ANNAPOLIS, MD (February 3, 2022)—Fair Maps Maryland, the nonpartisan organization dedicated to the abolition of partisan gerrymandering in Maryland, today released the official opposition to the motion filed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to insert itself into the ongoing partisan gerrymandering case filed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County in December 2021. If granted by the court, the motion to intervene would make the DCCC a legal defendant in the case and allow their highly paid and partisan lawyers to argue in favor of gerrymandering.
The DCCC’s insistence on being party to this case inadvertently proves the very claims they are seeking to defend. The map created by the leadership of the Maryland General Assembly is deliberately gerrymandered to create congressional districts more favorable to Democratic candidates. As prominently displayed on its website, the sole mission of the DCCC is to elect Democratic candidates to Congress and protect the “new Democratic Majority.”
“The last thing Marylanders want is partisan political operatives from Washington, D.C. interfering with their state elections,” said Fair Maps Maryland spokesman Doug Mayer. “Obvious political actors like Marc Elias and his DCCC benefactors only care about power and they will stop at nothing to get more of it, including masquerading as ‘defenders of democracy.’ Their only interest, in this case, is protecting their own ill-gotten gains and that won’t fly in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. The leadership of the Maryland General Assembly made their own bed when they decided to break the law and pass an unconstitutional map—and now they have to lie in it. No one is coming to rescue them.”
The motion to intervene was filed by attorney Marc E. Elias of the Elias Law Group on behalf of the DCCC. In an appalling display of hypocrisy, Mr. Elias, the founder of a group called Democracy Docket, is also currently leading a North Carolina lawsuit claiming that elected officials in that state are guilty of partisan gerrymandering—nearly identical claims he is attempting to defend in Maryland. In public forums, Mr. Elias claims to be an opponent of partisan gerrymandering and has referred to the new North Carolina congressional map as “a grotesque partisan gerrymander,” and “indefensible.”
In addition, Mr. Elias was recently sanctioned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over his actions in the case of an election in Texas.
The opposition to the DCCC’s motion argues the following:
“The Court should deny the DCCC’s request to intervene as a matter of right because the DCCC lacks standing to be a party, its purported interest will not be impacted directly by this litigation, and the OAG will adequately represent any legitimate interest the DCCC seeks to protect. The Court also should deny the DCCC’s request to intervene permissively because the DCCC has failed to identify a claim or defense in common with this action, and its intervention will unduly delay this litigation and prejudice the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ rights.”
Opposition to Motion to Intervene