What’s the issue that you have that Judicial Watch has with this map that we saw Governor Westmore testify about this week? Well, we know that this map is pretty much a rerun of a map that was declared unconstitutional in 2021. In many respects, many of the reasons that the judge threw it out then are even amplified now. The districts are less compact. They have less coherence. There are even more county lines split and city lines split. And in 2021, Judge Batali, a very respected former judge of the state’s highest court, who was then sitting as a trial court attorney again, she ruled that—and pointed out, rather the obvious, that the Maryland Constitution has a compactness provision about legislative districts.

And it also has a constitutional provision that says, due regard shall be given to existing political subdivisions. So you can’t split county lines. You can’t split city lines. And you can’t create ugly-looking districts without there being consequences. When we look at this map, you mentioned versus the one in 2021, either way, the target has been that first district seat held by Andy Harris, again, the only Republican in the Maryland delegation. And to be fair, there are—the sixth district is surprisingly competitive, I think. When you look at Maryland as a makeup, we saw that seat take a couple of days to find a decided winner back in November.

But why is this an issue when we’re seeing this same issue playing out in other states right now, where it’s being worked to the other advantage, like Texas, like Missouri? Well, I guess I would think about what you’re saying when you make that argument. Our position, our client’s position has always been that all gerrymandering is a bad idea. All gerrymandering disadvantages particular voters based on their political beliefs and disadvantages voters based on their speech. And, as Judge Batalia pointed out, in addition to those problems, it does one overridingly evil thing. A gerrymander transfers the power to select legislators, from voters to government officials, and not just any government officials, the self-interested government officials who are running for office.

That transfer of voting power is never good. And I like to analogize this to, for example, laws against bribing public officials. You would never say that the bribery of public officials in a red state is, in some sense, balanced or it all comes out in a wash if there’s bribery in a blue state. Bribery is inherently antithetical to the practice of good government. So is gerrymandering. It means that the voters aren’t choosing their legislators anymore. And it doesn’t come out in the wash. It’s always pathological. Do independent redistricting committees, is that good for the process? We have seen some states deploy them.

But then again, in the case of like California, one of the reasons they passed through what they passed through and went to the voters is sort of override a process they already have in their state constitution. Well, look, we’ve had this, you know, gerrymandering problem, really, I think since 1812. So it’s been around for hundreds of years. There have been many attempts to deal with it there. We’re starting to, I believe, the courts are starting to zero in on approaches that actually work, which is new. But what was tried in the past, a couple of years ago, there was the thought that if we could farm this out to an independent redistricting commission that’s politically neutral, not politically in anybody’s pocket, we’ll get fair maps.

That has not worked, because what happens is that the partisan animosities are then transferred to the values that you’d like to see districts contain. I think what’s interesting in this process too, is you have the Democratic head of the state Senate, Bill Ferguson, coming out and saying, this is a bad idea. In Virginia, where a court has struck down an effort there, you had Governor Spanberger, not really take a line on it, not nearly vociferously supporting it, like you’re seeing like the Gavin Newsom’s in the West Moors of the world.

So what’s the next step in the process for you? What’s the next step in the legal process? And if the courts agree with you, what happens next? Well, I just take a step back. I mean, Senator Ferguson is taking now a good and principled position in 2021. He was on one of the redistricting panels that redrew the districts to create the gerrymander that was struck down. So he has experience with this, and it wasn’t a good experience. But the next step for us would be to weigh our options. There are a number of parties lining up to sue and we would decide whether we wanted to be in that line.

But I think that everyone who looks at this district, unlike in 2021, when the law was still being developed in this area, everyone who looks at this district thinks that it’s dead on arrival. It is unconstitutional in at least four respects. If you go to the Maryland Constitution, it cannot survive. Well, we know Democrats learned to learn that the hard way last time around. I guess they’re going to see if they’re going to get a different answer this time around. But obviously, there’s a lot of talk happening here, and I really appreciate the insight on this because there’s been this debate happening, as you know, and to get the perspective from your side.

We really appreciate it. Thank you, Robert. Thanks for having me. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.