IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
C. JAMES OLSON
11761A Angleberger Road
Thurmont, Maryland 21788
*
C. PAUL SMITH
103 Fairview Avenue
Frederick, Maryland 21701
*
RONALD GEORGE
364 Oak Drive
Arnold, Maryland 21012
*
CARL F. MIDDLEDORF
18307 Bluebell Lane
Olney, Maryland 20832
*
ANTONIO WADE CAMPBELL
1000 East Joppa Road, Apt. 509
Towson, Maryland 21286
*
PHILIP J. SMITH
286 Tidewater Circle
Preston, Maryland 21655
*
Plaintiffs
vs.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Case No. ______________
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor
*
Of the State of Maryland
State House, 100 State Circle
*
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
SERVE: Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler
Office of the Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place
*
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
*
Defendant
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF
WITH RESPECT TO THE REDISTRICTING
OF THE MARYLAND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
This is an action for a declaratory judgment, a writ of mandamus and other relief under the
Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code. Section 3-401, et seq. (declaratory
judgments), Section 3-8B-01 (writs of mandamus), and other injunctive relief. The relief sought
is to secure for plaintiffs their rights under the Maryland State Constitution and the United States
Constitution to be represented in Congress as a part of election districts that is rationally,
geographically defined in compliance with the State and federal Constitutions, which include the
right to be represented in Congress by representatives elected in districts that are compact,
contiguous and defined with due regard to natural and political subdivision boundaries. The new
districts established in the “Congressional Districting Plan” passed by the State Legislature on
October 20, 2011 and signed into law by the Governor on October 20, 2011, violate the
requirements of Maryland election laws, the Maryland Constitution and the United States
Constitution. Relief is requested to correct the redistricting.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Section 6-103 of the Courts and
Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code. 1
2. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Section 6-203 of the Courts and Judicial
Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code.
THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff C. James Olson is a registered voter in Frederick County, Maryland, and he
resides at 11761A Angleberger Road, Thurmont, Maryland 21788. He resides in new District 8 in
the “Congressional Districting Plan.”
4. Plaintiff C. Paul Smith is a registered voter in Frederick County, Maryland, and he
resides at 103 Fairview Avenue, Frederick, Maryland 21701. He resides in new District 6 in the
“Congressional Districting Plan.”
1
Contemporaneously herewith a virtually identical suit is being filed in the Maryland Court of Appeals. If the
Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction of that case, it is the intent of plaintiffs to dismiss this one.
-2-
5. Plaintiff Ronald George is a registered voter in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and
he resides at 364 Oak Drive, Arnold, Maryland 21012. He resides in new District 4 in the
“Congressional Districting Plan.”
6. Plaintiff Carl F. Middledorf is a registered voter in Montgomery County, Maryland, and
he resides at 18307 Bluebell Lane, Olney, Maryland 20832. He resides in new District 3 in the
“Congressional Districting Plan.”
7. Plaintiff Antonio Wade Campbell is a registered voter in Baltimore County, Maryland,
and he resides at 1000 East Joppa Road, Apt. 509, Towson, Maryland 21286. He resides in new
District 2 in the “Congressional Districting Plan.”
8. Plaintiff Philip J. Smith is a registered voter in Caroline County, Maryland, and he
resides at 286 Tidewater Circle, Preston, Maryland 21655. He resides in new District 1 in the
“Congressional Districting Plan.”
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9. Following the decennial census made by the United States Census Bureau in 2010,
which data was reported to the State of Maryland on February 9, 2011, the number of
Congressional districts in the State remained at eight, but the new population figures showed an
increase in Maryland residents and a shift in demographics around the state.
10. The Maryland Code requires the Maryland General Assembly and the Governor to
review and/or redraw congressional district boundaries after each decennial census, subject to the
State Constitution and laws. Section 8-701(2011) of the Elections Article of the Maryland Code.
11. Maryland law imposes no deadline for when new congressional boundaries must be
drawn.
12. Candidates for congressional primary elections in Maryland must file for such
-3-
candidacy by January 11, 2012. Section 5-303(a) of the Election Article of the Maryland Code.
13. The Maryland Constitution requires that congressional districts be defined and
designated, for which from each a Congressional Representative will be elected to serve in the
United States House of Representatives for two-year terms.
14. The term “district” implies that that area defined and designated will be an area that is
cognizable geographically such that it is susceptible to be represented by an elected representative.
15. The Maryland Constitution requires that all state districts, for which representatives
are elected to the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates, must be contiguous, “compact in
form” and that “due regard be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political
subdivisions.” Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution.
16. Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution establishes a State policy for setting
the boundaries of all state and congressional election districts in the State of Maryland.
17. That Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and the Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution require
the State of Maryland to establish congressional districts which are compact and contiguous and
which give due regard to political subdivision boundaries. In the Matter of Legislative Districting
of the State, 370 Md. 312, 805 A.2d 292, 296, 318 (2002); and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533,
577; 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964).
18. Exhibit 1 is a map of Maryland (dated May 6, 2002) showing the boundaries of the
State’s eight congressional districts prior to October 20, 2011.
19. On October 20, 2011, the Maryland Senate and the Maryland House of Delegates
passed SB 1, entitled “Congressional Districting Plan,” which proposed a redistricting plan for the
eight congressional districts in the State. (See Exhibit 2, attached.) Later on October 20, 2011,
-4-
the Governor signed the bill into law. The last page of this exhibit is a map showing the
boundaries of all eight congressional districts that are a part of this Plan.
20. Exhibit 3 is a redistricting map proposed by the Republican Party dated July 21, 2011,
which demonstrates a redistricting plan for Maryland that would yield compact districts that give
due regard for county boundaries and at the same time comply with federal equal population
requirements.
21. Exhibit 4 is a set of twelve maps that show the boundaries of the current State Senate
and State Delegate district boundaries in Maryland.
22. Exhibit 5 is comprised of eight enlarged maps of each of the eight, new congressional
districts in Maryland as defined in the “Congressional Districting Plan.”
23. The new congressional district boundaries set forth in this law for District 1 in the new
“Congressional Districting Plan” are not sufficiently “compact” and do not give “due regard [to]
the boundaries of political subdivisions.” This district encompasses all of the eastern shore, and
extends west through the northern parts of Harford, Baltimore and Carroll Counties. Specifically,
this district should not have been drawn to extend into Carroll County, but it should have been
confined within Harford County, and only a portion of this district should have been extended into
Baltimore County, if necessary to comply with federal requirements for equal population districts.
24. The new congressional district boundaries set forth in this law for District 2 in the new
“Congressional Districting Plan” are not sufficiently compact, but rather are strewn out over
Baltimore City and four counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford and Howard), connecting
neighborhoods in each of these five jurisdictions by narrow strips of land. The new boundaries for
this district totally disregard the county subdivisions. This district should have been drawn to be
compact and to take in as few counties as possible.
-5-
25. The new congressional district boundaries set forth in this law for District 3 in the new
“Congressional Districting Plan” are not sufficiently compact, but rather are strewn out over
Baltimore City and four counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Howard and Montgomery),
connecting neighborhoods in each of these five jurisdictions by narrow strips of land. The new
boundaries for this district totally disregard the county subdivisions. This district should have
been drawn to be compact and to take in as few counties as possible.
26. The new congressional district boundaries set forth in this law for District 4 in the new
“Congressional Districting Plan” are not sufficiently compact, but rather the district is comprised
of one major area in Prince George’s County and another major area in Anne Arundel County—
which areas are not adjacent to one another, and the two areas are connected by a narrow strip of
land. The district should have been drawn to be compact and confined as much as possible to one
county, instead of causing excessive and unnecessary divisions to be made in both Anne Arundel
and Prince George’s Counties.
27. The new congressional district boundaries set forth in this law for District 6 in the new
“Congressional Districting Plan” are not sufficiently compact and do not give due regard be to the
boundaries of political subdivisions. This district encompasses all of western Maryland, and
extends east to part of Frederick County, and terminates in Montgomery County. Specifically, this
district should have kept the entirety of Frederick County within the district, and should have only
extended into Montgomery County as may have been necessary to comply with the federal
requirements for equal population districts, but even then it should have only taken in such areas
of Montgomery County that were adjacent to Frederick County and which would have resulted in
a compact district.
28. The new congressional district set forth in this law for District 8 in the new
-6-
“Congressional Districting Plan” is not sufficiently compact, but rather is comprised of one large
rural area in Carroll County and northern Frederick County, and this is connected with a separate
populous suburban area in southern Montgomery County. These areas are not adjacent to one
another, and the two areas are connected by a long, narrow strip of land. The district should have
been drawn to be compact and confined as much as possible to one county, instead of causing
excessive and unnecessary divisions to be made in all three of these Counties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
A. Enter a declaratory judgment that the congressional district boundaries set forth in
SB 1, “Congressional Districting Plan,” violate the Maryland Constitution and Election
laws and the United States Constitution;
B. Enter an injunction to prevent the State of Maryland from using the “Congressional
Districting Plan” in any primary or general election;
C. Reinstate the immediately previous congressional districting plan until such time as a
new and constitutionally valid districting plan is enacted;
D. Pursuant to Section 3-409(e) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article of the
Maryland Code, order a speedy hearing in connection with this complaint, including
advancing the scheduling of such a hearing; and
E. Grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
_______________________________________
C. Paul Smith
Attorney for Plaintiffs
308 West Patrick Street
Frederick, Maryland 21701
(301) 762-0033
-7-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
C. JAMES OLSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs
*
*
vs.
*
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
*
Case No. _________
Defendant
*
____________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Come now the Plaintiffs, C. James Olson, C. Paul Smith, Ronald George, Carl F.
Middledorf, Antonio Wade Campbell and Philip J. Smith , by and through their attorney, C. Paul
Smith, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-501, and move this Honorable Court to grant a Summary
Judgment in their favor with respect to their Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Other
Relief, and in support thereof state the following:
1. There is no dispute as to any material fact in connection with Plaintiffs’ complaint for a
declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief.
2. All of the material factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint pertaining to the new
boundaries of the eight congressional districts in the State of Maryland are the official position of
the State of Maryland. There is no dispute as to the configuration and boundaries of any one of
the eight new congressional districts. There is no question about the Legislature’s or the
Governor’s intent. This law suit is a matter of applying the U. S. Constitution and the Maryland
State Constitution and Maryland law to the newly promulgated congressional election districts in
Maryland.
3. As a matter of law, the newly promulgated congressional election districts in Maryland
(signed into law on October 20, 2011) violate (a) the mandates and requirements of Article IV,
Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution which guarantees a Republican form of government to every
state; (b) the mandates and requirements of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which also guarantee a fair representative
government to the citizens of every state; and (c) the policy of the State of Maryland that all of its
election districts be contiguous, “compact,” and be drawn with “due regard to natural and political
subdivision boundaries.”
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ request that this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Grant summary judgment in their favor with respect to their Complaint;
B. Enter a declaratory judgment that the congressional district boundaries set forth in SB
1, “Congressional Districting Plan,” violate the Maryland Constitution and Election
laws and the United States Constitution;
C. Enter an injunction to prevent the State of Maryland from using the “Congressional
Districting Plan” in any primary or general election;
D. Reinstate the immediately previous congressional districting plan until such time as a
new and constitutionally valid districting plan is enacted; and
E. Grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
_______________________________________
C. Paul Smith
Attorney for Plaintiffs
308 West Patrick Street
Frederick, Maryland 21701
(301) 762-0033
-2-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
C. JAMES OLSON, et al.,
*
Plaintiffs
*
vs.
*
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
*
Case No. _________
Defendant
*
____________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF C. PAUL SMITH
This affidavit is being filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
I, the undersigned, C. Paul Smith, am one of the plaintiffs in the above case, and I am
counsel for all six plaintiffs. I am over the age of eighteen years, and I am competent to make this
affidavit.
The matters and facts set forth in the seven-page “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and
Other Relief with Respect to the Redistricting of the Maryland Congressional Districts” are all
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The text of SB 1 was
obtained from the office of Legislative Services. The maps that are attached to that Complaint in
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (including the 8 maps in Exhibit 5) were obtained by me from official
Maryland State offices via the internet or otherwise.
I do solemnly declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the
foregoing affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
___________________________________
C. Paul Smith
date
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
C. JAMES OLSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs
*
*
vs.
*
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
*
Case No. _________
Defendant
*
____________________________________
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and any opposition
thereto, it is thereupon, on this the ______ day of _________________________, 2011, by the
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland,
ORDERED, that the aforesaid Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and it is further
ORDERED, that a declaratory judgment is hereby issued declaring the “Congressional
Districting Plan” (SB 1), that was enacted by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor on
October 20, 2011, violates the Maryland Election laws and the Maryland State Constitution and
the United States Constitution, and it is therefore null and void; and it is further
ORDERED, that an Injunction is hereby ordered to prevent the State of Maryland from
using the aforesaid “Congressional Districting Plan” in any primary or general election; and it is
further
ORDERED, that the State’s previous congressional districting plan is hereby reinstated
until such time as a new and constitutionally valid new districting plan is enacted.
___________________________________________
JUDGE, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, MD