Shapiro v. McManus

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 4/8/14. (c/m 4/8/14 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

FIL.ElJ
IN THE UNI1W<P.
S\f~iI1ES~~l.CT
FOR Tmnn1JSjtRfct101F'r~LAND
I

ZDI~APR- 8 A 10: 32

COURT

I

CLf,RK'S OFFICE

O. JOHN BENISEK, et al.,

, I t'il:h •...
AT 8;.\ L-I"n'H:

Plaintiffs,

*

BY

v.
BOBBIE S. MACK, Chair,
Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.,
in their official capacities,

CIVIL No. JKB-13-3233

*
*
*

Defendants.

*

*

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
0, John Benisek, Stephen M. Shapiro, and Maria B. Pycha (collectively "Plaintiffs")
brought this suit against Bobbie S. Mack, Chair of the Maryland State Board of Elections, and
Linda H. Lamone, State Administrator of the Maryland State Board of Elections, (collectively
"Defendants"),

in their official

capacities,

alleging that the 2011 congressional

districts

established by the Maryland General Assembly violate Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Section
2 of the United States Constitution, as well as under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution,

Now pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim (ECF No. 13). The issues have been briefed and no hearing is required.
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted,

I.

BACKGROUND.

In 2011, following the 2010 decennial census, the Maryland General Assembly enacted a
congressional redistricting plan. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law

SS 8-701

et seq.; (Am. Compl., ECF

No. 11, at ~~ 7-8.) This plan closely followed the recommendations of the Governor's
Redistricting Advisory Committee ("GRAC"), which included the President of the Maryland
Senate and the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. (Am. Compl. at ~ 8.) Several of
the districts created under this plan-in
districts-are

particular the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th congressional

composed of two "de-facto non-contiguous segments-i.e.,

discrete segments that

would be wholly non-contiguous but for the placement of one or more narrow orifices or ribbons
connecting the discrete segments." (Id. at ~ 10.) Further, in each of these districts, one of the
two "de-facto non-continuous segments" is "far more populous than the other as well as being
socioeconomically, demographically, and politically inconsistent with the other segment." (ld at
~ 11.)
For example, Plaintiffs describe the 4th congressional district as follows2:
This district is a majority African-American district that was first developed in
1990 to account for the increasing population of African-American residents
within Prince George's County. The dominant portion of the 4th district is
centered in the portion of Prince George's County within the Capital Beltway and
bordering the District of Columbia. This portion of the [congressional] district
contains 450,000 residents who are predominantly (74%) African-American (and
16% Hispanic and 6% white), urban, lower-middle income, and overwhelmingly
Democratic voters. President Obama received 96% of the vote within this portion
in 200S. This segment is attached through a narrow ribbon to the smaller segment
of IS5,000 residents in northeastern Anne Arundel County who are
predominantly Republican voters. President Obama received 42% of the vote
within this portion in 200S. These Anne Arundel residents share little in common
with their Prince George's counterparts that is relevant to effective or meaningful
representation .... Given the composition of this district, its Representative will
be elected by the voters of the Prince George's segment, and will almost certainly
The facts are recited here as alleged by the Plaintiff, this being a motion to dismiss. See Ibarra v. United States,
120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997).
2 Plaintiffs make similar claims as to the 6th, 7th, and 8th congressional districts. (ld. at 1111 12(b)-(d).)
I

2

be a Democrat. ... As [aJ practical matter, the election of the district's
Representative will be determined by the Democratic primary election.
(Id at ~~ 12(a)(I)-(2).)
On November 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed this suit challenging "the narrow ribbons and
orifices used to tie de-facto non-contiguous and demographically inconsistent segments into
individual districts." (Id. at ~ 2.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the "non-contiguous
structure and discordant composition of the separate distinct pieces comprising the 4th, 6th, 7th,
and 8th [cJongressional districts" violates their rights "of representation as protected by Article I
Section 2 of the U.S Constitution," their "right to vote for ... Representatives to Congress, as
protected by both the first and second clauses to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,"
and their "First Amendment rights of political association."

(Id)

On December 2,2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (Am. Compl.) Defendants
now move to dismiss this amended complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be
granted. (ECF No. 13.)
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The present action challenges the "constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional
districts" and is therefore required to be heard and determined by a "district court ofthree
judges." 28 U.S.c.

S 2284(a).

However, the single judge to whom the request for a three-judge

panel is presented may "determine[] that three judges are not required" and "may conduct all
proceedings except the trial and enter all orders permitted by the rules of civil procedure except
as provided in this subsection.")

S 2284(b)(I),

(3). In particular, the single judge may grant a

defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)( 6) where a plaintiff s pleadings fail to state a

3 The statute further provides that "[aJ single judge shall not appoint a master, or order a reference or hear and
determine any application for a preliminary or permanent injunction or motion to vacate such an injunction, or enter
judgment on the merits." @ 2284(b)(3).

3

claim for which relief can be granted. Duckworth v. State Admin. Bd. Of Election Laws, 332
F.3d 769 (4th CiT. 2003).
This motion to dismiss, like all others under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, is a test of the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178
F.3d 231, 243 (4th CiT. 1999). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 Us. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. v.
Twombly, 550 Us. 544, 556-57 (2007). The Court will therefore evaluate it under the usual
Rule 12(b)( 6) standard.
The Court recognizes that some early cases appear to eschew the traditional 12(b)(6)
standard in favor of one that looks to whether a plaintiffs complaint sets forth a "substantial
question." Faustino v. Immigration and Naturalization Services, 302 F. Supp. 212, 213
(S.D.N.Y. 1969), affd 386 F.2d 449, cert. denied 391 U.S. 915; Lamont v. Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles, 269 F. Supp. 880, 884 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), aff'd 386 F.2d 449, cert. denied 391
U.S. 915. In Maryland Citizens for a Representative General Assembly v. Governor of
Maryland, 429 D.2d 606 (4th CiT. 1970), for example, the Fourth Circuit held that "(w)hen it
appears that there is no substantial question for a three-judge court to answer, dismissal of the
claim for injunctive relief by the single district judge is consistent with the purpose of the threejudge statutes, and it avoids the waste and delay inherent in a cumbersome procedure."

Id. at

611 (emphasis added); see also Simkins v. Gressette, 631 F.2d 287, 295 (4th CiT. 1980) ("(T)he
plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to raise a substantial claim requiring the convening of
a three-judge court.") (emphasis added).
However, in fact, in the present context, the "substantial question" standard and the legal
sufficiency standard are one and the same. In Duckworth, 332 F.3d 769, the Fourth Circuit
clarified that where a plaintiff s "pleadings do not state a claim, then by definition they are

4

insubstantial and so properly are subject to dismissal by the district court without convening a
three-judge court." Id. at 772-73. Further, in Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F. Supp.2d 887 (D. Md.
2011), a three-judge panel of this Court held that "[f]or purposes of construing ~ 2284, we find
no material distinction" between the Rule l2(b)(6) standard and the "substantial question"
standard. Id. at 892. Therefore, the Court will apply the usual Rule l2(b)(6) standard in
deciding this motion.
To pass the Rule 12(b)(6) legal sufficiency test, a complaint need only present enough
factual content to render its claims "plausible on [their] face" and enable the court to "draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff may not, however, rely on naked assertions, speculation,
or legal conclusions.

Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). In assessing the merits

of a motion to dismiss, the court must take all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as
true and construe them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Ibarra v. United States, 120
F.3d 472,474

(4th Cir. 1997). If after viewing the complaint in this light the court cannot infer

more than "the mere possibility of misconduct," then the motion should be granted and the
complaint dismissed. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
III.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs' complaint sets forth two claims. The first is a claim made under both Article I,
Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

(Am. Compl. at ~ 2;

ECF No. 18 at 28.) Specifically Plaintiffs "claim that the structure and composition of the 4th,
6th, 7th, and 8th districts constitute impermissible abridgment of representational and voting
rights." (ECF No. 18 at 28.) The second is a claim under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.

(Am. Compl. at ~~ 5,23,32,32;

5

ECF No. 18 at 41.) With regard to this

second claim, Plaintiffs allege that "the intentional structure and composition of the challenged
districts, ... aggravated by the operation of Maryland's closed primary election system"
infringes upon their First Amendment rights as Republican voters. (ECF No. 18 at 41.)
The Court will consider these two claims in tum. However, the Court will first address
Defendants' assertion that the present action is barred by res judicata.

A. Res judicata
In their motion to dismiss, Defendants assert that because the congressional redistricting
plan at issue in this case was previously upheld in Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F. Supp.2d 887 (D.
Md.), summarily affd 133 S. Ct. 29, the instant lawsuit should be dismissed under principles of
res judicata.

Ultimately, however, the Court does not find Defendants' argument persuasive.

Fletcher involved a lawsuit brought by nine African-American residents of Maryland
against state election officials, in which plaintiffs alleged that the 2011 congressional
redistricting plan violated "their rights under Article I, S 2, of the U.S. Constitution; the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ofthe u.S. Constitution; and

S 2 of the Voting

Rights Act

of 1965 because the plan dilutes African-American voting strength within the State and
intentionally discriminates against African-Americans."

Id. at 890. Particularly relevant to the

case at bar is the Fletcher plaintiffs' claim that "Maryland's redistricting plan is an
impermissible partisan gerrymander.

Specifically, they argue[d] that the redistricting map was

drawn in order to reduce the number of Republican-held congressional seats from two to one by
adding Democratic voters to the Sixth District." Id. at 904. The Fletcher Court rejected
Plaintiffs' arguments on this count-and
a motion for summary judgment.

all other counts-and

Id.

6

entered judgment for the State on

In this Circuit, "[I]or the doctrine of res judicata to be applicable, there must be: (I) a
final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the
earlier and later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits." Martin v.
American Bancoporation Retirement Plan, 407 F.3d 643, 651 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pueschel
v. United States, 369 F.3d 345354-55 (4th Cir. 2004». With regard to the third element, under
the theory of "virtual representation," a non-party whose interests were adequately represented
by a party to the original action will be considered in privity with that original party. Id.
However, virtual representation is narrowly defined:
The doctrine of virtual representation does not authorize application of a bar to
relitigation of a claim by a nonparty to the original judgment where the ... parties
to the first suit are nor accountable to the nonparties who file a subsequent suit.
In addition, a party acting as a virtual representative for a nonparty must do so
with at least the tacit approval of the court.
Id. (quoting Klugh v. United States, 818 F.2d 294,300 (4th Cir. 1987». The essential question in
determining whether the "tacit approval" requirement is met is "whether there is a disclosed
relationship in which the party is accorded authority to appear as a party on behalf of others." !d.
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments

S 36 (I),

cm!. b (1982».

Here, Defendants assert that there is an identity of the cause of action in both the present
suit and the Fletcher suit. Indeed, Defendants offer that "[a]lthough not clear in every respect,
the Benisek Plaintiffs' claims focus on the shapes of the congressional district and the effect that
those shapes have on voters. Those same types of claims were litigated extensively in Fletcher,
and there can be no doubt that the three-judge court carefully reviewed the shapes of the
districts." (ECF No. 13-2 at 10.) However, at issue in Fletcher was the fact that "the
redistricting map was drawn in order to reduce the number of Republican-held congressional
seats from two to one by adding Democratic voters to the [s]ixth [d]istric!." Fletcher, 831 F.

7

Supp.2d at 904. In the case at bar, however, Plaintiffs' claim regards the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th
congressional districts. Further, as Judge Titus wrote in his concurring opinion in Fletcher, the
Fletcher plaintiffs "premised their claim of political gerrymandering on allegedly improper racial
motivations."
motivations.

!d. at 905. In contrast, the present case does not allege any such improper racial
As a result the Court is unconvinced by Defendants' argument that there is an

identity of the cause of action in both this case and Fletcher.
In addition, the Court is not convinced by Defendants' claim that the Fletcher plaintiffs
virtually represented the Benisek Plaintiffs. Indeed, Defendants' argument, in this respect, is that
the "Fletcher plaintiffs had exactly the same interest as the Benisek Plaintiffs: throwing out the
plan of redistricting and drawing a new one." (ECF No. 13-2 at II.) However, even if the Court
were to credit Defendants' assertion, the doctrine of virtual representation requires more in this
Circuit. Indeed, "the doctrine of virtual representation does not authorize application of a bar to
relitigation of a claim by a nonparty to the original judgment where the ... parties to the first suit
are not accountable to the nonparties who file a subsequent suit." Martin, 407 F.3d at 651.
Here, Defendants have not shown the Court how the Fletcher plaintiffs were accountable to the
Benisek Plaintiffs.
Defendants appear to argue that because the Fletcher Court gave its tacit approval to the
plaintiffs in that case to act as a virtual representative of "all who claimed to be aggrieved by the
[redistricting] plan," they, in fact, served as virtual representatives of the Benisek Plaintiffs.
However, while the tacit approval requirement is necessary to establish virtual representation, it
is not sufficient. ld. ("In addition, a party acting as a virtual representative for a nonparty must
do so with at least the tacit approval of the court.") (emphasis added). Defendants have failed to
show that the Fletcher plaintiffs were accountable to the Benisek Plaintiffs-an

8

independent

prerequisite-and

therefore have failed to persuade the Court of their virtual representation

claim.
Therefore, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by res judicata.
Ultimately, however, the Court will grant Defendants' motion on dismiss on other grounds.
B. Plaintiffs' claim under Article I, Section 2 and the Fourteenth
the United States Constitution

Amendment

of

Plaintiffs' first claim is "that the structure and composition of the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
[congressional] districts constitute impermissible abridgment of representational and voting
rights guaranteed under Article I, Section 2 and the 14th Amendment Sections I & 2." (ECF No.
18 at 28.) This claim is not one that is justiciable and therefore must be dismissed.
The courts have long struggled with their role in policing the drawing of districting maps
by state legislatures. Indeed, the Constitution appears to entrust the responsibility of overseeing
state legislatures in this regard primarily to Congress. Article I, Section 4 gives "state
legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, [but] permits Congress to
'make or alter' those districts ifit wish[es]."

Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267,275 (2010)

(plurality opinion) (quoting U.S. Const. art I,

S 4). However,

since Baker v, Carr, 369 U.S. 186

(1962), Courts have "consistently adjudicated equal protection claims in the legislative
districting context regarding inequalities in population between districts," giving rise to the
formulation of the "one person, one vote" rule. Davis v, Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 118 (1986)
(plurality opinion), rev'd on other grounds, 541 U.S. 267 (2010); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S.
533,557-661

(1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Further, even where there are no

population inequalities among districts, courts have "reviewed, and on occasion rejected,
districting plans that unconstitutionally diminished the effectiveness of the votes ofracial
minorities."

Bandemer, 478 U.S. at 199 (collecting cases).
9

However, here, Plaintiffs make neither an unequal population claim nor a racial
discrimination claim. Rather, Plaintiffs' claim is that because the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
congressional districts are composed of "de facto non-contiguous" segments, the voters in those
districts-particularly

those in the smaller segment of the district-are

marginalized in that they

enjoy decreased quality of representation and suffer a harm akin to vote dilution. (ECF No. 18 at
29.) Theirs is, in essence, a claim of political gerrymandering.
In Davis v. Bandemer, the Supreme Court further expanded the judiciary's role in
overseeing the districting process. It ruled that political gerrymandering claims--or,

as the Court

phrased it, "claim[ sJ that each political group in a State should have the same chance to elect
representatives of its choice as any other political group"-were

justiciable.

Id. at 124. The

Court went on to explain that where unconstitutional vote dilution is alleged with regard to an
individual district, courts should focus their inquiry "on the opportunity of members of the group
to participate in party deliberations in the slating and nomination of candidates, their opportunity
to register and vote, and hence their chance to directly influence the election returns and to
secure the attention of the winning candidate." Id. at 133.
However, the Bandemer standard faced harsh criticism from its inception. In her
dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor noted that the Bandemer opinion implicitly endorsed
"some use of simple proportionality as the standard for measuring the normal representational
entitlements of a political party." "[TJhe plurality opinion," she continued, "ultimately rests on a
political preference for proportionality-not

an outright claim that proportional results are

required, but a conviction that the greater the departure from proportionality, the more suspect an
apportionment becomes." Id. at 158. The plurality's standard, she predicted, "will over time

10

either prove unmanageable and arbitrary or else evolve towards some loose form of
proportionality." Id. at ISS.
Eighteen years later, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), the Supreme Court,
endorsing Justice 0' Connor's dissent, reversed Bandemer. Indeed, the Court found that:
Eighteen years of judicial effort with virtually nothing to show for it justify us in
revisiting the question whether the standard promised by Bandemer exists. As the
following discussion reveals, no judicially discernible and manageable standards
for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims have emerged. Lacking them,
we must conclude that gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable and that
Bandemer was wrongly decided.

Id. at 281.
In so holding, the Court distinguished political gerrymandering claims from claims
involving districts of unequal population. It expressly stated that the one-person, one-vote
standard had "no bearing upon this question [of political gerrymandering], neither in principle
nor in practicality."

Id. at 290. With regard to principle, echoing Justice O'Connor's dissent in

Bandemer, the Court explained that "to say that each individual must have an equal say in the
selection of representatives, and hence that a majority of individuals must have a majority say, is
not at all to say that each discernible group, whether farmers or urban dwellers or political
parties, must have representation equivalent to its numbers." Id. The:;Constitution "guarantees
equal protection of the law to persons, not equal representation in government to equivalently
sized groups." Id. at 288.
And, with regard to practicality, the Court noted that:
the easily administrable [one-person, one-vote] standard of population equality
adopted by Wesberry and Reynolds enables judges to decide whether a violation
has occurred (and to remedy it) essentially on the basis of three readily
determined factors-where
the plaintiff lives, how many voters are in his district,
and how many voters are in other districts; whereas requiring judges to decide
whether a districting system will produce a statewide majority for a majority party

II

casts them forth upon a sea of imponderables, and asks them to make
determinations that not even election experts can agree upon.
Jd. at 290.
The Court in Vieth also highlighted the contrast between political gerrymandering claims
and racial gerrymandering claims. On the one hand, "[t]he Constitution clearly contemplates
districting by political entities, see Article I,

S 4, and

unsurprisingly that turns out to be root-and-

branch a matter of politics." Jd. at 285. On the other hand, "the.purpose of segregating voters on
the basis of race is not a lawful one." Jd. at 286. While "[a] purpose to discriminate on the basis
of race receives the strictest scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, ... a similar purpose to
discriminate on the basis of politics does not." Jd. at 293. In rejecting a proposed test for
political gerrymandering loosely based on racial discrimination cases applying
Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.

S 1973, the

S 2 of the Voting

Court explained:

A person's politics is rarely as discernible-and
never as permanently
discernible-as
a person's race. Political affiliation is not an immutable
characteristic, but may shift from one election to the next; and even within a given
election, not all voters follow the party line. We dare say (and hope) that the
political party which puts forward an utterly incompetent candidate will lose even
in its registration stronghold. These facts make it impossible to assess the effects
of partisan gerrymandering, to fashion a standard for evaluating a violation, and
finally craft a remedy.
Vieth, 541 U.S. at 287.
Although the holding in Vieth was that the political gerrymandering claim advanced there
was not justiciable, in a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy, who provided the Vieth plurality
with the crucial fifth vote, did leave open the door to judicial relief in future cases "if some
limited and precise rationale were found to correct an established violation of the Constitution in
some redistricting cases." Jd. at 306 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

In League of United Latin

American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry, 584 U.S. 399 (2006), the Court explained that "a

12

,--------

-----

----_._--

successful claim attempting to identify unconstitutional acts of partisan gerrymandering must ...
show a burden, as measured by a reliable standard, on the complainants' representational rights."
!d. at 418. Nonetheless, this reliable standard-described
and manageable standard[]"-has

in Baker as a "judicially discoverable

proved elusive. 369 U.S. at 217. As this Court noted in

Fletcher, "all of the lower courts to apply the Supreme Court's Vieth and LULAC decisions have
rejected" parties' proposed standards. Fletcher, 831 F.supp.2d at 904; see also Radogno v.
Illinois State Bd. of Elections, NO.1: ll-cv-04884,

2011 WL 5868225 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2011)

(reviewing seven standards the Supreme Court has rejected).
In the case at bar, Plaintiffs urge the Court to recognize that "constitutionally adequate
representation must consist of more than just equal population," and they offer a "standard for
judging whether minimal representational rights are afforded or abridged within the smaller
segments of the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th districts." (Am. Compl. at 'Il'll17, 3.) Specifically, Plaintiffs
contend that "the presence of either (1) geographic or (2) demographic/political
real or de-fact contiguity or similarity in the demographic/partisan

contiguity-i.e.,

composition of non-

contiguous (including essentially or de-facto non-contiguous) segments-"

is required by Article

I, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
However, the standard Plaintiffs propose is, in substance, markedly similar to tests that
have already been rejected by the courts. Indeed, Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in
Vieth specifically observed that "even those criteria that might seem promising at the outset (e.g.,
continuity and compactness) are not altogether sound as independent judicial standards for
measuring a burden on representational rights. They cannot promise political neutrality when
used as the basis for relief." Vieth, 541 U.S. at 308-09; see also M. Altman, Modeling the Effect
of Mandatory District Compactness on Partisan Gerrymanders, 17 Pol. Geography 989,1000-

13

1006 (1998) (explaining that compactness standards help Republicans because Democrats are
more likely to live in high density regions). And, as this Court pointed out in Fletcher, the
Supreme Court has made clear that "[t]he Constitution does not mandate regularity of district
shape." Fletcher, 831 F. Supp. 2d at 903 (quoting Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S 952, 962 (1996)).
The Court is not insensitive to Plaintiffs' contention that Maryland's districts as they are
currently drawn work an unfairness to Republicans.4 Referring to Maryland's third congressional
district, Judge Niemeyer despaired that "the original Massachusetts Gerrymander looks tame by
comparison, as this is more reminiscent of a broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate across
the center of the State." Id at 902 n.5. Further, although "Maryland's Republican Party
regularly receives 40% of the statewide vote ... [it] might well retain only 12.5% of the
congressional seats." Id at 903.
It may well be that the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th congressional districts, which are at issue in
this case fail to provide "fair and effective representation for all citizens." Reynolds, 377 U.S. at
565-68. However, as the Supreme Court has made clear in Vieth and LULAC, this Court lacks
"judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving" Plaintiffs' claim. Vieth, 541
U.S. at 277-281 (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 217); see also LULAC, 548 U.S. at 423. As a
result, it is a nonjusticiable political question. The power to address Plaintiffs' concerns thus lies
not with the judiciary but rather with the State of Maryland and the United States Congress. See
United States Constitution art. I,

S 4. Plaintiffs'

claim must therefore be dismissed.

4 In other states, where Republicans control the state legislature, Democrats contend that they are unjustly
disadvantaged by the layout of congressional districts. See, e.g., Suzy Khimm, Don't Mess with Texas Democrats,
Mother Jones, Sept./Ocl. 20 I 0, http://www.motherjones.comlpolitics/20
10108/mall-angle-texas-redistricting
("The
Texas Republican [Tom DeLay], known as 'The Hammer,' had orchestrated a Machiavellian scheme to redraw the
state's congressional districts and banish Democrats from power. In 2004, [U.S. Representative] Martin Frost was
one of the four Texas Dems in the House picked off as a resull.")

14

C. Plaintiffs' First Amendment Claim
Plaintiffs' second claim is that the structure and composition of the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
congressional districts infringe upon their First Amendment rights of political association.

(Am.

Compl. at ~ 5.) As Plaintiffs explain, "[m]uch of our contention here rests on the impact on
Republican voters, due to their party affiliation, resulting from the intentional structure and
composition of the challenged districts and which is aggravated by the operation of Maryland's
closed primary election system." (ECF No. 18 at 41.)
However, just as in Anne Arundel County Republican Central Committee v. State
Administrative Board a/Elections,

781 F. Supp. 394,401 (D. Md. 1991) and Duckworth, 213 F.

Supp. 2d at 557-58, "nothing [about the congressional districts at issue in this case] ... affects in
any proscribed way ... [P]laintiffs' ability to participate in the political debate in any ofthe
Maryland congressional districts in which they might find themselves.

They are free to join pre-

existing political committees, form new ones, or use whatever other means are at their disposal
to influence the opinions of their congressional representatives."
Further, as the Fourth Circuit ruled in Washington v. Finlay, 664 F.2d 913, 927 (4th Cir.
1981), "to the extent [the First Amendment] protects the voting rights here asserted ... their
protections do not in any event extend beyond those more directly, and perhaps only, provided
by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments [sic]."
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim under the First Amendment is not one for which relief can
be granted, and it must thercfore be dismissed.

15

IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) without referring

the present matter to a three-judge panel.

Dated this

iL day of April,

2014.

BY THE COURT:

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

16