article: On November 10, 2011, nine African-American voters in Maryland filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Maryland, under Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked for both declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that Maryland intentionally violated minority rights after the 2010 Census by only creating two minority-majority districts (out of eight total) despite 40% of the population being a minority. The plaintiffs argued that Maryland's approach to census data that required prisoners to be considered at their last known address, rather than at their correctional facility (and eliminating any prisoners whose last known address was outside the state from consideration) violated the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Over 70% of those not considered were black. The District Court (Judge Roger Titus) granted a motion allowing for a three-judge panel to hear the case (2011 WL 5854636) and later denied a motion to intervene by six additional Maryland residents (2011 WL 6097770). On December 23, 2011, the three-judge panel (opinion written by Judge Paul Niemeyer) granted Maryland's motion for summary judgment because states are allowed to tinker with census data as long as their method was not haphazard, inconsistent, or conjectural (831 F.Supp.2d 887). The Supreme Court summarily affirmed (without opinion) on June 25, 2012, 133 S.Ct. 29.
summary: The plaintiffs, nine African-American voters in Maryland, claimed that Maryland's redistricting intentionally violated minority rights because there are only two minority-majority districts (out of eight total,) despite 40% of population being minority. Maryland law took an approach to census data that required prisoners to be considered at their last known address, rather than at their correctional facility (and eliminating any prisoners whose last known address was outside the state from consideration.) Over 70% of those removed consideration were black. The three-judge panel ruled against plaintiffs because states are allowed to tinker with census data as long as it was not haphazard, inconsistent, or conjectural. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.