redistricting

Census Data Delay Likely Means No Redistricting Session This Fall in Md.

February 18, 2021 by Maryland Matters Leave a Comment

The U.S. Census Bureau’s decision to delay releasing population data until fall almost certainly guarantees that Maryland lawmakers won’t redraw the state’s political boundaries before next year, political analysts said on Tuesday.

The bureau originally planned to get results of the 2020 Census to states by March 31. But officials announced on Friday that they will provide it by Sept. 30 instead.

They blamed the delay on the COVID-19 crisis, which made surveying every household in the country, a labor-intensive process that involves millions of face-to-face interactions, more difficult.

Maryland and other states will use the data — once they get it — to craft congressional and legislative boundaries that will be used for the next five election cycles, beginning with U.S. House and General Assembly contests in 2022.

The delay in receiving population data makes it highly unlikely the legislature will meet in special session this fall, according to three people knowledgeable about the process.

Instead, lawmakers will have to tackle congressional and legislative redistricting when they convene in January for the 2021 session.

There is no way to replicate the more generous timeline that lawmakers had in 2011, said Patrick H. Murray, a former chief of staff for the late Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., now the top aide to Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski Jr. (D).

For that redistricting, then Gov. Martin J. O’Malley (D) announced a redistricting committee in the summer, the committee drafted a congressional map in early October and the legislature convened a special session to consider it later that month, Murray recalled.

Given advances in computer software since the 2011 redistricting, lawmakers and their staffs won’t necessarily need a lot of time to draw new lines, said Daniel M. Clements, a retired lawyer and longtime Democratic activist who has been involved in past redistricting efforts.

But pitched battles that often occur internally — among incumbent members of Congress and the General Assembly over various precincts — can take time to resolve.

The 2022 primary election is set for June 28. And the deadline for candidates to file is Feb. 22.

Assuming it does not get pushed back, legislators will have less than six weeks to conclude a process that is fraught with political intrigue and where emotions can run hot.

“You will have that piece, but the shorter time means they just have to resolve it quicker,” Clements said.

In January, Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) created a nine-person redistricting commission to study Maryland’s population changes, take public input and draw a set of boundaries that he can submit to the legislature.

The panel will have three Democrats, three Republicans and three voters who aren’t registered with any political party.

Cato Institute senior fellow Walter Olson, a Republican; retired federal judge Alex Williams, a Democrat; and Howard Community College President Kathleen Hetherington, an independent, will serve as co-chairs.

The other six slots will be filled by a group of applicants who put their names forward prior to the Feb. 12 deadline.

Olson would not disclose the number of people that applied, but he described them as “an impressive and diverse group of applicants.”

The governor’s commission will hold statewide hearings once it is empaneled.

Olson said the delay in Census data compresses the amount of time the panel will have to do their work.

“Our work has to be done later and with somewhat more time pressure than would have been predicted,” he said. “We have our assignment, which is to propose maps for U.S. House [districts] and for the General Assembly. Whether a special session occurs or not is not part of our to-do list.”

Speaking on WBAL Radio, Hogan again slammed Democratic leaders in the General Assembly for how they have drawn lines in the past and for rebuffing his efforts to take line-drawing out of the hands of legislators.

He pledged to submit the commission’s maps as his own, “without any influence or tampering.”

“I have the power as governor to draw districts,” he added. After that, he conceded, “it’s a battle between the executive branch and the legislative branch.”

By Bruce DePuyt

Md. Lawmakers Will Map Congressional Districts Based on 2020 Census

January 12, 2021 by Spy Desk 3 Comments

Maryland lawmakers later this year will draw new maps for the state’s congressional districts based on the latest population statistics from the 2020 Census.

The U.S. Constitution requires the census to be conducted every 10 years. The population numbers are then used by states to draw new congressional districts, which typically is completed in time for the congressional election two years after the census.

Following the decennial census, federal law requires states to be notified by Jan. 25 by the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives on the number of congressional seats that state will have for the next 10 years.

That notification will be delayed this year, however, as the U.S. Census Bureau continues processing and tabulating the population numbers.

According to The Washington Post, the census bureau currently believes it will finalize state population numbers by March 6, more than two months after the Dec. 31 deadline.

The deadline was missed as a result of delays caused by the coronavirus pandemic and changes made by the administration of President Donald Trump, which is being sued over some of its decisions concerning the census.

Although the count continues, population estimates suggest Maryland will retain its eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Once the state is told how many seats it will have, Maryland lawmakers will draw new boundaries for those congressional districts. After the congressional map is approved by the Maryland General Assembly, it is subject to veto by Gov. Larry Hogan.

Addressing Inequities of Chestertown Voting Districts, by Bill Arrowood

December 12, 2019 by Spy Desk

Your December 11 article, Redistricting, Reapportionment Overdue in Chestertown, is a very succinct statement of facts of the inequities of our local voting districts, something I have been trying to get traction on every election cycle for years.

Not addressed is that the demographics of certain wards are somewhat carved out and have the appearance of being very specific, something that allegedly looks like a lot like old fashioned gerrymandering. (Historically, Ward 3 contains the majority of the African American population of the town and at the time of drawing of the map, also included the most of the subsidized and lower income communities).

Further having areas like Foxley Manor in the downtown/business Ward 2 are out of place. Foxley Manor resident issues have more in common and are geographically closer to its neighbors on the other side of the woods, Washington Park and Coventry Farms, (which didn’t exist last time the Ward Maps were drawn), than with High Street and Cannon Street. One can only supposed this was done to balance the ledgers, but why wouldn’t Ward 2 include Kent Crossing or Upper High Street, which is closer and includes mixed residential and business, like the rest of the Ward.

The dividing of Water and Queen Streets looks like a separation of the wealthiest properties into the more, (at the time), affluent Ward 1, also feels like it had more to do with who lives where than simple straight lines on a map. (with some exception, Water/Front Street south of High was not as gentrified as it stands today).

The annexation of the new Dixon Property and its proposed infill of workforce residential will also add to the imbalance in the wards and should be addressed in advance of their completion. (This residential boom was something the Town anticipated on the Cross Street Extension 30 odd years ago that has never materialized, but is actively happening now on Scheeler Road)

I do not suggest that this map was drawn 30 years ago with any malice or malfeasance, I do however argue that it is well past time for its update and that geography and like zoning should be a consideration as well as population balance.

I would go so far as to suggest an amendment to the Town Charter to allow for an At-Large council seat for Chestertown ‘residents’ that are considered Chestertownians but not officially inside the legal boundaries. Parts of Morgnec Road and Quaker Neck Road and Crestview are surrounded by the borders of town, but not a part of the Town proper, or areas like Country Club Estates represent significant populations who deserve a level of engagement.

This seat could be restricted for voting on matters of budgeting and finance, as those residents are not subject to Town Real Estate Tax, but it would increase the overall responsibility that the Town of Chestertown and its Council has to all its ‘residents’ and offer an opportunity for broader inclusion to its impacted community. I would also consider, as the Board of Education has done effectively, consider a student seat for a Washington College student. As the college grows, (now over 1,300 in enrollment), what happens at the college and its students are a major factor in what happens to and in the town. Again, even if this was a not fiscal voting position, offering a seat at the table to a student/staff would make strides in increasing the ‘town and gown’ relations.

Or that as Chestertown is only a handful of municipalities of its size that seats are not At-Large, perhaps its time to consider that as well, and dispel any inequities of population and demographics and have each council member assigned a basic quadrant for reports, which if not bound by voting poles can be divided simply and evenly by zoning and property.

This is not an easy issue to fix with a sharpie and a map, (well technically, given that borders should be based on straight forward math and zoning, maybe it is); but it certainly is one that deserves attention and could be resolved with equity and common sense. I hope that this article shines a light on this and the Mayor & Council will find time to address this before the town’s next election cycle.

Bill Arrowood ran for mayor in 2013 and is the former chair of the recreation commission.

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

Redistricting, Reapportionment Overdue in Chestertown

December 11, 2019 by Daniel Menefee

With the 2020 census around the corner, Chestertown is closing in on a quarter-century since it last reapportioned its four voting districts.

State law gives no redistricting guidance to municipalities; so local jurisdictions like Chestertown are governed by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, court rulings and the U.S. Constitution.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that voting districts in a state or local jurisdiction be equal in population to the extent possible. But current voter registration rolls in Chestertown may indicate that the wards vary in population — from the smallest to the largest — by more than 10 percent. Deviations that exceed 10 percent in local jurisdictions are generally considered “constitutionally suspect” unless there is a compelling reason.

As of the 2019 election for Wards 2 and 4, the most current census data available puts the town’s population at 5,054, and the tally of registered voters shows increases in each ward since the town last redrew its districts in 1995, most notably in Ward 3.

Ward 1 – 760
Ward 2 – 611
Ward 3 – 1,236
Ward 4 – 676

Chestertown officials could not provide census data by ward for this story. But if the wards were equally apportioned within the 10 percent range, each ward should have roughly 1,250 residents. This means Ward 3 is hovering at or near 100 percent voter registration.

Chestertown’s 1995 redistricting and apportionment ordinance recognized that over two decades had passed since the previous reapportionment and the need to increase population and voter registration in Ward 2, historically lower than the other wards.

In attempting to balance the voter rolls and population in each ward, the Ward Apportionment Study Committee, appointed in 1993, drew new boundaries that moved parts of Wards 1, 3 and 4 into Ward 2. See proposed map changes from March of 1995.

The final tally for the four wards when the new map was adopted in 1995:

Ward 1 population 917, with 668 registered voters
Ward 2 population 1,058, with 449 registered voters
Ward 3 population 1,167, with 573 registered voters
Ward 4 population 1,327 (includes 300 college students) with 473 registered voters.

The reapportionment committee put the town’s population at 4,169, and the adopted map anticipated growth in Wards 1, 3 and 4 — and allowed for the expansion of Ward 2 should annexation occur in the future. See the adopted map.

The adopted committee report used the most current voter registration rolls from the Kent County Board of Elections and the most current census data from the Maryland Department of Planning. The committee’s final report said, “care was taken to preserve the minority voter balance in each ward.”

Though Maryland municipalities, like in all states, must establish their own redistricting plans that comply with the VRA and the Constitution, there is no requirement in Chestertown’s charter that mandates redistricting after a census. The Charter simply states:

“It shall be the duty of the Mayor and Council, by Ordinance, to divide the Town into four (4) wards and apportion the Council in such manner for election purposes so as to reflect population and voter equality.”

There are 157 municipalities in Maryland and Chestertown is one of 30 that has voting districts to elect council members, according to the Maryland Municipal League. Of the 30 municipalities still using voting districts, six require a decennial census; Chestertown is not one of them.

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here

Sections

More