tion would again introduce extreme dis-
tortions as the larger counties increased
in population, as had occurred under
the limitations of the 1867 apportion-
ment. Baltimore County with a 1960
population of 492,428 would soon have
reached the maximum of ten delegates
so that further growth would not have
been accorded any recognition. Con-
versely, fourteen of the State's twenty-
three counties were under 50,000 popu-
lation and so would have been the bene-
ficiaries of the most favorable represen-
tation ratios but still could have in-
creased their representation with mini-
mum population increases.77
COURT-ORDERED REAPPORTIONMENT
With the complete failure of repeated
attempts to secure even mild reforms in
the progressively worsening malappor-
tionment of the State, the issue passed
from the legislative to the judicial
forum. Suit was brought in the Circuit
Court of Anne Arundel County chal-
lenging the apportionment of both
houses of the legislature as being in vio-
lation of the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.78 The
complaint was dismissed by Circuit
Judge Duckett without leave to amend.
On appeal, the Maryland Court of Ap-
peals reversed the order of the Circuit
Court and remanded the case for a hear-
ing on the merits79 after considering
the relevance of Baker v. Carr.80 The
77 These counties were Calvert, Caroline,
Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Garrett, Howard,
Kent, Queen Anne's, Saint Mary's, Somerset,
Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester.
78 "No State shall . . . deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."
79 228 Md. 412, 180 A.2d 656 (1962).
80 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Baker v. Can-
held the question of whether state legislative
districts were in violation of the equal protec-
tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was
justiciable in the federal courts.
146
|
Circuit Court after hearing argument
did not pass on the validity of the ap-
portionment in the Senate but did hold
that the apportionment of the House
of Delegates invidiously discriminated
against the people of Baltimore, Mont-
gomery, and Prince George's counties
and that the provisions of Article III,
Section 5, of the Maryland Constitution,
apportioning the House of Delegates,
were unconstitutional. The court did
not grant injunctive relief, as it had
been requested to do, stating that the
Maryland legislature had power both
to reapportion the House and to pro-
pose a constitutional amendment for
reapportionment.
A week later the legislature, in special
session, enacted a "stopgap" reappor-
tionment.81 This legislation added 19
delegates to the House: 7 were given to
Baltimore County, bringing its total to
thirteen; 4 each were given to Prince
George's and Montgomery counties,
bringing their totals to ten; 1 to Anne
Arundel County for a new total of
seven; 2 to the third district of Balti-
more City for a new total of eight; and
1 to the fifth district of Baltimore City
for a new total of seven. Under this
new apportionment a delegate from
Baltimore County would represent an
average of 37,879 persons compared to
6,487 persons represented by a delegate
from Caroline County. Such distor-
tions in the ratios of representation per-
mitted 36 per cent of the State's total
population to elect a majority of the
House of Delegates.
It will be recalled that the Circuit
Court after hearing argument refrained
81 md. code ann. art. 40, § 42 (1964
Supp. ) . This statute was to expire on Jaunary
1, 1966, unless a constitutional amendment
was submitted to the voters, and rejected, in
the 1964 elections, in which case the statute
was to continue in force until January 1, 1970.
|
