Maryland's attorney general appeals redistricting decision

Maryland’s attorney general on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an order for state officials to draw up a new congressional redistricting plan that isn’t tainted by partisan gerrymandering. Attorney General Brian Frosh’s office also filed a separate request for the redistricting case to remain on hold until the Supreme Court acts on the state’s appeal. A Nov. 7 ruling by a panel of three federal judges orders the state to submit a new map by March 7. Otherwise, the court said it will appoint a commission to produce a redistricting plan for use in the 2020 congressional election.

In a court filing Thursday, Frosh’s office argued the judges’ order should be suspended pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal “to avoid potentially contradictory results or needless expenditure of public resources.” Several Republican voters sued over the boundaries of one of Maryland’s eight congressional districts, claiming state officials unfairly redrew it in 2011 to favor Democrats. The Supreme Court reviewed the case before deciding in June to refer it back to the lower court for a decision, effectively allowing the 2011 map to remain in place for last week’s midterm elections.

Attorneys from Frosh’s office noted the Supreme Court could address the issue of partisan gerrymandering again during its current term. “Any further guidance from the Supreme Court will be important to ensure that, even if this Court’s order is affirmed, state lawmakers do not redraw Maryland’s electoral map for 2020 using a standard that is not the one ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court,” they wrote. A spokeswoman for Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, accused the Democratic attorney general and legislative leaders of opposing “free and fair elections, even in the wake of a unanimous federal court ruling.” “Marylanders are sick and tired of partisan gerrymandering and the partisan politicians who defend it, and legislators would better serve their constituents by working with us to create a nonpartisan process instead of continuing to disenfranchise voters,” Hogan’s spokeswoman, Amelia Chasse, said in a statement Thursday.

The panel hearing the case in U.S. District Court in Maryland said the state must redraw the 6th congressional district’s lines using “traditional criteria for redistricting,” showing regard for “natural boundaries.” The decision, written by 4th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Paul Niemeyer, says the state’s 2011 congressional map removed roughly 66,000 Republican voters from the 6th district and added around 24,000 Democratic voters, “bringing about the single greatest alteration of voter makeup in any district in the Nation following the 2010 census.” Redistricting maps are drawn by the governor and approved by the state’s General Assembly, which is currently controlled by Democrats.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/15/marylands-attorney-general-appeals-redistricting-d/

Dems say Whitaker justification is 'fatally flawed'

Top Democrats on Thursday rejected the Justice Department’s defense of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, calling the official opinion a “fatally flawed” attempt to pervert the Constitution. They want Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a man they better trust to oversee the special counsel’s probe into the 2016 elections, to assume the role of acting attorney general and are battling hard to subvert President Trump’s decision to go around Mr. Rosenstein and name Mr. Whitaker.

“President Trump purposefully skipped him and every other individual who meets these conditions,” the Democrats — Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler — said in a joint statement. Mr. Trump demanded Attorney General Jeff Sessions resign and designated Mr. Whitaker, his former chief of staff, to assume the role as acting chief. The Justice Department says that is legal because Mr. Whitaker, while not serving in a Senate-confirmed position, was high enough at the department to be eligible under the Vacancies Reform Act. Democrats say the VRA takes a back seat to another law that lays out a succession pattern at the Justice Department. That law says the deputy attorney general would usually take over.

The Justice Department, though, says the laws aren’t mutually exclusive, and said it’s opined since the Bush years — well before Mr. Trump was in office — that a president could use the VRA to name someone other than the deputy as acting attorney general. The bigger fight is over the Constitution, and a clause that says principal officers must have undergone Senate confirmation. The Justice Department said that doesn’t hold true for temporary acting officers, and pointed to an occasion in 1866 when a non-confirmed person served as acting attorney general. Democrats mocked the department for having to go back to the Civil War era to justify Mr. Trump’s pick. “For more than a century, the executive branch has understood, and Congress has agreed, that the attorney general, including one serving in an acting capacity, is a principal officer who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate,” the Democrats said.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/15/dems-say-whitaker-justification-fatally-flawed/