Copyright salon
The top Democrat in the Maryland Senate has roundly rejected an effort by his party to redistrict the state, arguing that the risks of redrawing maps outweigh the potential gains. Bill Ferguson explained his reasoning for opposing the plans in a three-page letter sent to all the Democratic lawmakers in the state Senate on Tuesday evening. “I want to … provide some additional clarity regarding why, after speaking with many of you individually, the Senate is choosing not to move forward with mid-cycle redistricting,” Ferguson wrote. “Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined.” Ferguson added that redistricting voters by party allegiance would be comparable to dividing voting groups based on race. “It is hypocritical to say that it is abhorrent to tactically shift voters based on race, but not to do so based on party affiliation,” he said. The move by Ferguson runs against the desires of other high-profile state Democrats, including Democratic Gov. Wes Moore. “There is no hold up from me,” Moore told Politico in September. “I am very clear on where I stand. It’s time for Maryland to have a conversation about whether we have a fair map or not.” U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., held talks with Moore and a Democratic delegation earlier this month, following efforts by Republicans in Indiana, Kansas, and North Carolina to redraw congressional maps in a way that benefits the GOP. The effort has been backed by President Donald Trump. “The pressure will become greater with every additional red state that heeds Trump’s call,” said Maryland state Sen. Clarence Lam. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. State Sen. Lam chided Ferguson for saying that redistricting would be the “equivalent of racial gerrymandering.”
