Opinion ID: 6499633
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Redistricting Procedure

Text: Every ten years, following the release of the federal decennial census data, the councilmanic districts are redrawn. When councilmanic redistricting coincides with Maryland’s quadrennial election in the second year of a decade—for example, 2022—the geographic districts remain in effect for three full county election cycles—2022, 2026, and 2030. Following the 2020 decennial census, and after “COVID-19-related delays,” the United States Census Bureau released the results to the fifty states on August 12, 2021.5 In Prince George’s County, this new census data provided the basis for redistricting in this case. Article III, § 305 of the Charter6 sets out a redistricting procedure by which councilmanic districts are redrawn to be “compact, contiguous, and equal in population.” By February 1 of the year before redistricting becomes effective, the Council must appoint a “commission on redistricting.” Art. III, § 305. The central committee of each political party that polled at least fifteen percent of the total vote cast in the preceding regular Council election may propose five names to the Council for appointment to the redistricting 5 2020 Census Timeline of Important Milestones, United States Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planningmanagement/release/timeline.html, archived at https://perma.cc/6GCF-DSET. 6 All references to “§ 305” are to Article III, § 305 of the Charter, unless otherwise indicated. 4 commission. Id. The redistricting commission is then composed of two members from each list and one additional member appointed by the Council to serve as chairman. Id. By September 1 of the year before redistricting becomes effective, the redistricting commission “shall prepare, publish, and make available a plan of Council districts and shall present that plan, together with a report explaining it, to the Council.” Prince George’s County Charter, Art. III, § 305. After the Council receives the redistricting commission’s plan, it must hold a public hearing. Id. The public hearing must occur no less than fifteen calendar days, and no more than thirty calendar days, after the Council receives the plan. Id. “If the Council passes no other law changing the proposal, then the plan, as submitted, shall become law, as of the last day of November, as an act of the Council, subject to Sections 320 and 321 of [the] Charter.” Prince George’s County Charter, Art. III, § 305. In 2012, the citizens of Prince George’s County ratified an amendment to § 305, adding a single sentence to the conclusion of § 305: “Such law shall be adopted by resolution of the County Council upon notice and public hearing.” Id.; see CB-55-2012. B. Prince George’s County Council 2022 Redistricting In the Council election immediately preceding the regular election, only the Democratic Party polled at least fifteen percent of the total vote cast. Therefore, in accordance with § 305, only one central committee—the Prince George’s County Democratic Central Committee (“Democratic Central Committee”)—proposed a list of 5 names to be considered for appointment to the 2021 Commission.7 The Democratic Central Committee proposed a list of five names to the Council. By resolution on January 28, 2021, the Council appointed three individuals to the 2021 Commission—David C. Harrington and Dr. Charlene Dukes, from the Democratic Central Committee’s list, and Rev. James J. Robinson as Chair. See CR-006-2021, at 1; App’x A. The 2021 Commission conducted eleven public meetings, held two public hearings, gathered public input using electronic outreach efforts, and created a redistricting website that contained information on the redistricting process, timelines, agendas, meeting minutes, census data, public comments, briefings, preliminary plan proposals, and final plan proposals. See CR-123-2021, at 1–2. On September 1, 2021, the 2021 Commission transmitted its redistricting plan and accompanying report (“2021 Commission Plan and Report”) to the Council. See Plan and Report, Prince George’s County 2021 Redistricting Commission, https://pgccouncil.us/DocumentCenter/View/6648/2021-RedistrictingCommission-Report, archived at https://perma.cc/7854-45YM. The Council considered the 2021 Commission Plan and Report during a public hearing on September 28, 2021. See CR-123-2021, at 2. Following the public hearing, on October 12 and October 14, 2021, the Council conducted public work sessions to consider the 2021 Commission Plan and Report and create an alternative redistricting plan. See id. 7 Because only the Democratic party polled fifteen percent of the total vote cast in the preceding election, the commission consisted of three members instead of five. If any other party polled fifteen percent or more of the total vote cast in the preceding election, that party would also have submitted to the Council a slate of names to be considered for appointment, from which two individuals would have been appointed to the redistricting commission. 6 The Council, sitting as the Committee of the Whole,8 received and favorably voted its alternative plan out of committee on October 14, 2021. See id. The Council amended the alternative plan on October 19, 2021 and introduced the same plan in two forms: CB-115-2021 (“Council Bill 115”) and Council Resolution 123. As reflected in the Council’s October 19, 2021 Meeting Minutes, “[t]he Chair announced that [Council Bill 115] was removed from the agenda as not necessary due to the introduction of [Council Resolution 123.]” The Council took no further action on Council Bill 115. After a public hearing on November 16, 2021, the Council adopted Council Resolution 123 by a six-to-three vote. Council Resolution 123 directed the Clerk of the Council to transmit a copy of the councilmanic districting plan contained therein to the Prince George’s County Board of Elections. C. Proceedings in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Respondents sought a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the use of Council Resolution 123 by filing a complaint titled “(Emergency) Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Writ of Mandamus and for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief” in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County on January 24, 2022. 8 The Council, pursuant to the County Council Rules of Procedure, operates by selfimposed committee system. Committee System, Prince George’s County Council, https://pgccouncil.us/189/Committee-System, archived at https://perma.cc/F96H-KWBJ. Under this system, “[a]t the time of presentation of a bill or at the introduction of a resolution, the Chair may refer the matter to [a] standing committee[] or to the Council sitting as a Committee of the Whole.” Id. 7 The circuit court set the matter for a hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) on January 28, 2022 (“January 28 Hearing”). At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the County made clear that the County did not dispute Respondents’ factual allegations as described in the Complaint. Accordingly, the circuit court converted the January 28 Hearing from one concerning the TRO to a trial on the merits and the parties’ arguments focused on the legal question of whether the Council’s actions violated § 305. Following the January 28 Hearing, the circuit court issued an Order of Court and Declaratory Judgment on January 31, 2022 (“January 31 Order”). The circuit court declared Council Resolution 123 ineffective “to the extent it[] . . . serve[d] as a ‘law changing the [2021 Commission’s plan]’”; because the Council did not pass any other law changing the 2021 Commission’s plan, the circuit court determined that “the [2021] Commission’s plan became law on November 30, 2021[.]” Further, the January 31 Order: (1) “permanently enjoined [the County] from acting upon, implementing, or otherwise presenting the redistricting plan in [Council Resolution 123] to any entity charged with acting upon or implementing the County’s redistricting plan”; (2) required that the County “immediately withdraw the redistricting plan in [Council Resolution 123] and submit the [2021] Commission’s plan to all entities charged with acting upon or implementing the County’s redistricting plan”; and (3) required that the County “immediately cease and desist any publication of the redistricting plan in [Council Resolution 123] or otherwise withdraw the plan in [Council Resolution 123] from public view to the extent practicable and within its control[.]” 8 D. Appeal The County noted an appeal of the circuit court’s January 31 Order on February 1, 2022. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland docketed the appeal on February 3, 2022. While pending in that court, the County filed in this Court a petition for writ of certiorari, which posed the following question: Is a Resolution, having the force and effect of law, a valid measure to adopt a decennial County Redistricting Plan? This Court granted the petition on February 11, 2022, established an expedited briefing schedule, and heard oral argument on March 4, 2022.9 Prince George’s Cnty. v. Thurston, 477 Md. 383 (2022). By per curiam order issued March 7, 2022, this Court affirmed the circuit court’s January 31 Order in all respects and further ordered that the redistricting plan prepared by the [2021] Commission and submitted to the Council on September 1, 2021, which became effective by operation of law under Section 305 of the Charter for Prince George’s County on November 30, 2021, shall be used for all purposes in acting upon or implementing the County’s redistricting plan[.] Prince George’s Cnty. v. Thurston, 477 Md. 629 (2022). This Opinion explains our rationale. 9 The County filed an “Emergency Motion for Expedited Consideration and Relief of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari” on February 8, 2022 (the “Emergency Motion”). Respondents filed an “Answer to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Request for Summary Affirmance” and “Response to [Prince George’s County’s] Motion to Expedite” on February 9, 2022. The Court’s February 11 Order granting certiorari granted in part and denied in part the County’s Emergency Motion, denied the County’s request for a stay of the circuit court’s January 31 Order, and denied Respondents’ request for a summary affirmance. 9