Well, the 1st Congressional District has changed, an outcome that Rep. Andy Harris probably expected, though with some despair. Lawsuits, if filed as promised, will very likely not delay implementation of the new map for the 2022 election.
The newly configured district will be a toss-up between Republican Harris and a Democrat, either Heather Mizeur or David Harden or Jennifer Pingkey. Not a slam-dunk for one of the latter, though the northern portion of Harford County and parts of Baltimore and Carroll counties have been deleted in favor of 200,000 new voters in the central part of Anne Arundel County.
Inclusion of parts of Anne Arundel County in the 1st District is not a radical change. When Wayne Gilchrest represented the 1st from 1991 to 2009, the district included parts of Annapolis.
Though now a self-exile in Annapolis after 44 years in Easton, I believe that the newly mapped 1st District is a more democratic (small “d”) than the one represented by Harris for the past 12 years. Frankly, I felt disenfranchised by the presence of an extremist Republican who has suffered no elective punishment for his far-right views and questionable behavior (carrying a gun into the Capitol).
His re-election was assured. His base seemed unbothered by his offensive statements and actions.
His political life now has changed.
Gerrymandering is good or evil in the jaundiced eye of the beholder. The political process of drawing congressional district is inherently unfair to the members of the party relegated to second-class status as citizens. You either suck it up or move to a district that favors your political perspective.
To me, the 2021 version of the 1st Congressional District, to be tested in 2022, is more balanced, enabling Republican and Democratic voters to have a voice. In other words, the newly elected representative will have to cater to partisans in both camps, not just those in his or her political tribe.
If re-elected, Harris will have to travel the middle road, unless he simply will be unable to change his ultra-conservative stripes. In that case, he may have only one additional term to serve. His job tenure will be precarious.
To no one’s surprise, I find nothing to admire about Rep. Harris. I have long hoped that he would return full-time as an anesthesiologist and treat patients far more humanely than he ministered to the residents of the 1st District.
His supporters would bemoan his absence. They would welcome anyone who opposes Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the powerful Speaker of the House who is a prime target of derision and disdain among most Republican members of Congress.
Ironically, the homes of Harris and Harden are not in the altered 1st District. It does not matter. They only must live in the state. But it does seem strange in the context of representative government.
Some believe that gerrymandering—the act of manipulating boundaries favoring one political party over another—is a major cause of our nation’s toxic polarization. They are right. The 1st District exemplified that dysfunction. Harris has occupied a safe seat that has demanded no compromise or second thoughts on his part. The same could be said of the seven other congressional districts represented by Democrats.
It would be ironic if the First District became more balanced than the others, one that values moderation over extremism. It might be a showcase for representative government and democracy.
And I may be dreaming.
Seven states have non-political congressional redistricting commissions. On the surface. They would symbolize good government. I am skeptical, however, about the selection process: are commission members truly independent? Is it possible to escape political pressure?
The every-decade redistricting, originated to reflect population changes, is blatantly political in Maryland. Gov. Larry Hogan appointed a non-partisan commission to draw up a new statewide congressional redistricting map. The Democratic-dominated General Assembly ignored the supposedly un-gerrymandered map. Instead, it designed its own. The governor vetoed it.
The legislature overturned the veto as if it were swatting away a fly. Lawsuits may follow. They likely will have no impact.
While overjoyed at the prospect of a truly competitive race between Andy Harris and his Democratic rival, I cannot overlook the overtly partisan effort to block him from winning re-election as effortlessly as he has for six terms. Gerrymandering can reward or punish.
Unfortunately, the redistricting has no impact on me. Annapolis remains untouched by the 1st District. I will have no chance to offer Rep. Harris a non-political career choice. For what it is worth, I will be a highly interested observer.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.
Russell Stone says
Thank you very much for your opinion I was looking for news and found an editorial.
Once again I will have to look elsewhere for news.
J.T. Smith says
Well said, Howard. While I hope that Andy Harris will be defeated,I view with misgivings your hope that Andy Harris return to his medical practice full time. He has demonstrated such woeful judgement in his political antics, that I would question his professional competence more generally.
Howard Freedlander says
Thank you, JT. I too would be apprehensive were Andy Harris my anesthesiologist. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I’m overly optimistic.
John Fischer says
It’s hard to get through two weeks of The Spy without finding a piece from a Democratic writer lamenting being represented for many years in the U.S. Congress by the Republican Andy Harris.
One imagines similar pieces appearing in publications of the eight other Maryland congressional districts. These, however, would be written by Republican writers complaining of their fate, bing represented, year after year by a Democrat, no hope of relief.
Writers from both parties can thank Maryland’s Democratic-controlled legislature. Citizens have been confined to districts deliberately drawn, gerrymandered, to ensure the political outcome sought by the Maryland legislature.
Today, that legislature is trying to correct an “error” they made ten years ago, when they gerrymandered district boundaries to take away only one Republican-dominated district rather than all.
As Mr. Freedlander knows and half-heartedly suggests, whether in Texas or Maryland, the gerrymandering of congressional districts with the clear intent to disenfranchise citizens of the out-of-power political party is politics at its worst.
Howard Freedlander says
Thank you, Jack. As I noted, wholeheartedly, gerrymandering is inherently unfair when practiced by skilled politicians. Both parties benefit, or don’t. Safe seats can engender extremism in the case of the 1st District and Rep. Harris.
Howard Freedlander says
Thank you, Russell. I’m sorry you are disappointed. The Spy has roughly 11 columnists. It also offers news. I suspect you can easily find other news outlets and opinions you prefer.
David Reel says
I am curious if the author of this op – ed had similar sentiments when redistricting was done the last time. Allow me to refresh his memory as history often does repeat itself. Back then a Democrat Governor and Democrat super majorities in the Maryland General Assembly gerrymandered a district in western Maryland to help ensure an incumbent Republican was voted out of office after being re -elected repeatedly by the voters in his formerly “safe” district. A majority of voters in that former obviously felt his views represented their views. In a blatant power grab the Democrats decided he had to go. Former Governor O’Malley even testified under oath that this successful gerrymandering effort had one purpose and one purpose only — to remove an incumbent Republican and replace him with a Democrat. In this latest redrawing of CD 1 boundary lines this is again their goal. Nothing more, nothing less. If a majority of voters in the current CD 1 shared Mr. Freelander’s visceral disdain for Congressman Harris, then the Congressman would already be gone or would lose in the upcoming election cycle. The Democrats, assuming this was not likely to occur used their power to tilt the scales, voters be damned. Lord Acton was right — power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Howard Freedlander says
Thank you, David.As you are aware, Republican-directed gerrymandering throughout the country has disenfranchised Democrats. It appears that Democrats and Republicans are engaged equally in partisan redistricting. I might agree with you that Western Maryland voters were victims of questionable gerrymandering. Fault lies in both camps.
David Reel says
Amazing. After Martin O’Malley swore under oath in a court proceeding that his goal and the goal of the Democrat supermajorities in the Maryland General Assembly was to change the boundaries of a Western Maryland congressional district with the intent have a Republican incumbent lose to a Democrat challenger and you say “I might agree with you that Western Maryland voters were victims of questionable gerrymandering”. You MIGHT agree with me!!! QUESTIONABLE gerrymandering!!! Spare me.
Bob Parker says
While Gerrymandering has been practiced by both parties, I believe it is inaccurate to imply that both parties are equally guilty. Maryland represents the most extreme example benefitting Democratic candidates, there are several states with near 50/50 partisan splits where the Republicans hold 75%+ state legislature and Congressional seats. The ideal is totally non-partisan setting of voting districts, but both sidesust play by the same rules. Unfortunately, our Super Court ruled that the Founding Father’s recognized the presence of political parties (“factions” in the parlance of the time) therefore concluding that partisan gerrymandering was Constitutional. So, until both parties agree that it is wrong, we are stuck with this practice that essentially disenfranchised large numbers of Americans.