Democrats got what they wanted.
Via USA Today:
The Supreme Court is now considering challenges from two states on how we draw congressional districts: a Wisconsin map drawn by a Republican governor, and a Maryland map drawn by a Democratic governor — me.
We have historically allowed a partisan motive in redrawing these borders every 10 years to account for population growth and shifts. But now, at a time of deep division and polarization in our national politics, the court is re-examining that. It could end up reining in or maybe even disallowing partisan motives in redistricting.
For the sake of our democracy, I sincerely hope that’s what the court does.
I was a re-elected governor of Maryland in 2010 on the eve of national redistricting. It was not a good year for Democrats. We lost governor’s races in quite a few states where Democratic voters actually outnumbered Republicans.
From Maryland, we watched Republican governors carve Democratic voters into irrelevance in state after state in order to help elect lopsided Republican congressional delegations. We felt an obligation — even a duty — to push back. To provide some check, some balance against what was happening in 30 states that were now Republican controlled. Within legal and constitutional limits, we drew a map that elected an additional Democratic House member to our delegation.
Maryland’s map was considered in a referendum and approved with 64% of the vote. The legality and constitutionality of Maryland’s process and resulting map has survived every lower court challenge up until this point.
And still, I hope the Supreme Court can craft a new theory that removes the partisan motive from the process of drawing legislative districts. We need to attack our problems, not each other. We need to be able to listen to each and find common ground. And we need representative institutions that foster understanding instead of exacerbating divisions.