ANNAPOLIS, MD (February 15, 2021)—Fair Maps Maryland, the nonpartisan organization dedicated to the abolition of partisan gerrymandering in Maryland, today announced the decision by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to deny a Motion to Intervene filed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) last month. If granted by the court, the motion to intervene would have made the DCCC a legal defendant in the case and allowed their highly paid and partisan lawyers to argue in favor of gerrymandering.
“Rejecting a partisan political organization’s brazen attempt to defend partisan maps drawn by politicians is the ultimate no-brainer,” said Fair Maps Maryland spokesman Doug Mayer. “The last thing Marylanders wanted was political operatives from Washington, D.C. interfering with their state elections and we thank the court for making the obviously right decision.
“Unfortunately for the leadership of the Maryland General Assembly, Operation DCCC Rescue has failed. They’re on their own now, and they will be forced to defend their illegal and unconstitutional map in a court of law.”
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.”
The opposition to the DCCC’s motion argued 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.”
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of The Southern Maryland Chronicle. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of any The Southern Maryland Chronicle entity.
