Baltimore County taxpayers are now on the hook for nearly $1 million because of the County Council’s defense of a redistricting map which did not comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Depending on what a federal judge decides about legal fees, that cost to the county could eventually double.
The Baltimore County Branch of the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland and others sued the county in December 2021. The original map had only one majority Black district for the seven-member council. African Americans make up about 30% of Baltimore County’s population.
U.S. District Court Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby threw out the original map and ordered the County Council to draw a new one.
That eventually led to a redrawn map which was accepted by the court in March 2022. It kept the majority Black district, but also has two minority-majority districts, meaning all minorities combined make up a majority of the voters in those two districts.
Since then, the plaintiffs have argued in court that they should be reimbursed for their attorneys’ fees because they successfully got the county’s original map tossed.
“It’s just outrageous,” said Andrew Freeman, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. “The council members through all of this have been looking out for their own personal interests instead of for the interests of their constituents.”
The legal extra innings has driven up the county’s court costs, as it argues it should not have to pay the plaintiffs’ legal bills.
The county originally entered into an $850,000 agreement with the law firm of McGuire Woods, LLP to represent it in the redistricting case.
Without comment, the County Council Monday night agreed to increase the cost of that agreement to $975,000.
An analysis from staff to the County Council justifying the increased payment described the litigation as “complex and time-sensitive,” including “a number of factors beyond the parties’ control.”
At a work session March 26, Peta Richkus with the Baltimore County Coalition for Fair Maps questioned the high cost of the legal representation.
“The Council and the public have a right to a clear understanding of the financial components of the legal representation they negotiate,” Richkus said.
But Councilman Julian Jones, a Democrat, said the county’s legal expenses in the case are ongoing because of the plaintiffs’ push to be reimbursed for their legal fees.
“That’s why we’re still here, paying an attorney to defend us, to try to come up with some reasonable amount,” Jones said. “In our eyes they did not win.”
But the plaintiffs pushed back on that, in a motion filed on February 5.
It states the plaintiffs “obtained a preliminary injunction that prohibited the County from conducting elections under its unlawful map and required the County to adopt a remedial map, thereby providing concrete, irreversible relief on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claim.”
Because of that win, Freeman with the ACLU said they are entitled to recover nearly $900,000 in legal fees from the county.
“Which is about the same as what the county has paid to its attorneys,” Freeman said.
In a legal response, the attorneys for the county countered the plaintiffs should not receive money for their legal bills because they did not win the case. They did not get the map they wanted with two Black majority districts.
“The Court did not require the County to create a second majority-Black district,” the county’s attorneys pointed out.
It’s not known when Judge Griggsby will rule on whether the county is responsible to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees.
