Prince George’s County residents lambasted a redistricting plan being considered by the county council during a public hearing Tuesday evening as politically motivated gerrymandering that would divide communities and erode trust in government.
Wp Get the full experience.Choose your plan ArrowRight
More than 150 people were signed up to testify at the hearing, which was expected to go late into the night, about a contentious redistricting process that has intensified divides between Democrats in this deep-blue county. The county council is considering two maps, which the 11-member body could vote on as early as Tuesday night.
“I frankly never thought that would happen here in our county,” College Park resident Mark Hill said. “I am disgusted by it.”
Story continues below advertisement
Hill, who teaches at the University of Maryland, said he had followed news about partisan gerrymandering in other parts of the country but was “appalled” to see what he described as such an obvious example of it in Prince George’s.
Advertisement
One of the maps, presented by a nonpartisan redistricting commission, makes only small changes to account for population changes recorded in the 2020 Census.
The second map — which sparked the fierce debate — was crafted by council member Derrick Leon Davis (D-District 6) and then amended by council member Mel Franklin (D-At Large). It was initially supported by six council members, enough for passage. Its sweeping changes include putting most of the previously divided city of College Park into one council district and creating a majority-Latino jurisdiction.
Story continues below advertisement
It also draws three liberal candidates entirely out of the districts in which they were considering running — or had started campaigning.
That map has led to outrage, with some residents saying they see it as an attempt by the council to prevent more liberal politicians from gaining control of the council.
Advertisement
Sarah E. Turberville, a member of the town council in Edmonston, described a “shocking” lack of transparency and meaningful community input behind the second map, which would move Edmonston out of its current district.
“It also creates the perception, if not the reality, of a political gerrymander,” Turberville said, “and often the perception can be just as harmful as the reality in undermining the public’s faith in our government.”
Pastor James J. Robinson, who chaired the nonpartisan redistricting commission, said the commission understood that its map would be subject to change. He declined to take a position on the second map. “Our position,” he said, “is neutral.”
Accusations of gerrymandering have deepened divisions in this Democratic suburb near D.C.
The council could also opt not to vote Tuesday evening. Legally, the body must adopt one of the maps by Nov. 30.
Story continues below advertisement
County Council Chair Calvin S. Hawkins II (D-At Large) acknowledged in an interview earlier this month that redistricting is inherently a “political process” — although he said his personal goal was not to remove possible candidates from their races, but to make sure the council districts reflected population changes.
Advertisement
Hawkins, who initially supported the second map, said the council properly followed the process, and he imagined that council members would be “following their consciences” with their votes.
“I am prepared to listen to the public comments,” Hawkins said of Tuesday’s meeting. “Trust me, I would rather create a map that everyone is happy about, but ... we can’t make everyone happy.”
Story continues below advertisement
Since Davis’s introduction of the map on Oct. 14, council members said their inboxes have been deluged with emails. Debate has surged on local listservs. And civic leaders across the county have organized. Overwhelmingly, those who have spoken out have been against the map introduced by Davis. As of 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, only 45 of the 152 residents who signed up to speak had given their testimony.
Resident Walker Green, 26, tied the redistricting debate in Prince George’s — which he characterized as a “blatant power grab” — to broader disenchantment that he said young people across the country feel with elected officials.
Advertisement
“Everyone I’ve talked to,” he said, “is like, ‘why would six Democrats try to disenfranchise other Democratic candidates?’ ”
Among those who testified was former county council member Eric Olson, who was drawn out of the district in which he has long lived and had already started campaigning to win back his old seat. Olson, who considers himself a political progressive, said it was “particularly wrong” that the redistricting meant some communities that had long fought to have their history recognized — like the historic African American community of Lakeland — would either change representatives or in some cases be divided between two council districts.
Phillippa Johnston, president of the Cameron Grove Community Association, addressed Davis directly in her remarks. “Your map clearly represses political opponents,” she said. “We know what corruption is, and we know when we see it.”
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
At a rally last week in the Cameron Grove senior community hosted by Johnston, civic leaders from every council district said they were frustrated that, for the most part, their efforts to reach the council members who supported the map were ignored.
Some said the process had been especially bitter because it eroded the community’s trust in its leaders, in a county in which public corruption has cast a long shadow since former county executive Jack B. Johnson pleaded guilty to corruption charges.
“We citizens deserve a process that is absent from perceived corruption,” said Kimberly Crews of Cool Spring Terrace Civic Association. “We deserve better.”