with little or nothing in common would be combined all in the name of either maximizing Democratic votes or minimizing Republican votes.

Maryland Redistricting Commission - Proposed Option 1

 Under Option 2, the 2nd and 3rd districts are altered, but continue to resemble an accidental ink spill and the 4th district is transformed into an odd merging of Prince Georges and Anne Arundel. But the 1st and 5th districts take the cake. The 5th district would stretch from Prince Georges county, down through southern Maryland, jump across the Chesapeake Bay and include the lower eastern shore. The 1st district would include the rest of the eastern shore, then drive across the Bay Bridge, cut through Anne Arundel county and end in, you guessed it, Prince Georges county.

Maryland Redistricting Commission - Proposed Option 2

Undermining Maryland's Diversity

The net effect of either Option 1 or Option 2 would be a Congressional delegation that fundamentally fails to represent the true political diversity of Maryland. Republicans and Independent voters are not the only folks who lose out under the proposed maps. According to the 2010 census, Maryland has a fast growing minority population - in fact, the state is just over 40% minority. However, minority voters are not as geographically diverse as the state's white population. Nearly 60 percent of the state's African-American population reside in Prince Georges county and Baltimore City. Montgomery county is home to over 40% of the Asian population and over 60% of the growing Hispanic population reside in Montgomery and Prince Georges counties.

Baltimore City has seen its population shrink to the point where it could occupy a single congressional district, inclusive of its Baltimore county suburbs - instead, both maps would continue to spread the City's 400,000 African-American voters across the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th congressional districts. African-Americans are the most loyal Democratic voting bloc and these maps rely on that loyalty to dilute more conservative voters in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Harford counties. The same is true for minority voters in Montgomery and Prince Georges counties - in order to flip the Republican-held 6th congressional district the proposals would divide Montgomery county among 3 (option 1) or 4 (option 2) congressional districts to dilute more conservative voters in western Maryland and to protect the Democratic 3rd and 8th districts. Prince Georges county also would be divided among 3 (option 1) or 4 (option 2) congressional districts to dilute more conservative voters in southern Maryland (the 5th district), Anne Arundel county (the 4th) and the eastern shore (the first).

Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Charles counties, all part of the DC suburbs and home to 50% of the state's African-American population could occupy 3 congressional districts (as opposed to the 6 they collectively occupy in the two proposals) - such a map, coupled with a cohesive Baltimore City/suburbs district would likely result in a congressional delegation consisting of at least 3 members of the minority community. Instead, the Redistricting Commission appears ready to do what has been done in the past - dilute the power of the minority vote by dividing it and using it to offset more conservative white voters elsewhere. There is no way to gerrymander Maryland and prevent Republicans from winning at least 3 congressional seats without dividing minority communities - so the interest of the party trumps the interests of the state's diverse population. In Republican-held states, the GOP often seeks to pack minority voters into a single district drawn to prevent them from diluting conservative votes elsewhere. Whether the Democratic or Republican approach the result is the same - fewer minority members of Congress.

Why the Gerrymandering?

According to the Washington Post, O'Malley was motivated by the simple fact that, following the 2010 midterms, the GOP controls the redistricting process in enough states to effect 202 House seats, compared to 47 for Democrats. And make no mistake, Republicans have been busy. In states like Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania Republicans have been hard at work protecting their House majority.

But the fact the Republicans are doing it other states is simply not an acceptable excuse for O'Malley to do it here. Maryland's voters deserve better. All voters deserve better. A small handful of states have sought to remove politics from the redistricting process. In these states, the needs of voters have been placed ahead of the needs of any political party - this is what Marylander's deserve and what O'Malley had a chance to deliver. Instead, O'Malley appears to have decided that he cares more about the demands of the national Democratic party than he does about representing the diverse views Marylanders.

How Bad is the Gerrymandering?

Republicans and Democrats have been so effective at gerrymandering the country that roughly 380 of the House's 435 seats are considered to be safe - that means there are about 55 competitive seats. Control of the House goes to whichever party controls at least 218 seats. At present, partisan gerrymandering has created a situation where Democrats have a floor of about 195 seats (they're just below that number right now) and Republicans have a floor of about 185 seats. This means that either party, when in the minority, is within striking distance of reclaiming the majority. It also means that either party, when in the majority, has a very tenuous hold on power. The result being that the minority party has every motivation to obstruct the majority and the majority party has every motivation to shut-out the minority in an effort to enact its agenda as quickly as possible.

Gerrymandering contributes to our polarized and dysfunctional politics in other ways as well. In the roughly 380 safe seats the majority party has been so protected from competition that there is no reason to ever listen to the demands or wishes of minority party voters in the district. In such a situation, there is no motivation for elected officials to seek compromise, no motivation to take into consideration the interests of minority party voters.

How bad is it? I'll leave that to conservative Democratic Representative Mike Ross (D-AR) “If you look at the Congress, the entire agenda is being driven by the extremes of both parties..., And that’s being driven by gerrymandering throughout the years.”

Some dismiss the impact of gerrymandering on polarization, often noting that the Senate is polarized as well - and you cannot gerrymander a state. What these folks fail to realize is that roughly 2/3 of our Senators (in any given year) previously held seats in an elective office subject to redistricting (either in the U.S. House or in a state assembly) - in other words, the Senate is a product of what gerrymandering has wrought.

Political Cowardice
The House of Representatives was meant to be the most democratic of all federal institutions. It was meant to be the body where the diverse interests of the people mingled and produced compromise. It was to be the place where the baneful influence of factions would be countered and moderated. Gerrymandering subverts all of that and subjugates the interests of the people to the interests of political parties.

Perhaps it was  naive to have expected more from Governor O'Malley, but it certainly was not wrong to have expected better. I will confess to being a pretty liberal person (I know, a liberal college professor - shocking). I support a truly progressive tax code, I want the death penalty to end, I want single-payer national health insurance, I support marriage equality, and think we need comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship and in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants. I know that all of these things will only happen if Democrats are the folks making the laws. But process matters, the ends can never be used to justify the means, and democracy demands that the diverse interests and beliefs of the people be represented. It is better to lose a fair fight, than to win a rigged game.

The proposed maps for Maryland, as well as the GOP proposed maps in states like Texas, are supreme acts of political cowardice. If Democrats and Republicans truly believed that their ideas, their vision for America, were more powerful there would be no need rig the system like this. Maps such as these, represent a clear acknowledgement by the parties that they do not believe they can win a fair fight in the battlefield of ideas.