|
gressional redistricting, it was thought that
we should attempt within the limits pos-
sible to set up some standards and pro-
cedure.
At the outset, I should say that we recog-
nize that Congress has the right at any
time to pass laws pertaining to the same
areas which the proposal you have before
you refers to, which, in effect, would pre-
empt Maryland on any constitutional or
statutory provisions. Therefore, we do, in
suggesting to you the fact that there be
congressional districting constitutional law
in Maryland run the risk of having the area
preempted. However, that risk does not
seem too great on the basis of what has
occurred in recent times.
The federal Congress, since 1929, has
really not had any standards of any genuine
application with respect to congressional
districts. Prior to that time, there were
standards. A congressional district had to
be compact and contiguous. Thereafter, as
the Supreme Court cases evolved, they had
to be substantially equal in population.
The Supreme Court of the United States
is still grappling with what constitutes
equal population for congressional districts.
It seems fair to say that it requires a
greater standard of equality, if I can use
that term, for the Congress and congres-
sional districts than it requires for state
districts.
The most recent case was decided several
weeks ago and involved Ohio, where the
districts varied a total of thirty-one per-
cent. This was held to be unconstitutional
by the majority of the Supreme Court with-
out an opinion. There was a two-man dis-
sent which attempted to evaluate the rea-
sons for the ruling of the six judges in the
majority.
Now, what we have proposed to do with
3.03 (b) is, of course, first of all to eliminate
single member districts. That is the only
area in which Congress has legislated thus
far. On November 30 of this year, it
amended a special bill, a private bill, to
provide that there shall be no at-large elec-
tions except in those states which have
elected all their congressmen at-large prior
thereto.
Now, of course, when we require in the
proposed language of 3.03(b) that the State
be divided into congressional districts, we
are consistent with what the Congress has
agreed to thus far.
I think the question of "compact and
contiguous" is one of historical significance
more than any other thing. We know what
|
something is when it is contiguous. I am
not sure that anyone knows how one can
effectively apply the requirement of com-
pactness.
The thing that I think would interest the
Committee of the Whole is the second sen-
tence of 3.03 (b), "The difference between
the populations of the largest and smallest
congressional districts in the State shall
not exceed ten percent of the mean popu-
lation of all congressional districts."
That means that once the number of con-
gressmen has been determined for the
State, that that number is divided into the
number of people in the State where you
get the mean population of an exact con-
gressional district which would be ex-
actly equal.
Applying the standard of ten percent, it
means that you may have a total of ten
percent between the high and the low. It
would be five percent high, five percent low,
or seven and three, or six and four.
Now, this may not seem like a large
number, this ten percent allowable devia-
tion, but when you consider that in 1960
the mean population of a congressional dis-
trict was 388,000, this means, applying the
ten percent figure that you could have
under the proposed constitutional require-
ment here, a variation of almost 39,000
persons for each congressional district.
This would be the area of flexibility, so to
speak.
Taking the CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
standards for 1970, which does not ap-
proximate as great a population for Mary-
land as some of our other sources, using
even their figures, each congressional dis-
trict on an exact mathematical basis would
have roughly 480,000 people. Applying the
ten percent allowable deviation you would
have, therefore, a difference of 48,000 be-
tween the high and the low congressional
district.
Quite naturally, an inquiry will be made
as to why the Committee decided upon ten
percent, why it decided upon a percentage
at all, when in the legislative session and
the session having to do with the districts
for the purposes of the General Assembly
we did not use a percentage, although we
indicated we felt that fifteen percent would
be the maximum acceptable in isolated
cases. I think the reason is because of the
much larger size of a congressional dis-
trict, the fact that a larger percentage
really allows you a greater number of peo-
ple for flexibility purposes.
|
