AGENDA ITEM # 3&4
October 4,2011
Presentation
&
Introduction
MEMORANDUM
September 30, 2011
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Jeffrey
L.
ZYOnt~lative
Attorney
Presentation - Redistricting Commission Report
Introduction - Bill 31-11, Council Districts - Boundaries
On October 4, the Redistricting Commission will have the opportunity to present its report to Council.
The report includes a summary of redistricting law, demographic data, a proposed redistricting map, a
All
description of each proposed Council District's boundaries, and a minority statement.
Commissioners were invited to attend the presentation. The Council will hold a public hearing
concerning the Commission's plan on November 1,2011.
Bill 31-11,
Council Districts - Boundaries
The Charter gives the Commission's plan a unique status; if the Council takes no action within 90 days
from receipt ofthe report, the Commission's districts become law.
l
The Commission report is what it is.
The Council cannot change the report, but it can affirmatively approve their proposed district boundaries
or amend the Commission's boundaries by a bill. Bill 31-ll is scheduled to be introduced on October 4
for either of those purposes. As introduced, it affirms the Commission's plan. The Council's November
1, 2011 public hearing will be on both the Commission redistricting plan and Bill 31-11.
Charter Requirements
The Charter requires the 5 Council Districts to be compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in
population? Staff believes that the Commission proposed redistricts meet those standards. This
conclusion should not be taken to mean that the Commission's plan is the only way to meet Charter
Charter
§
\04: ... If within ninety days after presentation of the Commission's plan no other law reestablishing the
boundaries of the Council districts has been enacted, then the plan, as submitted. shaIl become law.
2
Charter
§
103: Montgomery County shall be divided into five Council districts for the purpose of nominating and electing
five members of the Council. Each district shall be compact in form and be composed of adjoining territory. Populations of
the Council districts shall be substantially equal.
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
standards. The Council can approve different district boundaries that also are compact, contiguous, and
substantially equal in population.
Compactness for the purpose of redistricting is a judgment that Federal Courts have left to legislatures.
It
is not a mathematical standard. Mathematically, the most compact district would be a perfect circle.
The least compact district would be a district one street wide for its entire length. The Commission used
201 0 precincts to construct their proposed districts. That decision ensured that proposed districts are
never narrower than the width of a precinct at any point.
Commission Decision-Making
The Commissioners considered 2 very different redistricting maps. The public forum on those maps
included testimony in favor of each map and for amending the maps. Both restricting plans considered
and rejected the request from the Greater Olney Civic Association to keep Olney split into multiple
Council districts. The League of Women Voters recommended the map proposed by Commissioner
Don Spence. The Spence Map became the recommendation of the Commission by a vote of 5 to 4.
This vote was taken only after the Commission did not approve the map recommended by Vice 'Chair
Henry Kahwaty by a vote of 5 to 4. The vote in each case was split along political party lines.
3
The
Commission did not amend the Spence Map.
District Boundary Descriptions
Six pages of the report are devoted to describing the proposed district boundaries by streets, streams,
rivers, municipalities, counties, and sometimes individual properties.
4
As tedious as it may be, it is the
written description of the boundaries that directs the Board of Elections in preparing ballots. The
Commission tried to ease the work of the Board by using 2010 precincts, and the descriptions are
faithful to precinct lines. In the area south of Norbeck Road, west of Bailey's Lane and bounded by
Leisure World, the precinct boundary used by the Board of elections puts the residents in precinct 13-54.
That is different than the maps used by the Commission that had all of the property fronting on Norbeck
Road in precinct 13-49. The written description conforms to the Board of Election's line. If the Council
wishes to change that, it can do
SO. 5
Acknowledgements
All Redistricting Commissioners gave their time, attention, and talents to their tasks without
compensation. The authors of the 2 plans considered by the Commission, Commissioner Spence and
As required by the Charter, Commissioners were selected from nomination lists prepared by the Democratic and Republican
Central Committees. The Commission included 5 Democrats and 4 RepUblicans. Although one would have hoped for a
more bipartisan result, the fact that the Commission was split along party lines is shocking in the same way that the Captain
found the presence of gambling shocking in the movie Casablanca:
Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."
Croupier to Captain Renault: "Your winnings, sir."
Captain Renault: "Oh, thank you very much."
4
It
makes for riveting reading only when compared to a cover-to-cover reading of a phone book.
S
There are two other instances where the mapped boundaries used by the Commission were slightly different than official
precinct boundaries. Neither of those areas concerned any resident population.
3
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Vice Chair Kahwaty, were particularly devoted to their assignments. The Chair, Commissioner Tai, got
a plan approved by the Commission in the timeframe requested by the Council.
Assistant County Attorney Erin Ashbarry educated the Commission on aspects of election law that
affect redistricting and authored the memorandum in the Report's appendix. The Commission's work
was supported by Sara Harris from the Board of Elections. She produced the word description of the
proposed Council Boundaries. Jay Mukherjee, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) expert on the
Planning Staff, provided the mapping software needs of the Commissioners and assisted the
Commission in looking at map alternatives. Pam Zorich, a Planning Staff demographer, explained the
changes in the County over the past 10 years and produced the demographic tables in the Commission's
Report. There have only been 3 Redistricting Commissions in the history of the County; Ms. Zorich has
served all of them. Council staff member Susan Mabie prepared Commission minutes, maintained the
Redistricting Commission's website, and helped with the logistics of each Commission meeting.
This packet includes
Redistricting Commission Report
Bill 31-11
Legislative Request Report
©page
1 - 21
22
G:\MISC\Redistricting_Commission_2011 \Redistricting Commission Cover Memo.doc
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County
Redistricting Commission
Report
October 2011
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REPORT OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY
COMMISSION ON REDISTRICTNG 2011
Table of Contents
Redistricting COlnmissioners ............................................................................................... 1
Compliance with Charter Requirements and Opening Meetings Law ................................ 1
Redistricting Law .................................................................................................................2
Demographics
Total Population ........................................................................................................2
Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................................... 3
Adjustments for Prison Populations .........................................................................
.4
Matching Demographics and Election Law .............................................................. 5
Recommended Redistricting Plan ........................................................................................5
Map ...........................................................................................................................6
Rationale ................................................................................................................... 7
Proposed District Demographics
Total Adjusted Population .............................................................................8
Race and Ethnicity ......................................................................................... 9
Proposed Districts by 2010 Precincts ..................................................................... 10
Proposed District Descriptions ............................................................................... 12
Minority Statement. ................................................................................. 18
Appendices
Appendix A: Commission meeting dates ........................................................... A-I
Appendix B: Charter Provisions Concerning Redistricting ................................. B-I
Appendix C: Memorandum from Assistant County Attorney Erin Ashbarry ..... C-1
Appendix D: M-NCPPC January 2011 Trends Report ....................................... D-1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2011 Redistricting Commission Membership
Name
J. Lee Annis, J r
Cherri Branson
Henry J. Kahwaty (Vice Chair)
Carmen Ortiz Larsen
Jacqueline
L.
Phillips
Jonathan S. Shurberg
Don Spence
Jason Tai (Chair)
Patti Jo Witham
District
District 4
District 5
District 2
District 1
District 1
District 5
District 2
District 3
District 3
Party Affiliation
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Democrat
Republican
Compliance with Charter Requirements
Only the Republican and Democratic parties polled enough votes to qualify for appointment to the
Commission. The Council appointed members from lists provided by the central committee of each
party. Each Council district was represented on the Commission. Each district had no more than 2
representatives. The Council appointed the Commissioners by Resolution Number 17-20 on
January 18,2011.
The first meeting of the Commission was on February 17, 2011. Jason Tai was elected Chair and
Henry Kahwaty was elected Vice Chair.
Compliance with Open Meetings Law
All Commission meetings were subject to the state open meetings law (required by Montgomery
Code §2-149). All of the Commission's business was conducted in public. The parliamentary
procedures of Robert's Rules of Order governed when it was necessary to take formal action or
decide controversial matters. Absentee voting by Commissioners was not permitted. The public
was given notice of all meetings, and the meetings themselves were open to the public. The
Commission provided an opportunity for public comment at the end of each of its meetings. The
approved minutes of the meetings were available to the public. Audio recordings of Commission
meetings were archived.
From the very onset of the redistricting process, the public was welcomed, indeed encouraged, to
get involved and participate. The Commission sought public participation in every way possible.
Press releases were issued to give notice of the Commission's meetings. Attendance and
participation at the meetings afforded one level of participation, while letters and testimony at the
public forums presented yet another opportunity to express concerns. The Commission used a
website and a separate email address to solicit comments. All citizens associations and
homeowners associations were given email notice of the Commission's two public forums.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Law
Assistant County Attorney Erin Ashbarry educated the Commission on aspects of election law that
affect redistricting. Her March 24, 2011 memorandum to the Commission is attached to this report.
The County Charter requires the Commission to present a redistricting plan for the County that
divides the County into five Council districts for the purpose of nominating and electing five
members of the Council. Each district must be compact in form and be composed of adjoining
territory. Populations of the Council districts must be substantially equal.
The Commission was made aware that Council districts must comply with federal laws of equality
in voting, as mandated by the 14th and 15 th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the 1965
V oting Rights Act. The 14th Amendment mandates that districts be of nearly equal population. The
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment also prohibits using race as the predominant factor
in districting. The intentional segregation of voters based on race in a manner that lessens the
weight of their vote is illegal. The 15 th Amendment prohibits abridging the right to vote based on
race. The Voting Rights Act enforces the 15 th Amendment and prohibits the denial of equal
opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the voter's choice. The
Commission was instructed that the difference between the district with the fewest people and the
district with the most people may not exceed 10% of the ideal district's population without
triggering strict scrutiny by a reviewing court.
The "No Representation Without Population Act" became Maryland law in 2010 (SB 400). Under
that act, the population used for redistricting must be adjusted by counting prisoners at their last
known residences before incarceration, not at the locations of their prisons.
The Commission reviewed 2010 census data as it related to 2001 Council districts. The following
material was published in the Planning Department's January 2011 "Trend Sheet", which is also
attached to this report.
Demographics] - Total Population
In the last decade, Montgomery County's population grew by 11.3 percent, gaining almost 100,000
people since 2000. As reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, the County's population was 971,777
in 2010. In 2000, the population was 873,341.
The Commission was assisted by Montgomery County Planning Department Staff, Pamela Zorich, and Jay Mukherjee.
The Commission could not have done its demographic and mapping work without their able assistance.
I
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
COUNCIL DISTRICT POPULATION CHANGE
Total Population 2000-2010
Council Districts
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
Total
1
1
2000
174,556
177,846
172,870
173,601
174,468
873,341
%
of total
20.0%
20.4%
19.8%
19.9%
20.0%
100.0%
2010
185,462
214,315
197,661
189,652
184,687
971,777
%
of total
19.1%
22.1%
20.3%
19.5%
19.0%
100.0%
Gain
10,906
36,469
24,791
16,051
10,219
98,436
%
change
6.2%
20.5%
14.3%
9.2%
5.9%
11.3%
District boundaries established 2001
Source: Census 2010 Redistricting Data (Public Law
94-171),
U.s. Census Bureau; prepared by Montgomery
County Planning Department, M-NCPPC.
The County's population grew more diverse over the last decade, becoming a majority minority
county for the first time. Some 50.7 percent of the population was either non-white or Hispanic.
Hispanics were the largest minority group, comprising 17.0 percent of the population. African
Americans, comprising 16.6 percent of the population, were the second largest minority.
All Council districts gained population between 2000 and 2010; however, the amount of
population growth in each Council district was different. Council District 2 had the greatest
increase (20.5 percent), gaining 36,469 people between 2000 and 2010. Germantown and
Clarksburg, two of the County's fastest-growing communities, accounted for 86 percent of the
population increase in District 2. Council Districts 1 and 5 each grew by about 6 percent. District
1 added 10,906 people, to total 185,462; District 5, the County's least populated district at 184,687,
gained 10,219 people.
Demographics - Race
and Ethnicity
The five Council districts reflect the increasing diversity that characterizes Montgomery County in
2010. Except for District 1, all Council districts are majority minority districts when white
Hispanic populations are included as a minority population. The highest concentration of
minorities, at 61.4 percent, was in District 5. Hispanic populations make up more than 25 percent
of the population in District 5. The highest concentration of African-Americans was in District 4,
where that population accounted for more than 25 percent of the District's population. The total
minority population in District 4 was 60.4 percent. District 3 had the highest concentration of
Asians and Pacific Islanders - 20.7 percent.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2000 Council Districts with 2010 Population
Total
Population
Hispanic or
Latino
Black
Asian &
Pacific
Islander
Other Race
Total
Minority
Non-
Hispanic
White
185,462
14,315
97,661
189,652
184,687
9}1,777
7,887
36,422
23,757
,342
81
89
22,339
31,572
40,972
25,084
15,137
135,104
136,048
49,414
108,695 105,620
90,648
107,013
114,576 75,076
113,314 71,373
493,012 478,765
Total
Population
%
Hispanic or
Latino
Black
%
%
~lOO.O
District 3
District 4
District 5
Total All
Asian
&
Pacific
Islander
%
Other Race
%
Total
Minority
%
Non-
Hispanic
White
I
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
7.5
15.6
18.1
18.5
25.5
17.0
4.3
17.0
12.0
25.5
24.5
16.6
12.0
14.7
20.7
13.2
8.2
13.9
2.9
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
26.6
50.7
54.1
60.4
61.4
50.7
73.4
49.3
45.9
39.6
38.6
49.3
I
*
District boundaries established 2001
Source: Census 2010 Redistricting Data (Public Law
94-171),
U.S. Census Bureau; prepared by Montgomery County Planning Department,
M-NCPPC.
Demographics - Adjustments for Prison Populations
State law (SB 400, enacted in 2010) requires redistricting in Maryland to use population numbers
that allocate prisoners to their last residences before incarceration. People incarcerated from out-of­
state were excluded from the adjusted popUlation numbers. That adjustment increased the County's
population by 561 people; which amounted to .06 percent of the population. All Council districts
gained population by that adjustment. The adjustment did not change individual Council district
populations by more than 151 people. The target population for new Council districts is 194,468.
This is equal to the County's total adjusted population divided by 5.
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council District
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
County Total
1
Total
Population
2000
2000%
174,556
177,846
172,870
173,601
174,468
873,341
20.0
20.4
19.8
19.9
20.0
100.0
194,468
15.2%
4.8%
2010
185,462
214.315
197,661
189,652
184,687
971,777
2010
Adjusted
2
185,474
214,466
197,789
189.774
184.835
972.338
2010
Adjusted
2
%
19.1
22.1
20.3
19.5
19.0
100.0
%
Variation
Difference
from Target
from Target
-8,994
19,998
3,321
-4,694
-9,633
-4.6
10.3
1.7
-2.4
-5.0
Target District
(adjusted)
Maximum % Variation
Average
%
Variation
Source: Adjusted 2010 Redistricting Data, Maryland Dept. of Planning; Redistricting Data (PL
94-171)
2000
&
2010
Census, U.S. Census Bureau; Center for Research
&
Information Systems, prepared by Montgomery County
Department of Planning. M-NCPPC
(3/23/11).
Current Council Districts adopted in 200l.
2
For the purposes of Congressional, State, and local redistricting, the U.S. Census Redistricting data must be adjusted by the State
of Maryland pursuant to the Maryland law passed in 2010, the "No Representation Without Population Act" (SB 400, HB 496).
Generally, the law requires that the census data must be adjusted to reassign Maryland residents in correctional institutions to their
last known address and to exclude out-of-state residents in correctional institutions from redistricting. The adjusted counts used for
redistricting were certified by the Secretaries of the Maryland Department of Planning and the Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services, and the Executive Director of the Department of Legislative Services, on March 22, 20 II.
J
Matching Demographics and Election Law
Council district boundaries must change. The 2010 population of District 2 is 10.3 % over the
"target" district population of 194,468. Council District 5's 2010 population was 5.0% below the
target population. The total difference between the district with the most population and the district
with the least population was more than 15% of the target popUlation; any difference larger than 10
percent is too far from the principle of one man, one vote to be sustained.
Commission-Recommended Redistricting Plan
The following map depicts the Redistricting Plan recommended by the Commission.
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2011 Redistricting Plan
Submitted by the Redistricting Commission
Approved by the Commission
September 9, 2011
Council
Oistrict~
Total
Adjusted
Population
Adjusted
Population
Deviation
POJ)ulation
%
Deviation
0.91
0
4
U
s
M~ximLJm
0
0
0
1
1%,J3f)
1.71i/
2
3
192,438
194,436
194}~41
1~'1,153
-2.060
-1.06
I),OJ
62
3/3
-15
0.19
-0.01
T~,~cl p()pul~run:
194.468
~ 7:")~~.:.~:t:::~~.:"J,':.~~:r
...... "-'1 ..... :
-;,;
{ .....
·~r.iR:W
%
V,HI.rio,,:
1.07
IW...
'c....-U..
L;L;.n
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Rationale
The Commission's Redistricting Plan is based on the following:
I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
The districts are substantially equal in popUlation, using census data as adjusted for the
original residents of prison population.
The districts are compact.
The districts are contiguous.
The Plan keeps all municipalities in single districts.
The Plan puts the unincorporated areas of Germantown, Clarksburg, Montgomery
Village, Olney, Wheaton, Four Corners, Burtonsville, White Oak, Fairland, and Potomac
in single districts.
The Plan puts residents along River Road and Route 29 into single districts.
The Plan uses 20 I 0 precincts as its building blocks to districts.
6)
7)
The Commission's Plan was supported in public testimony by the League of Woman voters. The
Commission Plan equalized population to a greater degree than an alternative plan considered by
the Commission (the Kahwaty Plan) and created more compact districts.
The Commission's Plan keeps Germantown in a single district whereas the Kahwaty Plan would
have split Germantown north and south of Route 118.
Both the Commission's plan and the Kahwaty plan rejected the testimony of the Greater Olney
Civic Association to keep Olney split between Council Districts.
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Proposed District Demographics
-
Total Adjusted Population
Population in Proposed Districts
(adjusted population)
2011 Proposed
Districts
1
Council District
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District S
County Total
Adjusted
2
%
%
Difference
from
Target
Variation
from
Target
196,230
192,408
194,406
194,841
194,453
972,338
20.2%
19.8%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
100.0%
1,762
-2,060
-62
373
-15
0.91%
-1.06%
-0.03%
0.19%
-0.01%
Target District
3
Population
4
Maximum
%
Variation
Average
%
Variation
6
194,468
1.97%
0.44%
Source: Montgomery County Commission on Council Redistricting; Adjusted 2010 Redistricting Data,
Dept.
Redistricting Data (PL
94·171)
2000 U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau; Center for Research
&
Information Systems, Montgomery
County Deportment of Planning. M·NCPPC
(9/12/11).
Proposed
2011
County Council Redistricting Plan approved by the Redistricting Commission on
September
9, 2011.
1
For the purposes of Congressional, State, and local redistricting, the U.S. Census Redistricting data must
be adjusted by the State of Maryland pursuant to the Maryland law passed in
2010,
the "No
Representation Without Population Act" (SB
400,
HB
496).
Generally, the law requires that the census
data must be adjusted to reassign Maryland residents in correctional institutions to their last known
address and to exclude out-of-state residents in correctional institutions from redistricting.
The adjusted counts used for redistricting were certified by the Secretaries of the Maryland Department
of Planning and the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, and the Executive Director of
the Department of legislative Services, on March
22, 2011.
2
3
Target
district population is the total prisoner-adjusted County population, divided equally among the
five Council districts. Under this formula, each district has a target population of
194,468.
4
Maximum percentage variation is the sum of the absolute values of percentage variation of the two
districts which are most over-represented and most under-represented. In this case, the district with the
largest population, District
1,
exceeds the ideal by
.91%,
and the district with the smallest population,
District
2,
differs by
-1.06%.
Summing the absolute values equals
1.97%,
which is the maximum
percentage variation.
Average percentage variation is the sum of the absolute values of each district's percentage variation
from the ideal divided by the number of districts.
S
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Proposed District Demographics
-
Race and Ethnicity
For purposes of description and not as the primary consideration in proposing new district
boundaries, the Redistricting Commission provides the following information on race and
ethnicity for its submitted Redistricting Plan. The highest concentration of minority
popUlations, at 65 percent, will be in District 5. African American populations make up almost
32 percent of the population in the District. That will be the highest concentration of African
Americans. The highest concentration of Hispanic populations will be in District 4, where those
populations will account for 25 percent of the District's population. The total minority
popUlation in District 4 will be 58.6 percent. District 3 will have the highest concentration of
Asians and Pacific Islanders -- 18.9 percent. District 1 will continue to have the highest non­
Hispanic white popUlation 147,701 people, comprising 75 percent of the District.
Proposed
2011
Council
District
1
District
1
District
2
District
3
District
4
District
5
Total
Proposed
2011
Council
District
District 1
District 2
District
3
District 4
District 5
Total
Adjusted 2010
Population
196,230
192,408
194,406
194,841
194,453
972,338
2010 Population
196,214
192,264
194,290
194,703
194,306
971,777
Hispanic
(not
Adjusted)
13,143
32,515
33,385
48,590
37,765
165398
,
%of
district
6.7%
16.9%
17.2%
25.0%
19.4%
170% .
Non - Hispanic (not adjusted)
White
147,701
85,980
96,419
80,548
68,117
478,765
% of district
75.3%
44.7%
49.6%
41.4%
35.1%
49.3%
Black or
African
American
8,429
34,173
21,753
35,799
61,535
161,689
%of
district
4.3%
17.8%
11.2%
18.4%
31.7%
16.6%
Asian
&
Pacific
Islander
21,373
32,843
36,671
23,780
20,437
135,104
%of
district
10.9%
17.1%
18.9%
12.2%
10.5%
13.9%
Other
Race
5,568
6,753
6,062
5,986
6,452
30,821
%of
district
2.8%
3.5%
3.1%
3.1%
3.3%
3.2%
Source: Montgomery County Commission on Council Redistricting; Adjusted 2010 Redistricting Data, Maryland Dept. of Planning; Redistricting
Data (PL
94-171)
2000 U.S. Census, U.S. Census Bureau; Center for Research
&
Information Systems, Montgomery County Department of
Planning. M-NCPPC
(9/12/11).
Proposed Districts
by
2010 Precincts
The list of 2010 precincts in each proposed Council district is as follows:
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2011 Redistricting Plan Proposed by Montgomery County's Commission on Redistricting*
Adjusted 2010 Precinct Population by Proposed Council Districts: Montgomery County, MD
Proposed 2011 Council Districts
1
Precinct
Population
Precinct
2
Population
!
3
Precinct
Population
Precinct
4
Population
Precinct
5
population
3-1
3-2
4-4
4-8
4-10
4-12
4-13
4-17
4-18
4-31
4-32
6-2
6-9
6-12
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-15
7-16
7-17
7-18
7-19
7-20
7-21
7-22
7-23
7-24
7-25
7-26
7-27
7-28
7-30
7-31
7-32
10-1
3,495
2,805
4,082
4,128
3,782
4,522
2,695
2,814
4,316
4,393
1,847
3,036
2,597
2,935
2,623
2,487
3,773
5,461
2,678
2,836
2,605
4,340
3,705
4,279
4,556
3,712
4,614
4,465
2,626
2,627
3,224
3,124
3,436
1,536
2,927
4,308
3,256
3,086
5,734
2,361
2,474
1,232
1,411
1,685
1,996
1-2
1-3
1-6
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
6-1
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-10
6-11
6-13
6-14
9-5
9-7
9-8
9-9
9-11
9-12
9-17
9-18
9-19
9-21
9-22
9-23
9-25
9-26
9-29
9-30
9-34
9-38
11-0
12-1
12-2
12-3
4;769
4,185
2,579
6,876
4,993
3,792
5,541
4,668
3,097
520
5,025
2,187
2,359
7,119
2,916
3,021
2,778
4,243
5,199
5,349
7,338
2,523
2,231
2,740
7,948
8,692
3,332
3,983
4,213
1,493
5,485
3,952
3,695
3,512
2,464
3,510
4,813
4,052
4,348
5,913
2,738
2,258
3,033
3,414
5,099
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-9
4-14
4-16
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
4-25
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-30
4-34
6-3
6-8
8-3
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-6
9-10
9-13
9-14
9-15
9-16
9-20
9-24
9-27
9-28
9-31
9-32
9-33
9-35
9-36
13-45
13-46
13-51
6,544
4,168
5,787
5,358
3,810
4,442
2,413
6,549
3,740
2,949
3,834
3,561
3,456
4,679
2,984
2,604
2,022
2,405
6,083
2,378
3,305
5,064
3,5~1
3,707
5,737
4,734
6,701
2,688
4,833
3,284
4,267
7,924
3,581
3,418
4,867
1,313
4,319
8,037
3,797
6,283
2,930
3,025
3,016
4,123
1-1
1-4
1-5
4-15
5-9
5-16
5-22
8-1
8-2
8-4
8-5
8-6
8-7
8-8
8-9
8-10
8-11
8-12
8-13
9-4
9-37
13-1
13-2
13-20
13-25
13-27
13-28
13-29
13-30
13-32
13-33
13-35
13-36
13-37
13-40
13-41
13-43
13-44
13-48
13-49
13-53
13-55
13-56
13-57
13-59
3,284
3,340
3,925
7,039
4,903
4,229
1,922
4,499
5,218
1,716
3,378
5,069
2,386
3,662
4,616
2,854
3,983
3,850
2,531
5,155
3,473
3,443
4,392
2,614
6,649
4,548
3,686
5,373
6,204
5,406
2,776
5,084
5,575
4,104
3,376
2,165
3,666
6,192
3,781
4,256
2,579
4,769
2,382
2,024
2,410
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-15
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-23
5-24
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
13-10
13-11
13-12
13-13
13-14
13-15
13-16
13-17
13-18
13-19
13-21
13-22
13-23
13-24
13-31
13-42
13-47
13-50
4,947
5,287
2,752
1,529
3,067
5,968
1,366
2,604
4,024
4,949
5,384
9,948
8,114
4,559
4,968
2,235
4,362
3,860
7,196
3,222
3,623
3,097
3,853
3,168
3,246
3,793
2,644
2,531
4,423
1,826
4,819
2,577
5,727
4,437
2,264
4,464
3,026
4,007
8,341
3,362
2,959
2,498
2,069
5,298
3,043
10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2011 Redistricting
Plan
Proposed by Montgomery County's Commission on Redistricting*
Adjusted 2010 Precinct Population by Proposed Council Districts: Montgomery County, MD
Proposed 2011 Council Districts
3
r----.. . .
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
10-13
13-3
13-26
13-34
13-38
13-39
Total
%of
County
1
2
4
5
3,525
3,097
1,982·
3,080
3,137
3,755
3,546
3,652
2,722
4,069
2,282
2,678
1,784
3,367
3,836
3,094
196,230
20.2%
12-4
12-5
3,209
5,204
13-52
13-54
13-69
2,900
4,245
2,951
13-61
13-62
13-63
13-64
3,180
2,707
3,045
7,423
13-58
13-65
13-66
13-67
13-68
3,498
3,165
985
2,310
3,059
192,408
19.8%
194,406
20.0%
I
194,841
20.0%
194,453
20.0%
*
Proposed 2011 County Council Redistricting Plan approved by the Montgomery County's Commission on Redistricting
Sept 9,2011.
Source: Adjusted
2010
Redistricting Data, Maryland Department of Planning; Center for Research
&
Information Systems, Montgomery County
Department of Planning, M-NCPPC (9/19/11).
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Proposed District Descriptions
The boundaries of the five (5) Council districts required under Section 16 of the County Charter
are as follows.
District 1:
The southern boundary of District 1 begins at the junction of the boundary lines of
Montgomery County, Maryland, the District of Columbia and Fairfax County, Virginia; then
northwesterly, meandering along the west bank of the Potomac River, the boundary line of
Montgomery County and Fairfax County; then continuing northwesterly, meandering along the
Potomac River, to the boundary line of Montgomery County, Maryland and Loudoun County
(Virginia); then continuing northwesterly and northeasterly along the western boundary of the
Potomac River to its junction with the boundary of Montgomery County, Maryland and
Frederick County, Maryland; then northeasterly along said boundary line to its junction with the
center line of Dickerson Road (MD Route 28); then southeasterly and southwesterly along the
center line of said road, continuing as Darnestown Road (MD Route 28); then continuing
southeasterly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line of Turkey
Foot Road; then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center
line of Travilah Road; then easterly and northeasterly along the center line of said road to its
junction with center line of Piney Meetinghouse Road; then southerly along the center line of
said road to its intersection with the Potomac Electric Power Company right-of-way; then
southeasterly along said right-of-way to its intersection with the center line of Falls Road (MD
Route 189); then easterly to its junction with the center line of Montrose Road; then easterly
along the center line of said road and a straight line of prolongation to its junction with the center
line of Rockville Pike (MD Route 355); then northwesterly along the center line of said road to
its intersection with the center line of Halpine Road and a line of prolongation to the center line
of the CSX Railroad right-of-way; then southeast along the center line of said right-of-way to its
intersection with the municipal boundary of the Town of Kensington; then northeasterly and east
along said municipal boundary line to the center line of Connecticut Avenue (MD Route 185);
then north along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Lawrence
Avenue; then east along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of
University Boulevard West (MD Route 193); then northeasterly along the center line of said road
to its intersection with the center line of Drumm Avenue; then southwesterly along the center
line of said road and continuing south along a line of prolongation to its junction with the center
line of Meredith Avenue (at Oberon Street); then south along the center line of Meredith Avenue
to its intersection with the center line of Edgewood Road; then westerly along the center line of
said road and a line of prolongation to the center line of the CSX Railroad right-of-way; then
continuing southeasterly along said right-of-way to its intersection with the center line of
Brookville Road; then southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the
center line of Lyttonsville Place; then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its
intersection with the center line of the Georgetown Branch Trail; then southwesterly along the
center line of said trail to its junction with Brookville Access Road; then southwest along the
center line of Brookville Access Road to its junction with the center line of Grubb Road; then
southeasterly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line of East
West Highway (MD Route 410); then northeasterly, easterly and northeasterly along the center
line of said road to its junction with the center line of Rosemary Hills Drive; then southeasterly
along a line of prolongation from the center line of said road to its intersection with the boundary
12
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
line of Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of Columbia; then southwesterly along
said boundary line to the boundary line of Montgomery County, Maryland, the District of
Columbia and Fairfax County, Virginia, the point of beginning.
District
2:
The southern boundary of District 2 begins at the junction of the center line of Lake
Winds Way and the center line of Travilah Road; then westerly along the center line of said road
to its junction with the center line of Turkey Foot Road; then northwesterly along the center line
of said road to its junction with the center line of Darnestown Road (MD Route 28); then
southwesterly and northwesterly along the center line of said road, continuing northeasterly and
northwesterly as Dickerson Road (MD Route 28) to the boundary line of Montgomery County,
Maryland and Frederick County, Maryland; then northeasterly along said county boundary line
to the point at Parrs Spring where the boundary lines of Montgomery County, Maryland,
Frederick County, Maryland, and Howard County, Maryland converge; then southwesterly and
southeasterly along the boundary line of Montgomery County, Maryland and Howard County,
Maryland following the center line of the Patuxent River to its intersection with the center line
of Mullinix Mill Road; then southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with
the center line of Damascus Road (MD Route 108); then southeasterly along the center line of
said road to its junction with the center line of Jarl Drive; then southwesterly along the center
line of said road and a line of prolongation to its junction with the center line of Great Seneca
Creek; then meandering southeasterly and southwesterly along the center line of said creek to its
intersection with the center line of Woodfield Road (MD Route 124); then southwesterly along
the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of the north end of Hadley Farms
Drive; then westerly, southerly and southeasterly along a line encompassing all of the streets
connected to Hadley Farms Drive to the junction of said line with the center line of Cabin
Branch Tributary at a point east and south of Boxberry Terrace; then meandering southwesterly
along the center line of said tributary to its intersection with the center line of Snouffer School
Road; then southeasterly along said road to its intersection with the center line of Flower Hill
Way; then southerly and southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the
center line of Woodfield Road (MU Route 124); then southwesterly along the center line of said
road to its intersection with the center line of Emory Grove Road; then northwesterly along said
road to its intersection with the center line of Goshen Road; then south along the center line of
said road to its intersection with the center line of Odend' hal A venue; then west along the center
line of said road to its intersection with the center line of Lost Knife Road; then northwest along
the center line of said road to its junction with Montgomery Village Avenue (MD Route 124);
then southwest along said road to the municipal boundary of the City of Gaithersburg to the
center line of Watkins Mill Road; then southwest along said road to the municipal boundary and
its junction at the center line of Whetstone Run; then meandering southwesterly and northerly
along the center line of said run to its intersection with the municipal boundary line of the City of
Gaithersburg; then northwesterly and southwest along said municipal boundary line and
intersecting with the Potomac Electric Power Company right-of-way to its junction with the
center line of Old Game Preserve Road; then northwesterly along the center line of said road to
its junction with the center line of Arrowsmith Court; then northwesterly along the center line of
said road to its junction with the center line of Game Preserve Road; then southwesterly along
the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line of North Frederick A venue
(MD Route 355); then northerly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the
13
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
center line of Great Seneca Creek; then meandering westerly and southerly along the center line
of said creek to its intersection with the center line of the Potomac Electric Power Company
right-of-way; then southeasterly along the center line of said right-of-way to its intersection with
the center line of Darnestown Road (MD Route 28); then easterly along the center line of said
road to its intersection with the center line of Dufief Mill Road; then southwesterly along the
center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Lake Winds Way; then southerly
along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Travilah Road, the point of
beginning.
District
3:
The southwestern boundary of District 3 begins at the center line of the Potomac
Electric Power Company right-of-way and the center line of Piney Meetinghouse Road; then
northeasterly and northerly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of
Travilah Road; then southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the
center line of Lake Winds Way; then northwesterly along the center line of said road to its
junction with the center line of Dufief Mill Road; then northeasterly along the center line of said
road to its junction with the center line of Darnestown Road (MD Route 28); then northwesterly
along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of the Potomac Electric
Power Company right-of-way; then northwesterly along the center line of said right-of-way to its
intersection with the center line of Great Seneca Creek; then meandering northeasterly along the
center line of said creek to its intersection with the center line of Frederick Road (MD Route
355); then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line
of Game Preserve Road; then northeast along the center line of said road to its junction with the
center line of Arrowsmith Court; then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its
junction with the center line of Old Game Preserve Road; then southeasterly along the center line
of said road to its junction with the northwestern municipal boundary line of the City of
Gaithersburg and the Potomac Electric Power Company right-of-way; then north and easterly
along said municipal boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Watkins Mill Road;
then southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the municipal boundary
(south of Whetstone Run); then southeasterly and south along said municipal boundary line to its
intersection with the center line of Montgomery Village Avenue (MD Route 124); then
northeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Lost Knife
Road; then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with Odend'hal
Avenue; then east along the center line of Odend'hal Avenue to its junction with the center line
of Goshen Road; then north along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center
line of Emory Grove Road; then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its intersection
with the center line of Woodfield Road (MD Route 124); then southwesterly along the center
line of said road to its junction with the center line of Midcounty Highway; then southeasterly
along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Shady Grove Road; then
northeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Muncaster
Mill Road (Md. Route 115); then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction
with the center line of Norbeck Road (MD Route 28); then east along the center line of said road
to its junction with a line of prolongation to the northeastern boundary of Leisure World of
Maryland (Corporate Mutual 16); then southeasterly, southwesterly and westerly along said
corporate boundary line to its junction with the center line of Georgia Avenue (MD Route 97);
14
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Aspen
Hill Road; then west and southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with
Veirs Mill Road (MD Route 586); then northwest along the center line of said road to its
intersection with the center line of Rock Creek; then southeasterly meandering along the center
line of said creek to its junction with the southern boundary line of Rock Creek Park; then west,
north and west along said park boundary line to its junction with the southeast comer of the
boundary line of Parklawn Memorial Park Cemetery; then westerly and northerly along said
cemetery boundary to its junction with the center line of an unnamed creek; then northwesterly
meandering along said creek to a line of prolongation to the center line of Fishers Lane; then
west along the center line of said road and a line of prolongation to the center line of Halpine
Road; then southwest along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line of
Rockville Pike (MD Route 355); then southeasterly along the center line said road to its junction
with a line of prolongation to the center line of Montrose Road; then westerly along the center
line of said road to its junction with the center line of Falls Road (MD Route 189); then
southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of the Potomac
Electric Power Company right-of-way; then northwesterly along the center line of said right-of­
way to the center line of Piney Meetinghouse Road, the point of beginning.
District
4: The southeastern boundary of District 4 begins at the junction of the center line of
Ednor Road and the center line of the Patuxent River, the boundary line of Montgomery County,
Maryland and Howard County, Maryland; then northwesterly meandering along said county
boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Mullinix Mill Road; then southwesterly
along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Damascus Road (MD
Route 108); then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center
line of Jarl Road; then southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the
center line of Great Seneca Creek; then east and southwesterly meandering along the center line
of said creek to its intersection with the center line of Woodfield Road (MD Route 124); then
southeasterly along the center line of said road to its north junction with the center line of Hadley
Farms Drive; then westerly, southerly and southeasterly along a line encompassing all streets
connected to Hadley Farms Drive to a junction with the center line of Cabin Branch Tributary at
a point south of Boxberry Terrace; then meandering southwesterly along the center line of said
tributary to its intersection with the center line of Snouffer School Road; then southeasterly along
the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line of Flower Hill Way; then
southwesterly and southeasterly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the
center line of Woodfield Road (MD Route 124); then southwest along the center line of said road
to its junction with the center line of Midcounty Highway; then southeasterly along the center
line of said road to its junction with the center line of Shady Grove Road; then northeasterly
along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Muncaster Mill Road (MD
Route 115); then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center
line of Norbeck Road (MD Route 28); then east along the center line of said road to its junction
with a line of prolongation to the northeastern boundary of Leisure World of Maryland
(Corporate Mutual 16); then southeasterly, southwesterly and westerly along said corporate
boundary line to its junction with the center line of Georgia Avenue (MD Route 97); then
southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Aspen Hill
Road; then west and southwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the
15
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
center line of Veirs Mill Road (MD Route 586); then northwest along the center line of said road
to its intersection with the center line of Rock Creek; then meandering southeasterly along the
center line of said creek to its junction with the southern boundary line of Rock Creek Park; then
west, north and south along said park boundary line to its junction with Parklawn Memorial Park
Cemetery continuing west along said cemetery boundary line; then southwest, northwest and
north along said cemetery boundary line to its junction with the center line of an unnamed creek;
then meandering west along the center line of said creek to the center line of Fishers Lane; then
west along the center line of said road and a line of prolongation to the center line of the CSX
Railroad right-of-way; then continuing southeasterly along the center line of said right-of-way to
its junction with the center line of Summit Avenue; then northeast along the center line of said
road to its junction with the municipal boundary of the Town of Kensington; then northeast and
east along said municipal boundary line to its intersection with Connecticut Avenue (MD Route
185); then north along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line of
Lawrence Avenue; then east along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line
of University Boulevard West (MD Route 193); then northeasterly along the center line of said
road to its junction with the center line of Drumm Avenue; then southwesterly along the center
line of said road and a line of prolongation to the center line of Drumm Avenue to its intersection
with the center line of Plyers Mill Road; then east along the center line of said road to its
intersection with the center line of Georgia Avenue (MD Route 97); then southeast along the
center line of said road to its intersection with the center line of Dennis Avenue; then easterly
along the center line of said road to the center line of Sligo Creek; then northerly meandering
along the center line of said creek to its junction with the center line of University Boulevard
West (MD Route 193); then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with a
line of extended prolongation (at Arcola Avenue) following said line northeasterly and
southeasterly to its junction with the center line of Northwest Branch; then northerly meandering
along the center line of said branch to a line of prolongation and its convergence with the center
line of Springbrook Drive; then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction
with the center line of Warrenton Drive; then northeasterly along the center line of said road to
its junction with New Hampshire Avenue (MD Route 650); then north along the center line of
said road to its junction with the center line of Norwood Road; then northwesterly along the
center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Ednor Road; then northeasterly
along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of the Patuxent River, the
boundary line of Montgomery County, Maryland and Howard County, Maryland, the point of
beginning.
The southwestern boundary of District 5 begins at the boundary line of
Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of Columbia (at Rosemary Hills Drive); then
continuing northwest along a line of prolongation to its junction with the center line of East West
Highway (MD Route 410); then west along the center line of said road to its intersection with the
center line of Grubb Road; then northwest along the center line of said road to its junction with
the center line of Brookville Access Road; then north along the center line of Brookville Access
Road to its junction with the center line of Georgetown Branch Trail; then northeasterly along
the center line of said trail to its intersection with the center line of Lyttonsville Place; then
northwesterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Brookville
Road; then northeasterly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center line
District
5:
16
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
of the CSX Railroad right-of-way; then northwesterly along the center line of said right-of-way
and a line of prolongation east to the center line of Edgewood Road; then east along the center
line of said road to its intersection with the center line of Meredith Avenue; then north along the
center line of said road and a line of prolongation (at Oberon Street) to the center line of Drumm
A venue; then northwesterly along the center line of said road to its intersection with the center
line of Plyers Mill Road; then east along the center line of said road to its intersection with the
center line of Georgia Avenue (MD Route 97); then southeasterly along the center line of said
road to its intersection with the center line of Dennis Avenue; then easterly along the center line
of said road to the center line of Sligo Creek; then northerly meandering along the center line of
said creek to its junction with the center line of University Boulevard West (MD Route 193);
then southeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with a line of prolongation (at
Arcola A venue); then northeasterly along the center line of said line of prolongation extending
northeasterly to its junction with the center line of Northwest Branch; then northerly meandering
along the center line of said branch to a line of prolongation easterly to the center line of
Springbrook Drive; then easterly along the center line of said road to its junction with the center
line of Warrenton Drive; then northeasterly along the center line of said road to its junction with
the center line of New Hampshire Avenue (MD Route 650); then north along the center line of
said road to its junction with the center line of Norwood Road; then northwesterly along the
center line of said road to its junction with the center line of Ednor Road; then northeasterly
along the center line of said road to its junction with the center line of the Patuxent River, the
boundary line of Montgomery County, Maryland and Howard County, Maryland; then
southeasterly meandering along said river, the county boundary line, to its junction with the
boundary line of Montgomery County, Maryland and Prince George's County, Maryland; then
southwesterly along said county boundary line, continuing as said county boundary to its
junction with the boundary line of Montgomery County, Maryland and the District of Columbia
(Eastern Avenue); then northwest and southwest along said county boundary line to a point of
prolongation from East West Highway (at Rosemary Hills Drive), the point of beginning.
17
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Minority Statement
The Montgomery County Redistricting Commission (the "Commission") recommended a
redistricting map to County Council based on a 5-4 vote. There were two proposed maps before
the Commission, one proposed by Don Spence and the other by Henry Kahwaty. Commissioner
Spence's proposed map was approved by the 5-4 vote, and Commissioner Kahwaty's proposed
map was rejected on an identical 5-4 vote. Mr. Spence's proposed redistricting map was
approved by the Democratic Commissioners, and Dr. Kahwaty's proposed map was approved by
Republican Commissioners.
The Commission had great, but unrealized, potential to develop a map that best represents the
interests of Montgomery County's citizens. Instead of working in a collaborative process and
carefully considering public input, the Commission made no adjustments to Mr. Spence's initial
proposal based on ideas from other Commissioners or the community. In fact, the Commission
did not even consider making any adjustments to Mr. Spence's map based on comments from the
public. As a result, the Commission's process was little more than a mask for a plan developed
behind closed doors by one or several members of the Democratic majority. The Commission
gave a veneer of public input and deliberative process to what was essentially a plan devised out
of public view and without any public input. Furthermore, the map approved by the Commission
combined areas together that lack common local interests, which weakens the ability of
Montgomery County citizens to have their interests represented before County government.
The Commission's Public Hearings
The Commission held two public hearings to solicit comments on redistricting. One session was
held before proposed maps were released. This meeting was intended to gather public input on
map design and strategy. A second hearing was held after the two proposed maps were released.
The stated purpose of this second hearing was to gather comments on the specific maps
proposed. The Commission's tinal map did not reflect any of the public comments received, and
indeed the Commission never discussed or otherwise considered the public comments received at
the second hearing.
In
particular, no revisions to the map were made based on substantive public
comments, and no revisions were even considered or discussed. We conclude that the public
hearing process had no purpose and was actually more of a show than a serious effort to gather
input from Montgomery County residents.
The Spence Map Adopted by the Commission
Mr. Spence characterized his map as a way to group together "communities of interest" in
Montgomery County. Interestingly, he only adopted this language after Dr. Kahwaty used this
term to describe his proposed redistricting map.
Mr. Spence proposed, and the Commission adopted, a map that creates a district
in
the western
part of the County. Mr. Spence described this as a "community of interest" along the Potomac.
It
is hard to see, however, how combining Poolesville and Bethesda into one district creates a
"community of interest". Do these very different areas face the same local concerns? If so, what
are these concerns?
18
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mr. Spence also proposed, and the Commission adopted, a district starting with Wheaton and
running to the north through Olney and Brookeville. This district's common feature was
apparently Georgia Avenue, a road and not a river as with the Bethesda/Poolesville district. Mr.
Spence indicated that this was another community of interest. We fail to see, however, the local
concerns that bind these areas together as a "community of interest". There are many local
issues that are of concern to Montgomery County residents, such as traffic, public safety, and
school quality. No reasoned analysis of local public safety or other local concerns has been
offered to justify combining Wheaton and Olney as a "community of interest". As such, we
conclude that this description is really nothing more than window dressing.
The Kahwaty Map Rejected by the Commission
Dr. Kahwaty proposed a more dramatic restructuring of County Council districts. His proposed
districts are defined around true communities of interest. His proposed "Inside the Beltway"
district combined older communities with common traffic concerns into one district. He
recommended a district centered on Rockville, and a second centered on Gaithersburg. The most
dramatic feature of his proposed map, however, was his proposal to combine together areas like
Poolesville to the west, Damascus to the north, and Brookeville and Brinklow to the east. This
district has been described as something that surrounds much of the rest of the county, which is
correct. This is exactly what it did. Even so, this district represented a true community of
interest.
It has been Montgomery County policy for many years to concentrate development in the center
core of the County and to surround the County with less developed areas, including the
Agricultural Reserve. Thus, Montgomery County policy created disbursed areas around the
County's perimeter that are less densely populated. Not surprisingly, these areas have common
needs and interests that are separate and distinct from those in Bethesda, downtown Silver
Spring, and the center of Rockville. Simply put, we feel that areas like Laytonsville have more
in common with places like Poolesville than with Glenmont and Wheaton, and we believe it is
appropriate to recognize this in redistricting so that these common interests have a voice in
Montgomery County government.
One criticism levied against Dr. Kahwaty's recommendation for this perimeter district was that it
was too dispersed to be served adequately by a member County CounciL This cannot be
considered a serious argument: if a member of Council cannot serve 20% of the Montgomery
County population in this perimeter district, how can any at-large member of Council serve the
whole County? This is not a criticism of Dr. Kahwaty's proposed map but instead is a criticism
of the four at-large seats on Council.
Recommendation
We recommend the County Council closely scrutinize the map approved by the Redistricting
Commission, hold a true public hearing, adequately consider public comments, and determine
how the interests of Montgomery County citizens can be best represented before our local
government. The political characteristics of different regions of the County may not be the
same. In a democracy, these distinctions should not be squelched but rather should be given a
voice in our political institutions.
19
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Appendix A
Appendix A: Commission meeting dates
February 17,2011
March 31,2011
April 28, 2011
May 26, 2011
August 11, 2011
September 1,2011 - Public Forum
September 9,2011
Public Forum
A-I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Appendix B
Appendix B: Charter Provisions Concerning Redistricting
Sec. 103. Council Districts.
Montgomery County shall be divided into five. Council districts for the purpose of nominating
and electing five members of the Council. Each district shall be compact in form and be
composed of adjoining territory. Populations of the Council districts shall be substantially equal.
Sec. 104. Redistricting Procedure.
The boundaries of Council districts shall be reviewed in 1972 and every tenth year thereafter.
Whenever district boundaries are to be reviewed, the Council shall appoint, not later than
February 1 of the year before the year in which redistricting is to take effect, a commission on
redistricting. The Commission shall be composed of four members from each political party
chosen from a list of eight individuals submitted by the central committee of each political party
which polled at least fifteen percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for the Council in the
last preceding regular election. Each list shall include at least one individual who resides in each
Council district. The Council shall appoint one additional member of the Commission. The
Commission shall include at least one member who resides in each Council district, and the
number of members of the Commission who reside in the same Council district shall not exceed
the number of political parties which submitted a list to the Council. The Commission shall, at its
first meeting, select one of its members to serve as its chair. No person who holds any elected
office shall be eligible for appointment to the Commission.
By November 15 of the year before the year in which redistricting is to take effect, the
Commission shall present a plan of Council districts, together with a report explaining it, to the
Council. Within thirty days after receiving the plan of the Commission, the Council shall hold a
public hearing on the plan. If within ninety days after presentation of the Commission's plan no
other law reestablishing the boundaries of the Council districts has been enacted, then the plan,
as submitted, shall become law.
B-1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Appendix C
Isiah Leggett
. County Executive
Marc P _Hansen
County Attorney
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY A TIORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO;
FROM:
Redistricting Commission Members
Erin
J_
Ashbarry.
Assistant County
A
orney
March
24,2011
~
-r
~,,~.~
(\
\\
U
DATE:
RE:
Legal Issues
L
2.
3.
4.
5.
in
Redistricting:
Traditional Districting
Criteria
Substantially
Equal Population:
One Person, One
Vote
The Voting Rights Act
of 1965
Equal Protection Clause and Racial Gerrymandering
Equal Protection Clause and Political Gerrymandering
This memo's purpose is to provide the Commission with a legal road map of its duties.
1
The County Charter's requirements for Council districts are terse: the Commission must create
five districts that are (or review the present districts to assure they remain):
(1)
compact
in
form,
(2) composed of adjoining territory, and (3) substantially equal in population.
2
Council districts the Commission creates must also comply
with
federal Jaws mandating
equality
in
voting: the 14th and
15
th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights
Act. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause mandates that electoral districts be of
nearly equal population so that each person's vote ha'i equal weight in the election oftheir
representative.
3
The Equal Protection Clause also prohibits ,using race as the predominant factor
llbis memorandum is an update to one prepared
by
Edward Lattner, Associate County Attorney, for the
Redistricting Commission in 200 I.
2
S~tion
lQ3 of the Montgomery County Cbarter.states: "Montgomery County shall be divided into five Council
districts for the purpose ofnominating and electing five members ofthe Council. Each district shall be compact
in
form and be composed of adjoining territory. Populations of the cquncil districts shall be sUbstantially equal."
3
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution states, "no State shall ... deny
to any
person within
its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
See also Voinovich
v.
Quilter,
507 U.S. 146,
160-61 (1993).
.
(240) 777-2983
0
10 I Monroe
Third Floor, Rockvill.e, Maryland
20850-2580
I'm
(240) 777-2545 " fA..X (240) 777-67050 crin.ashbarrY,:@lllomgollleryCQUnlyrr:d.gov
C-1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March 24,2011
Page 2
in
districting to intentionally segregate voters based upon their race and lessen the weight of their
vote. .The 15
~endrne~t
oft:he U.S.
Constituti~n
also prohibits abridging the right to
v~te
on
the baSIS ofrace. The Votmg Rights Act, enacted
ill
1965 to enforce the 15 Amendment,
prohibits the denial, on the basis ofrace or colot, of the equal opportunity to participate in the
political process and elect candidates of their choice.
4
th
As you create the five districts that are compact
in
form, composed of adjoining
territory~
and substantially equal in population, you must be solicitous of the Voting Rights Act's
prohibition against voting procedures have the purpose or effect of abridging the right to vote
based on race, but mindful of the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition against intentionally
segregating voters based upon race.
I.
TR<\DlTIONALDISTRICTING CRITERlA: COMPACTNESS, CONTIGUITY, AND OTHERS
Over the years, the courts have identified a number ofvalid considerations when drawing
districts. These include: (1) compactness, (2) contiguity, (3) respect for political subdivisions,
(4) community shared interests, (5) geography, and even (6) avoiding contests between
incumbents or protection of incumbency.
7
Two of these considerations are mandatory under our
Charter: compactness and contiguity. These two factors are intended to prevent political
gerrymandering.
8
A.
Compactness
When reviewing our Charter's compactness requirement, the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals looked to cases construing an identical compactness requirement in the State
Constitution.
9
.1
See Bushv.
Vera,
517 U.S. 952, 959 (1996);
Shaw
v. Reno, 509
U.S. 630, 641-643 (1993).
5
The Fifteenth Amendment states, ""The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account ofrace, color, or previous condition of servitude."
See In re Legislative Redistricting oftheState, 370
Mci 312, 326 n.8 (2002).
6
7
see
Miller
v. Johnson,
515 U.S. 900,916 (1995);
Abrams v, Johnson,
521 U.S. 74,98 (1997).
SIn re Legislative Districting,
299 Md.
658,675
(198:2). The term gerrymander "was given birth in 1812 following
a
cartoonist's
drawing
of a Ma'lsachusetts legislative district that he described as appearing like a 'salamander.'
An
astute observer suggested that the district
might
more propcrly be described as a 'gerrymander' after
then
Governor
of Massachusetts Eldridge Gerry who had a role, albeit
a
minor one, thc construction oftne district."
In re
Legislative Districting,
299 Md. at 676
TI.
8.
9
Ajamian v. }v'[ontgomery County,
99 Md. App. 665, 690 (1994).
Art.
III,
§
4 of the Maryland Constitutionrcquires
that "[eJach [state] legislative dist..--ict shall ... be compact
ill
form."
C-2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March 24, 2011
Page 3
[,I1he ideal of compactness, in geometric terms, is a circle, with the perimeter of a
district equidistant from its center. With the possible exception
of
Colorado,
however, no jurisdiction has defined or applied the compactness requirement
in
geometric terms. On the contrary> most jurisdictions have concluded that the
constitutional compactness requirement,
in
a state legislative redistricting context,
10
is a relative rather than an absolute standard.
Compactness is a requirement for a close union of territory rather than a requirement
dependent upon a district being ofany particular shape or
size.
But it
1S
subservient to the
federal constitutional requirement of substantial equality of population among districts.
II
B.
ContiguitY
Like our Charter, the State Constitution also has a contiguity requirement
12
'"The
contiguity requirement mandates that there be no division between one part of a district's
territory and the rest ofthe district; in other words, contiguous territory is territory touching,
adjoining and connected, as distinguished from territory separated by other territory."n
Contiguity is also subservient to the federal constitutional requirement of equality of
popUlation among districts.
14
ll.
SUBSTANTW,LyEQUALPOPULATION:
ONE PERSON,
ONE
VOTE
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that state and local
districts assure that one citizen's vote is approximately equal in weight to that of every other
citizen, also known as the <'one person, one vote" principle, This means that the goverrunent
must give each qualified voter an equal opportunity to participate in an election,
"and
when
members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established
on a basis that will ensure, as far as is practicable, that equal number of voters cail vote for
to
In re Legislative Distiicting,
299
Md.
658,
676
(1982)
n
See In re Legislative Distrir..1ing,
299
Md. 658,680 n.14
(1982).
Art. IU,
§
4 of the Maryland Constitution states that "[e]ach (state]
legislative
district
shan
consist
of
adjoining
territory."
l2
13
In re Legislative Districting,
299 Md. 653,675 (1982).
See In re
Legislative Dis/ricting,
299 Md. 658,680 (1982).
14
C-3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March 24,
2011
Page 4
proportionally equal numbers of officials."l5
Over time, the courts have established a fOITImla for analyzing the "maximum population
deviation"
~o~!f
districts for legislatively-enacted
.redi~trictin~p~ans
for.
s~~e
or local
representahves. The court first creates a hypothetIcal Ideal distnct by divldmg the total
population
17
of the political unit (state, city, or county) by the total number of district-elected
representatives who serve that population (in our case, that nUn:I.ber is
5).
Then the court adds
together the percentage population variation of the largest and smallest district
in
comparison to
the ideal district.
If
that figure is under 10% the court regards the difference
80S
de minimis
and is
unlikely to find an Equal Protection violation. If that figure is over 10% the court regards the
difference a<; presumptively invalid and the government must provide substantial justification to
sustain the plan.
IS
Finally, there is a level of popUlation disparity beyond which the goverrnnent
can offer no possible justification. Although it is not clear precisely what that upper level is, the
Supreme Court has stated that a maximum deviation of 16.4% "may well approach tolerable
limits.
,,19
The Commission should strive to create districts which meet the formula described
above.
In
our case, the hypothetical ideal db1:rict is the total county population divided by
5.
The sum of the percentage variation of the largest and smallest district in
cqmparisoTI
to that
ideal district should be under 10%.
15
Hadley v. Junior College Dist. ofMetro. Kansas City,
397U.S. 50,56 (970).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized
that
congressional apportionment plans, which are tested under Art.
I, §
2
of the United States Constitution, are subject to stricter standards of population equality
than
are state or local
legislative districting plans, which are tested under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See
Daly
Y.
Hunt,
93 F.3d 1212,1216 n.S (4'" Cir. 1996) .. Court ordered apportionment plans must also meet morc.
exacting standards.
See
id.
at 1217 n.7
16
17
The
courts have often used
total
population
as the
pertinent
~easure
rather than voting-age population. The
use
of
total population advances "representational equality," ensuring "that all constituents, whether or not they are eligible
to vote, have roughly equal access to their elected representatives to voice their opinions or otherwise to advance
their interests."
Daly
v.
Hunt,
93 F.3d 1212, 1223
(4;11
Cir. 1996). The use of voting age population advances
"electoral equality," ensuring "that, regardle!>"5 of me size of the whole body of constituents, political power,
as
defined by the number of those eligible to vote, is equalized as between districts holding the same number of
representatives.
It
also assures that those eligible to vote do not suffer dilution of that important right by having
their vote given less weight than that of electors in another location."
Id.
18
See Daly v. Hunt,
93 F.3d 1212, 1217-18 (4
m
Cir. 1996). Unlike a
§
2 Voting Rights Act
case
(described below),
the plaintiff need not demonstrate that
the
mal apportionment actually lessened
his
ability to participate
in
the
political process or to receive equally effective access to an elected representative. The harm is presumed in one
person, one Vote cases.
1<)
Mahan
v.
Howell,
410 U.S.3l5, 329 (1973).
C-4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Reclistricting Commission Members
March 24,2011
PageS
'
111.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF
1965
While creating districts substantially equal in population, the Commission must be aware
of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965,20
which prohibits any law or practice which
results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based upon race?l A plaintiff can establish
a violation of Section 2 by proving that
based on the totality of circumstances, ... the political processes leading to
nomination or election in the .. ; political subdivision are not equally open to
participation by members of a [protected minority]
in
that its members have less
opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political
process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members
of [the minority] have been elected to office
in
the State or political subdivision is
one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this
section establishes a right to have members of a [minority] protected c1a..'>s elected
in numbers equal to their proportion in the population?2
Taken as a whole, Section 2 "prohibits any practice or procedure that, 'interacting with
social and historical conditions: impairs the ability of a protected class to elect its.candidate of
choice on an equal basis
wi1l1
other voters.,,23
Opportunity is the touchstone underSection
2;
the statute only protects the plaintiffs'
right to equal opportunity or equal access to the political process?4 It does not entitle any of the
protected classes to be represented
by
a member ofits own group.Z5 Under the statute, no group
2Q
42 U.S.C.
§
1973.
Another
provision.,
SectionS
ofthe Voting
Rights Act, 42 US.C.
§
1973c,
provides
a
mechanism
to oversee proposed
changes
to
districting schemes
or electoral structures
in
"covered jurisdictions"
states or counties that had, as of certain dates, maintained voting "tests or devices" serving to disenfranchise
minority voters, These are principally states
from
the De.ep South, but also include Alaska and
c;ollllties
11l New
York and California Montgomery County, Maryland is not a covered jurisdiction.
Prior to a 1982 amenciment,a plaintitIhadto prove discriminatory intent. Now, a Section.2pJaintiffneednot
prove that
the
challenged law
Wa:..<;
enacted
with:
a racially
discriminatory intent,
but only that the law has a
discriminatory result.
Thornburg
v;
Gingles;
478 U.S, 30,43-44 (1986).
21
12
42
U.S.c.
§
1973(b)
(emphasis added).
23
Voinavich v. Quilter,
507 U.S. 146, 153 (1993).
See Johnson)t. De Grandy,
5.12
U.S.
997
(1994).
24
• 25
Lodge v. Buxton,
639 F.2d 1358,
1374
(5
th
Cir. 19&2),
affd sub nom., Rogers v. Lodge,
45&
U.S. 613,624-26.
(1982).
C-s
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March 24, 2011
Page
6
has a right to electoral victory.26
rnthe same
vein,
the
statute also does not entitle any group of
persons to have their political clout maximized?7
The opportunity to participate
in
the political process is atLfected when a minority group's
voice at the polls is diluted "either by the dispersal of [a minority group] into districts in which
they constitute an ineffective minority of voters or from the concentration of [the minority group]
into districts where they constitute
an
excessive majority.,,28 Thus, plaintiffs may successfully
challenge districting
~hms
under Section
2
on the grounds that the district lines
as
drawn diluted
their voting strength.
9
,
As described below, courts interpreting Section 2 review many factors to analyze whether
the right to equal opportunity or access to the political process is impaired.
A.
The Three
Preconditions to
Suit Under Section 2 Of The Voting Rights
Act
To establish a Section
2
violation, a minority group must establish the existence of three
threshold conditions: 1) the minority group must be "sufficiently large and geographically
compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district";
2)
the minority group must be able
to show that
it
is
~'political1y
cohesive"; and 3) the majority "votes sufficiently
as
a bloc to enable
it. ..
usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.,,3o The plaintiffs' failure to.sustain
their burden of proof on anyone of these three factors is fatal to their case because?
in
their
absence, the court cannot consider the structure or device being discharged to be the cause of the
minority's inability to elect its preferred candidate.
31
26
See Whitcomb v. Chavis,
403 U.S. 124,153-55 (I971).
27
See
Bartlettv. Strickland.
2009 U.S. LEXIS 18422&,129
S.
Ct. 1231, 1243 (2009);
Johnson v. De Grandy,
512
U.S. 997 (1994).
VoinOllich v.
QUilter,
507
U.S.
146,
154 (1993).
28
29
See, e.g, League ofUnited Latin American Citizens v. Perry,
548 U.S. 299 (2006) (finding portion ofTexas
redistricting plan violated Section 2 of Voting Rights Act because it diluted voting strength of minorities).
30
See also League a/United Latin American Citizens
v:
548
U.S,
399, 425 (2006) (citing
Thornburg
v.
Gingles,
47& U.S. 30, 50-51 (1986»). Although these preconditions apply
in
cases which attack purely at-large,
mixed at-large/district, and purely district systems,
Growe
v.
Emison,
507 U.S. 25,40 (l99J),the proof
win
vary in
each case. For example, with regard to the
first
factor,
if
plaintiffs are challenging the use of a multimember (at­
large) district, they will have to show that
"within
each contested multimember district there
exist,>
a minority group
that is sufficiently large and compact to constitute a single-member district."
Thornburg,
478
U.S:
at 50 n.16.
On
the
other
hand, plaintiffs
challenging
a
single-member districting
plan
"'might allege that the minority
group
is
sufficiently large and compact to constitute a single-member district that has been split between two or more ...
single-member diStricts,
with
the effect of diluting the potential strength of the minority vote.
Jd
31
See Ihornburgv.
Gingles,
478
U.S.
30,48-51
(1986).
C-6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March
24,2011
Page?
B.
The "Totality
of
the Circumstances"
Test:
'Factors Reviewed by
Courts to
Decide Whether Members of a Minority Group Have Less
Opportunity To
Participate
In
The Political Process Than Others
A plaintiff's satisfaction ofthe three "necessary preconditions" does not, by itself, prove
a Section
2
violation. Under the statute, a plaintiff still has the burden ofproving, "based on the
totality of circumstances," the challenged electoral practice
or.
structure results in an electoral
system that is not eqllaUy open to participation by members of the plaintiff's class. Plaintiff
must show that members of plaintiffs class have less opportunity
than
other members of the
electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice?2 The
statute itself identifies only «one circumstance which may be considered" the extent to which
minorities are elected over time to determine whether a district plan prohibits participation by a
group or class. Over time,
in
interpreting the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has
id~ntified
many other factors as relevant for a court to review in a Section
2
claim.
L
The Senate Factors
The Supreme Court reviews the following factors, identified by the Senate in
1982
when
it amended Section
2,
to detennine wbether apolitical process is open to participation by
minorities:
1.
Any
h~story
of discri:miI;Lation touching the right to register, vote, or otherwise
participate in the democratic process;
2.
The
extent of any racially polarized voting;
3.
Tne use of any election devices
(e.g,
majority vote requirements) which may lead
to discrimination against minorities;
Evidence of exclusion ofminorities from candidate slating procedures;
The extent to which the socioeconomic effects of past discrimination affect the
ability of minorities to participate
in
the democratic process;
Whether campaigns have been characterized
by
overt or subtle racial appeal; and
The extent to which members ofthe mL'1ority group have been elected to public
4.
5.
6.
7.
~"Z
See
Johnson
v,
De Grandy,
512 D-S. 997,
tot
1-12 (1994).
C-7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March 24, 2011
Page 8
office in the jurisdiction.
Two other factors with some "prohative value" are:
1.
Whether there is a significant lack ofresponsiveness on the part of elected
officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group; and
Whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision s use
of
such
voting qualification, pre-requisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure
is
tenuous.
33
2.
There is no requirement that any particular number offactoTs be proved or that a majority
of them point one way or another.
2.
The
Causation Factor
Courts may also consider evidence as to whether race-neutral reasons caused a lack of
electoral success for minority groups. Courts have held that plaintiffs cannot prevail on a
Section 2 claim
if
there is significant probative evidence that whites voted
a<;
a bloc for reasons
unrelated to racial animus or racial antagonism (for example, party affiliation, organizational
disarray, lack of funds, etc.).34
In
other words, a minority's lack of succesS in an election may be
due to race-neutral reasons and not because ofa lack ofminority opportunity to participate that
is
the hallmark of a Section 2 violation.
3.
The Proportionality Factor
Another relevant consideration is whether the number of districts in which the minority
group forms an effective majority is roughly proportional to its share of the population in the
relevant area.
35
Although "proportionality" or "rough proportionality" is not a "safe harbor" for
defendants, the Supreme Court has recognized that it is
a
strong indication that minority voters
have equal opportunity
"to
participate in the political process and elect representative of their
choice.,,36
S. Rep. No. 417 at 28-29 (footnotes. omitted),
reprinted
in,
1982 U.S. Code
Congo
&
Admin. News.
(2d
sess.) at
JJ
206-207.
34
.
See Goosby
11,
Town Bd. o/Town ofHempstead, NY.,
180 F.3d 476,493 (2d
CiT.
1999);
Una
v.
City ofHolyoke,
72 F.3d 973, 981-83
&
986-87 (1
st
Cir. 1995).
35
See League ofUnited Latin
American
Citizens
'y.
Perry,
548
U.S.
399,426 (2006).
SeeJohnsonv. De Grandy,
512 U.S. 997,
1019~20
(1994).
36
C-8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March 24, 2011
Page 9
4.
The "Packing'" or "Cracking" of the Minority Vote
"Packing" and "cracking" can also be factors relevant to the "totality ofllie
circumstances" analysis of a Section 2 claim. "Packing" occurs when politically cohesive
minority voters are concentrated within a district to create a super-majority,
in
a situation where
their numbers are large enough to constitute a majority to two or more districts. At the other end
of the spectrum is "cracking" or tcfragmenting;" this is when minority voters are spread out over
several districfs so they do not amount to a majority to anyone district Packingalld cracking
have legal significance in that they dilute the vote of minority voters and deprive them of the
equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect the candidates of their choice.
3?
IV.
EQUAL
PROTECTION
CLAUSE
Al'lD
RACIAL GERRYMANDERING
Where governments feel pressure under Section 2 to create majority-minority districts to
ensure minority voters may elect a candidate on an equal basis with other voters, governments
must be wary of the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition against intentionally segregating
voters based upon race. Ine following roles have emerged through a series ofSupreme Court
cases.
38
The government may consider race as a factor in districting, but.it cannot be the
predominant motivating factor.
If
race is the predominant motivating factor, the court will
subject the plan to "strict scrutiny" and require
the
government to demonstrate a compelling
government interest to support its predominant consideration ofrace. The government may
subordinate traditional districting criteria (discussed above) to race om y
if
there is a compelling
governmental interest.
Compliance
with
Section 2 is a compelling governmental interest (allowing predominant
consideration of race), but the government must have strong evidence that Section 2 liabi1ity is
present. (In
other
words.
the government must have strong evidencethat a minority group could
establish the three preconditions to a Section 2 violation and under the totality of the
circumstances, their opportunity to participate is not equal to other groups.)
Even then, the govemment must narrowly tailor its plan - race may not be a
predominant factor substantially more than reasonably necessary to avoid Section 2 liability.
For example, districts must still be reasonably compact because Section 2 does not require the
government to create districts thaLare not reasonably COmpact. On the other hand,
Ii
district
See Voinovich
v.
Quilter,
50-7 U.S. 146, 153-L54 (1993).
37
38
See
Huntv. Cromartie,
526 U.S. 541
(1999);
Shmvv.
Hunt
(Shaw
11),
517
US
899 (1996);
Busnv.
Vera,
517
U.S. 952 (1996);
Milll!.r
v.
Johnson,
515 U.S. 900 (1995); and
Shaw v. Reno (Shaw
f),
509 U.S. 630 (1993).
C-9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Redistricting Commission Members
March 24, 2011
Page 10
created need not be the most compact (need not have the least
arnOUiJ.t
ofirregularity) to be least
restrictive alternative.
v.
EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE
AND
POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING
The Supreme Court has recognized that political gerrymandermg may rise to the level of
a deprivation of equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
39 .
But the burden on a pLaintiff in such a case is very high. In order to prevail on
such a claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate not only that the party that controlled the districting
process (1) intentionally designed the apportionment plan so as to disadvantage the. opposing
party, but also that (2) there has been a disadvantage or actual discriminatory effect to the
plaintiff party
in
that the challenged scheme effectively shut plaintiff's party out of the political
40
process. A single election result will not suffice to prove the second element of such a claim.
4l
39'
Davis v. Bandemer,
478 U.S. 109, 127, 139
(l986)~Duckworth
Y.
State Board ofElections,
213
F.Supp.3d
543,
557
CD.
Md. 2002}.
40 The Supreme Court's decisions on political gerrymandering are fraught with disagreement over whether
constitutional chalJenges to political gerrym:andering present a Jegal issue or
a
'5usticiable claim"
for
the Court,
or whether
it
is a "political question," or an issue best left for resolution by
the
political branch ofgoveri1ment.
In
1986,
the Supreme Court decided
in
Davis v. Bandemer
that political gel1")'rnandering could
violate the
equal protection clause
of
the
14th
Amendment, but the portion
of
the opinion articulating the standards
for
review
of
a political gerrymander claim was a "plurality" opinion --only four of the nine justices agreed
in
the standards for a
claim.
See. Davis,
478 U.S.
at
127.
Plurality opinions do not have the same binding effect as a decision issued with
the support of the maJority of the Court.
In
2004, Justice Scalia, writing what
was
a
plurality opinion, stated that
DaVis
v.
Bandemer
should be
overruled and that constitutional challenges to
d~tricting
plans based upon claims of political gerrymander should
not be heard by courts.
See Vieth v.Jubelirer,
541 U.S. 267, 306 (2004). Justice Scalia argued that the
Davis
standards under which apolitical gerrymandering claim could succeed wereumnanageable
in
application: in the
18
years since the
Davis
case, no one successfully obtained judicial relief
in
a claim that
a
political gerrymander was
unconstitutionaL
teL
at 280-81;
ieL
at
306
(stating that
Davis
has resulted
in
1
&years
of "essentially pointless
litigation").
His
opinion
was
not joined
by
a majority
of
the
court and
therefore
does
not
bave
effect
upon
subsequent claims.
See Vieth,
541 U.S. at
306.
Two
years later,
in
2006,
the Court revisited the
issue
of political gerrymandering
in
another plurality
opinion that found no constitutional violation due to alleged political gerrymandering.
See League ofUnited Latin
American Citizens
v.
Perry,
54& U.S. 399, 423
(2006).
A majority of
the
justices agreed
in
the finding ofno
constitutional violation, but a majority could not be reached
as
to the appropriate test to be applied in deciding
whether
a
political gerrymander
is
unconstitutional.
See id
.
In
the absence of majority agreement
on
the Supreme Court
as
10
what standards apply in
a
political
gerrymandering claim, the Commission should view the standards articulated in
Davis
v.
Bandemer
(intentional
discrimination and inability to participate), as the appropriate test, as at least two Maryland federal
district
courts
have used the
Davis
test to resolve claims of unconstitutional political gerrymander.
See Duckworth
v.
State Boqrd
ofElections,
213
F.Supp.2d 543
(D.
Md.
2002);
Marylanders/or Fair Representation,
Inc.
v.
Schaefer,
849 F.S:upp.
1022
(D.
Md.
1994).
41
See Duckworth v. Slate Board afElections,
213 F.Supp. 2d 543,
556 (D.
Md. 2002);
MalJ.:landersfor
Fair
Representation, Inc.
v.
Schaefer,
849
F.Supp. 1022,1038-43 (D. Md.
1994).
10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
INDICATORS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROGRESS
January
2011
montgomery county population
b
y
c
0
u n c
i
I dis t r
j
c t
5,
2 0 1 0
Montgomery County's
decode, to total 971
gained almost 100,000 people, or 1 1,3 percent, in the last
The County's population grew more diverse over the last
council District 2 hadthehighesttotal population (214,315) and the
great,esti, ncrease(20.5 percent) between 2000 and 2010.Germantown
I
.
.
'
'.
and Clarksburg, two of the County's fastest-growing communities,
accounted for 86 percent of the district's population increase.
decode, becoming a majority minority county for the first time. The five Council Districts reflect
the increasing diversity that characterizes Montgomery County in 2010.
~\
'f
c
r'
N
(
Ie,
Council District 2 hod the highest tolal population (214,315) and the greatest increase
(20,5 percent), gaining 36,469 people between 2000 and 2010. Germantown and
Clarksburg, two of the County's fastest-growing communities, accounted for 86 percenl
of the population increase,
Population growth in the cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg fueled the 14.3 percenl gain
Council District 3, to tolal 197,661 people in 2010.
Council District 4 gained 16,051 people over the decade, totaling 189,652 in 2010, a
9.2 percent gain.
Council Districts 1 and 5 each grew by about 6 percent. District 1 gained 10,906
10
total
185,462; District 5, the county's least populated district, gained 10,219 people to reach
184,687 residents.
V
~
o
LJ
1'-1
1L D I
T RIC
P0
U
J\
T I 0 I, C H
t\
I~
G
E.
2
0
<)
0
2
CJ
1
0
<
Council Districts
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
DistrictS
Total
20'00
174,556
177,846
172,870
173,601
174,468
873,341
%
oftotal
20.0%
20.4%
19,8%
19.9%
20.0%
100.0%
, Total Population
2010
185,462
214,315
197,661
189,652
184,687
971,777
%
of IotaI
19,1%
22,1%
20,3%
19,5%
19.0%
100.0%
Gain
2000·2010
%
of change
6,2%
Perce"t Change in Popolatlon
10,906
36,469
24,791
16,051
10,219
98,436
20.5%
14,3%
9,2%
_?i~~4:'~~~:.~~_
5.9%
11.3%
C~~tJ$ R~j,~!fdl'\g
0,:..
&.
fur keliii,,'oeh
ifjf}(I>\.l1Q".
S,$~'f'S Y·NCI-'~'G
t
• District boundaries established 2001
Source: Census 2010 Redistricting Doto (Public Law 94-l7Z),
U.s,
Census 8ureau;
prepared
by
Montgomery County Planning Department, M·NCPPC.
~
g
~.
,. -]I
_
MOiltgOlf!81
Y
N\onttmn:
V
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
i
N C HAN G E WIT H I 1'>1 C 0
POPUL
11
:2.
0 0 0-2 [) 1 0
lj
N
II
1ST RIC
BYR
[:,
• Minorities (all
identifying themselves as other than non-Hispanic white) make up at
least half of the population in each district except for Council District 1,
Council District
5
has the highest percentage of minorities
(113,314
or
61 .4
while Council District
4
has the highest number of minorities
4,576
or
60.4
Hispanic or Latino origin, the county's fastest-growing group, became the
largest minority in
2010,
About
29
percent of all Hispanics in the county live in Council
District
5,
which has the greatest number of Latinos
(47,077)
among the districts,
Council Districts
2,
3 and
4
each have more than
33,000
Hispanics, comprising
16
to
18
percent of each area's population, Hispanics are the second largest minority group in
Council District
1,
with
13,869
people or
7.5
percent of the area's population,
• Blocks make up
16,6
percent of the county's population and predominately reside in the
eastern part of the county, Council District
4
has
48,342
black residents, or
25,5
percent
of the population; Council District
5
has
45,281
black residents, comprising
24.5
District
3
has the highest number
(40,972)
and the highest percentage of Asians
(20.7
percent) among all the Council Districts, The percentage of Asians living in Council
Districts
1, 2,
and
4
range from
12
percent to
14.7
percent, which is dose to the
13.9
percent found countywide, Council District
5
has the lowest concentration -
15,137
Asians or
8,2
percent.
Council Districts
Change in Number
Hispanic
White
Black
Asian
Other
Pop. increase
Dlstricll
Dislrlct2
Dlslricl3
District 4
DistrictS
County Tolal
Percent Change
3,693
19,780
12,651
17,207
11,463
64,794
(1,758)
(14,730)
(5,327)
(15,143)
(3,595)
(40,553)
1,979
13,547
4,526
10,443
1,823
32,318
5,612
15,684
11,591
2,773
812
36,472
1,380
2,188
1,350
10,906
36,469
24,791
16,051
10,219
98,436
771
(284)
5,405
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
Total
36,3%
143.9%
54,7%
95,9%
32,2%
64.4%
.1.3%
·12,2%
·5,6%
-16,8%
-4,8%
·7,8%
33.5%
59.2%
23.5%
27.6%
4,2%
25,0%
33,6%
98.7%
39.5%
12.4%
5.7%
37,0%
35.0%
43.9%
26,2%
14.8%
-4,7%
21.3%
6,2%
20,5%
14,3%
9,2%
5,9%
11.3%
• District boundaries established 2001
Source: Census 2010 Redistricting Dato (Public Law
94-171),
U.s. Census Bureau;
prepored by Montgomery County Planning Department, M·NCPPC.
t1
I
l\.)
" ! , I \ ..
II [; I"
<
I "
"
y
r'
L
I~,
,-
C
I
f
I:: T
I
2
Council. Districts
2010 Data
Total Population
Minority Population
Hispanic or Latino
Black
Asian
&
PaCific Islander
Other Race
Total
White Population
• District boundaries established 2001
Source: Census 2010 Redistricting Dota (Public Low
94·171),
U.s, Census Bureou; prepared by Montgomery County Planning Deportment, M·NCPPC,
District 1
Population
185,462
%
100,0%
DistriCt 2
Population
'10'
100,0%
District 3
Population
197,661
%
100,0%
Qistric14
Population
189,652
'10
100%
Distric15
.Population
184,68.
%
100,0%
Total
971,777
Percent
100%
I
214,315
13,869
7,887
22,339
5,319
49,414
136,048
7,5%
4.3%
12,0%
2,9%
26,6%
33,525
36,422
31,572
7,176
108,695
105,620
15,6%
17,0%
14,7%
3,3%
50.7%
49.3%
35,775
23,757
40,972
6,509
107013
90,648
18,1%
12%
20,7%
3,3%
54.1%
45.9%
35,152
48,342
25,084
5,998
114,576
75,076
18,5%
25,5%
13,2%
3.2%
60.4%
39,6%
47,07.
45,28'
15,13.
5,8H
113,31'
71,37:
25,5%
24,5%
8,2%
3.2%
61.4%
38,6%
165,398
161,689
135,104
30,821
493,012
478,765
17,0%
16,6%
13,9%
3.2%
50.7%
49,3%
73.4%
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
31-11
Concerning: Council
Districts
Boundaries
Revised: 9/30/2011
Draft No._1_
Introduced:
October 4, 2011
Expires:
April 4, 2013
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By:
Council President Ervin
AN ACT
to revise the boundaries of Council districts.
By
amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 16, Elections
Section 16-2
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 31-11
1
Sec.
1.
Section 16-2 is amended as follows:
16-2. Boundaries of Council districts.
2
3
4
The boundaries of the 5 Council districts required under Section 103 of the
County Charter are as follows.
5
[District
1:
The southern boundary of District 1 begins at the junction of the
boundary lines of Montgomery County (Maryland), the District of Columbia, and
Fairfax County (Virginia); then northwesterly along the boundary line of
Montgomery County and Fairfax County to a point on a line of prolongation from
Muddy Branch; then north along said line of prolongation, crossing the Potomac
River and circumscribing around the northwestern end of Watkins Island to Muddy
Branch; then meandering northerly and easterly along the center line of Muddy
Branch to its intersection with Turkey Foot Road; then easterly along the center line
of Turkey Foot Road to its junction with Travilah Road; then northeasterly along the
center line of Travilah Road to its junction with Piney Meetinghouse Road; then
southerly along the center line of Piney Meetinghouse Road to its intersection with
the right-of-way of the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEP CO) power line; then
easterly along the center line of the PEPCa right-of-way to its intersection with
Watts Branch; then meandering northeasterly along the center line of Watts Branch
to its intersection with the southern municipal boundary line of the City of Rockville;
then southeasterly along the southern municipal boundary line to its junction with the
center line of Falls Road; then southerly along the center line of Falls Road to its
intersection with the southern municipal boundary line of the City of Rockville; then
southeasterly and northeasterly along the municipal boundary line of the City of
Rockville to its junction with the center line of Seven Locks Road; then southerly
along the center line of Seven Locks Road to its intersection with the center line of
Montrose Road; then east along the center line of Montrose Road to its junction with
the municipal boundary line of the City of Rockville east of Wilmart Street; then
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 31-11
28
northerly and easterly along the municipal boundary line to the center line of East
Jefferson Street; then north along the center line of East Jefferson Street to the
municipal boundary line of the City of Rockville; then easterly along the municipal
boundary line to the center line of Rockville Pike (Md. Route 355); then
northwesterly along the center line of Rockville Pike to its intersection with Halpine
Road; then northeasterly along the center line of Halpine Road to a point on a line of
prolongation from Fishers Lane; then easterly along said line of prolongation to
Fishers Lane; then easterly along the center line of Fishers Lane to its junction with
the western boundary line of Parklawn Cemetery; then following the
western~
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
southern and eastern boundary lines to the junction with the Rock Creek Park
boundary line; then east,
south~
38
39
40
and again east, along the Rock Creek Park boundary
line, and east on a line of prolongation from the Rock Creek Park boundary line to
Rock Creek at a point opposite to Edgebrook Road; then meandering southeasterly
along the center line of Rock Creek to its intersection with the boundary line of
Montgomery County and the District of Columbia; then southwest along said
boundary line to its junction with the boundary lines of Montgomery County, the
District of Columbia and Fairfax County, the point of beginning.]
41
42
43
44
45
46
[District
2:
The southwestern boundary of District 2 begins at the confluence
of Muddy Branch with the Potomac River; then continuing south along a line of
prolongation from Muddy Branch across the Potomac River and circumscribing
around the northwestern end of Watkins Island, to the boundary line of Montgomery
County and Fairfax County; then northwesterly and northeasterly along said
boundary
line~
continuing as the boundary line of Montgomery County and Loudoun
County (Virginia), to its junction with the boundary line of Montgomery County and
Frederick County (Maryland); then northeast along said boundary line, continuing as
the boundary line of Montgomery County and Carroll County (Maryland) to its
convergence with the boundary line of Montgomery County and Howard County
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 31-11
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
(Maryland); then southwesterly and southeasterly along the boundary line of
Montgomery County and Howard County to its intersection with Georgia Avenue
(Md. Route 97); then southerly along the center line of Georgia Avenue to the
municipal boundary line of Brookeville; then northerly, easterly and southerly along
the municipal boundary to the center line of Brighton Dam Road; then easterly and
northeasterly along the center line of Brighton Dam Road to its intersection with the
center line of Hawlings River, then meandering southerly along the center line of
Hawlings River to its intersection with the center line of Gold Mine Road; then
northeasterly along the center line of Gold Mine Road to its junction with the center
line of New Hampshire Avenue (Md. Route 650); then southeasterly along the center
line of New Hampshire Avenue to its junction with the center line of Brooke Road;
then southwest and southeast along the center line of Brooke Road to its intersection
with the center line of Olney-Sandy Spring Road (Md. Route 108); then southwest
and northwest along the center line of Olney-Sandy Spring Road to its junction with
the center line of Old Baltimore Road; then south and westerly along the center line
of Old Baltimore Road to its junction with the center line of Georgia Avenue; then
southerly along the center line of Georgia Avenue to its junction with the center line
of Emory Lane; then westerly along the center line of Emory Lane to its junction
with the center line of Cashell Road; then northwesterly along the center line of
Cashell Road to its junction with the center line of Bowie Mill Road; then
northeasterly along the center line of Bowie Mill Road to its junction with the center
line of Olney-Laytonsville Road (Md. Route 108); then northwesterly along the
center line of Olney-Laytonsville Road to its junction with the center line of
Muncaster Road; then southwesterly along the center line of Muncaster Road to its
junction with the center line of Muncaster Mill Road (Md. Route 115); then
northwesterly along the center line of Muncaster Mill Road, continuing as Snouffer
School Road at Woodfield Road (Md. Route 124), to its intersection with the center
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 31-11
82
line of Goshen Road; then south along the center line of Goshen Road to its junction
with the center line of Odend'hal Avenue; then westerly along the center line of
Odend'hal Avenue to its intersection with the southwest side of Lost Knife Road;
then northwesterly along the southwest side of Lost Knife Road to its junction with
the center line of Montgomery Village Avenue; then southwesterly along the center
line of Montgomery Village Avenue to its intersection with the municipal boundary
line of the City of Gaithersburg; then westerly, northerly, and northwesterly along the
municipal boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Watkins Mill Road;
then northeasterly along the center line of Watkins Mill Road to its intersection with
a northern municipal boundary line of the City of Gaithersburg; then northwesterly,
southwesterly, westerly, southerly, and again northwesterly along the municipal
boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Game Preserve Road; then
southerly along the center line of Game Preserve Road to its intersection with the
center line of Frederick Road (Md. Route 355); then northwesterly along the center
line of Frederick Road to its intersection with Great Seneca Creek; then meandering
southwesterly along the center line of Great Seneca Creek to its intersection with the
right-of-way of the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) power line; then
southeasterly along the center line of the PEPCO right-of-way to its intersection with
Darnestown Road (Md. Route 28); then southwesterly along the center line of
Darnestown Road to its junction with the center line of Jones Lane; then southerly
along the center line of Jones Lane to its junction with the center line of Turkey Foot
Road; then southeasterly along the center line of Turkey Foot Road to its intersection
with Muddy Branch; then meandering southwesterly along the center line of Muddy
Branch to its confluence with the Potomac River, the point of beginning.]
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
[District
3:
The Southwestern boundary of District 3 begins at the intersection
of Muddy Branch and Turkey Foot Road; then northwesterly along the center line of
Turkey Foot Road to its junction with the center line of Jones Lane; then northerly
107
108
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
31-11
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
along the center line of Jones Lane to its junction with the center line of Darnestown
Road (Md. Route 28); then northeasterly along the center line of Darnestown Road to
the right-of-way of the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) power line; then
northwesterly along the center line ofthe PEPCO right-of-way to its intersection with
Great Seneca Creek; then meandering northeasterly along the center line of Great
Seneca Creek to its intersection with the center line of Frederick Road (Md. Route
355); then southeasterly along the center line of Frederick Road to its intersection
with the northern municipal boundary line of the City of Gaithersburg; then
northerly, southeasterly, again northerly, easterly, again northeasterly,
and
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
southeasterly along the municipal boundary line to its intersection with the center line
of Watkins Mill Road; then southwesterly along the center line of Watkins Mill Road
to its intersection with the northern municipal boundary line of the City of
Gaithersburg; then southeasterly, southerly, and westerly along said municipal
boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Montgomery Village Avenue;
then northeasterly along the center line of Montgomery Village Avenue to its
junction with the southwest side of Lost Knife Road; then southeasterly along the
southwest side of Lost Knife Road to its junction with Oden'hal Avenue; then
easterly along the southern edge of Oden'hal Avenue to its intersection with the
center line of Goshen Road; then north along the center line of Goshen Road to its
junction with the center line of Snouffer School Road; then southeasterly along the
center line of Snouffer School Road, continuing as Muncaster Mill Road (Md. Route
115) at Woodfield Road (Md. Route 124), to the intersection of Muncaster Mill Road
with the North Branch of Rock Creek; then meandering southwesterly along the
center line of the North Branch of Rock Creek to its northeastern confluence with
Lake Bernard Frank; then southwesterly along the center line of Lake Bernard Frank
to its southwestern confluence with the North Branch of Rock Creek; then
meandering southwesterly along the center line of the North Branch of Rock Creek to
130
131
132
133
134
135
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 31-11
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
its confluence with Rock Creek; then meandering southerly along the center line of
Rock Creek to a point opposite to Edgebrook Road; then west along a line of
prolongation from a southern boundary line of Rock Creek Regional park, to that
boundary line; then west, north, and again west to the eastern boundary line of
Parklawn Cemetery; then following that boundary line westerly, southwesterly,
northwesterly, again westerly, and again northwesterly to its intersection with the
center line of Fishers Lane; then westerly along the center line of Fishers Lane, and
continuing along a line of prolongation from the center line of Fishers Lane to the
center line of Halpine Road; then southwesterly along the center line of Halpine
Road; then southwesterly along the center line of Halpine Road to its intersection
with the center line of Rockville Pike (Md. Route 355); then southeasterly along the
center line of Rockville Pike to its intersection with the municipal boundary line of
the City of Rockville; then westerly along the municipal boundary line to the center
line of East Jefferson Street; then south along the center line of East Jefferson Street
to
the municipal boundary line of the City of Rockville; then westerly and southerly
along the municipal boundary line to its junction with the center line of Montrose
Road; then west along the center line of Montrose Road to its intersection with the
center line of Seven Locks Road; then northerly along the center line of Seven Locks
Road to the municipal boundary line ofthe City of Rockville; then westerly along the
municipal boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Falls Road; then
northerly along the center line of Falls Road to its junction with the municipal
boundary line of the City of Rockville; then northwesterly along the municipal
boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Watts Branch; then
meandering southwesterly along the center line of Watts Branch to its intersection
with the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) right-of-way; then westerly
along the PEPCO right- of-way to its intersection with the center line of Piney
Meetinghouse Road; then northeasterly along the center line of Piney Meetinghouse
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 31-11
163
164
165
166
167
Road to its junction with the center line of Travilah Road; then southwesterly along
the center line of Travilah Road to its junction with the center line of Turkey Foot
Road; then westerly along the center line of Turkey Foot Road to its intersection with
Muddy Branch, the point of beginning.]
[District
4:
The southeastern boundary of District 4 begins at the intersection
of the boundary line of Montgomery County and Prince George's County (Maryland)
with Cherry Hill Road; then northwesterly along the center line of Cherry Hill Road
to Columbia Pike (U.S. Route 29); then southwesterly along the center line of
Columbia Pike, continuing as Colesville Road (U.S. Route 29) at Northwest Branch,
to the intersection of Colesville Road and University Boulevard West (Md. Route
193); then northwesterly along the center line of University Boulevard West to its
junction with the center line of Arcola Avenue; then northwesterly along the center
line of Arcola Avenue to its junction with the eastern boundary line of Wheaton
Regional Park; then northerly, easterly, northeasterly, again easterly, northerly and
northeasterly along the park boundary line to its intersection with the center line of
Randolph Road; then southwesterly along the center line of Randolph Road to its
intersection with the center line of Connecticut Avenue (Md. Route 185); then
southerly along the center line of Connecticut Avenue to its intersection with the
center line of Veirs Mill Road (Md. Route 586); then northwesterly along the center
line of Veirs Mill Road to its intersection with Rock Creek; then meandering
northerly along the center line of Rock Creek to its junction with the North Branch of
Rock Creek; then meandering northeasterly along the center line of the North Branch
of Rock Creek to its southwestern confluence with Lake Bernard Frank; then
northeasterly along the center line of Lake Bernard Frank to its northeastern