Case No. 18-726 | D. Md.
Preview by Sean Lowry, Online Editor*
Like Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, Benisek involves review of a gerrymandering case that was granted certiorari for the 2017 October term.
The controversy in Benisek centers around the boundaries of Maryland’s sixth congressional district, which were redrawn and approved by the Democratic governor and state legislature after the 2010 census. The plaintiffs, a set of sixth district Republican voters, claimed that the state government retaliated against the exercise of their freedom of association and representational interests under the First Amendment. The voters allege that the legislature redrew the boundaries as a means to dilute their votes, discourage fundraising, and diminish voter participation in the historically Republican district, therefore enabling the incumbent in the U.S. House of Representatives to lose to a Democrat in the 2012 election. The procedural history of the case took a complicated set of zigs and zags up and down the federal courts from 2013 through 2016 before pretrial discovery began before a three-judge panel in the district court.
The last time that Benisek was before the Court, the appellants were the Republican plaintiffs seeking appeal of the district court panel’s 2017 denial for a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the state from using the map while litigation was proceeding. In a per curiam decision, the Court found that the district court panel did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s decision. See Benisek v. Lamone 138 S.Ct. 1942, 1945 (2018). Subsequently, the district court panel granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement on the claims that the state legislature intentionally diluted their votes and burdened their First Amendment representational interests based on their party identity, and it required a redrawing of the sixth district’s boundaries before the 2020 elections. See Benisek v. Lamone, 348 F.Supp.3d 493 (D. Md. 2018). This time at the Court, though, the Maryland Attorney General’s office is the party petitioning for appeal.
This case stands out among other high-level gerrymandering cases because the Court has not directly addressed the district court’s theory that a redistricting plan could violate the First Amendment rights of voters. Both sides will try to argue the limits to this theory. Alternatively, the Court could rule on whether summary judgment was appropriately granted and send this case back down to the district court for further deliberation.
*Sean Lowry is a 2LE (Class of 2021) and Analyst in Public Finance at the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Library of Congress or CRS.