THE HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT IN MARYLAND
Senatorial Districts
|
Number of Senators
|
Counties
|
1
|
3
|
Allegany, Garrett and
Washington
|
2
|
2
|
Carroll and Frederick
|
3
|
5
|
Howard and Montgomery
|
4
|
5
|
Prince George's
|
5
|
1
|
Charles and St. Mary's
|
6
|
3
|
Anne Arundel and Calvert
|
7-12
|
2 each
|
Baltimore City Districts
|
13
|
7
|
Baltimore
|
14
|
1
|
Harford
|
15
|
2
|
Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen
Anne's and Talbot
|
16
|
2
|
Dorchester, Somerset,
Wicomico and Worcester
|
The population per senator varied
from a low of 60,749 in the 15th district
to a high of 85,207 in one of the dis-
tricts in Baltimore City. The maximum
deviation from the mathematical norm
for population per senator was 18 per
cent. In three other districts, the devia-
tion fell between 15 per cent and 16 per
cent. Looking at the State as a whole,
the smallest percentage of the popula-
tion that could elect a majority of the
Senate was 47.8 per cent.
The Circuit Court of Anne Arundel
County held Senate Bill 8 to be uncon-
stitutional. The Court of Appeals
affirmed, holding that the Senate ap-
portionment with its variation of six to
one in representation was not accept-
able.85 The deviations allowed by Sen-
ate Bill 5 in the Senate and House of
Delegates were found to be within per-
missible limits. Certiorari was denied by
the Supreme Court.86
85 Hughes v. Maryland Committee, 241 Md.
471, 217 A.2d 273 (1966).
86 384 U.S. 950 (1966).
|
EPILOGUE
The Supreme Court's denial of cer-
tiorari in 1966 appeared at the time to
mark the end of the long turmoil over
reapportionment in Maryland, The re-
apportionment provisions in Senate Bill
5 were implemented and the ensuing
General Assembly went on to establish
a historical record of accomplishment.
The problem of the constitutionality
of the apportionment provided by Sen-
ate Bill 5 may have been reopened by
Kilgarlin v. Hill87 Kilgarlin involved
an apportionment scheme for the Texas
House of Representatives where the
maximum deviation from the average
population per representative was less
than 15 per cent. The Supreme Court,
after observing that it doubted whether
such a variation could be justified by
local policies counseling the mainte-
nance of established political subdivi-
sions in apportionment plans, declined
to reach the constitutional issue. Texas
policy, the Court noted, permitted the
87 386 U.S. 120 (1967).
149
|
|
 |
