The Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin Scandal

Huma Abedin

Judicial Watch: New Documents Show Hillary Clinton Signed Off on Special Government Employment Job for Huma Abedin

Contact: Jill Farrell, Judicial Watch, 202-646-5188
LINK

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2015 /Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch released new State Department records today that reveal former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally signed the authorization for Huma Abedin, her the then-deputy chief of staff, to become a special government employee.

Anthony Weiner

The records also show that Abedin declined to provide complete information about her husband Anthony Weiner's financial dealings. The records were uncovered as a result of a court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Abedin (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The records show Abedin used a clintonemail.com account to communicate about her special status.

In February 2014, the State Department assured Judicial Watch that it had searched several individual offices of the department, including the office of the executive secretary, which would have included the offices of the secretary of State and top staff. Relying upon the State Department's misrepresentation that the agency conducted a reasonable search, Judicial Watch agreed to dismiss its lawsuit on March 14, 2014. Judge Emmet Sullivan reopened the lawsuit on June 19, 2015, in response to revelations about Clinton's separate email system.

The newly uncovered documents show that Clinton personally signed the form for Abedin's appointment as a Special Government Employee/ senior advisor to Clinton on March 23, 2012. The position description form details that Hillary Clinton certifies that Abedin's "position is necessary to carry out Government functions for which I am responsible." The Obama State Department blacked out Clinton's signature on the form, allegedly to protect Clinton's privacy.

The documents also include details about Abedin's "expert" position, which evidently also required a continued top secret clearance:

As a Senior Advisor (Expert) to the Secretary, the incumbent will provide expert advice and guidance on varying issues related to the planning of logistical arrangements for foreign and domestic missions, and for the coordination of the foreign policy requirements, press, and protocol and security components necessary for a successful and sensitive foreign policy mission.

The documents raise questions about whether Abedin's new position complied with federal law that prevents special government positions created for work already performed by current employees. On June 4, 2012, Abedin states "NO, MY NEW POSITION IS IDENTICAL TO MY OLD POSITION." Abedin also expressed concern in March 2012 about the State Department's finally paying for her travel from New York. In a March 27, 2012, email about her "conversion to expert appointment," Abedin writes:

Have a few questions. One is time sensitive, I need to come down to state tomorrow. Can state start paying for my travel since ny is now my base? I've been paying personally for the last 6 months. Thanks.

The records show that there was a rush to appoint Abedin to the position, which was initially set to begin on April 1, 2012. When Abedin was finally approved in June 2012, she had failed to provide her husband Anthony Weiner’s financial information, despite repeated requests from the State Department.

In a March 21, 2012, email, Cynthia Motley, administrative officer in the State Department, writes to Abedin requesting the financial disclosure information

Huma, I have been advised to begin the process to convert you from your Non-Career SES position as Senior Adviser (Expert-SGE) in the Office of the Secretary which is to be effective April 1, 2012. In order to initiate the conversion appointment, I will need to following from you as soon as possible:

The attached SF-278 Financial Disclosure Report must be completed for your termination from the Non-Career SES appointment.

On April 3, 2012, in a response to Motely, Abedin begins what turns out to be a lengthy period of non-compliance:

Anthony filed his separate disclosures last june. Nothing has changed. I don’t need to include his stuff on mine, right? Just want to confirm Thanks!

On April 4, Motley again advises Abedin that Weiner’s assets must be disclosed:

I have confirmed with the Legal Office that his assets are imputed to you so his assets are reportable on your OGE-278 which should include all of 2011 and 2012 up to the date.

In May 2012, after Abedin has still failed to file the required discloses, Sarah Taylor, the chief of the DOS Financial Disclosure Division, is forced to enter contact Abedin in an email marked “Importance: High:”

I have your termination OGE-278 report and the financial disclosure report for the Senior Advisor position. While reviewing your termination OGe-278, I noticed your spouse had several assets that weren’t reported on your report. Can you kindly provide an end of year summary statement so that I can update your report accurately?

After months of non-productive wrangling, Abedin was appointed to the SGE position on June 3, 2012, without having submitted the proper financial disclosure documents for Weiner, as indicated in a June 22 email from Taylor to Marcela Green of the DOS Financial Disclosures Division:

Yes, she (Abedin) was supposed to give me some information regarding her spouse’s assets and she has not done so.

Another email suggests that as of August, 29, 2013, Abedin still hadn’t provided the required financial information.

In a June 6, 2012 email, Abedin admits, “I don’t really know (Weiner’s) clients or his work.” This email chain discloses that Abedin had already been cleared for the “other position.”

The State Department produced these records after performing a second search of State Department offices. The first search, conducted in early 2014, produced only eight pages.

This same litigation saw the development of the FBI and Justice Department rejecting an order by Judge Sullivan to produce information about searching for records on the server and other material reportedly taken from Mrs. Clinton. As Judicial Watch responded in a court filing this week:

We still do not know whether the FBI… has possession of the email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business… We also do not know whether the server purportedly in the possession of the FBI – an assumption based on unsworn statements by third parties – is the actual email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business… Nor do we know whether any copies of the email server or copies of the records from the email server exist.

“These documents show the Huma Abedin received special treatment contrary to law and that Hillary Clinton personally approved a corrupt patronage position,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These new documents are smoking gun evidence of what Hillary Clinton’s separate email server was all about – keeping secret the corruption of her and her top staff. What else is out there?”

Politico reported that, since June 2012, Abedin had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant to Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 SGE compensation.

Teneo describes its activities as providing “the leaders of the world’s most respected companies, nonprofit institutions and governments with a full suite of advisory solutions.” (Emphasis added) Outside of the U.S., it maintains offices in Dubai, London, Dublin, Hong Kong, Brussels, Washington, and Beijing. Teneo was also the subject of various investigative reports, including by the New York Times, which raise questions about its relationship with the Clinton Foundation. Today, Politico reports that other State Department documents show Abedin was asked to help both the Foundation and Teneo in April 2012.

Assemblyman Sheldon Silver's Sordid Past Deeds Keep Popping Up

Sheldon Silver leaving Court January 2015

Everyone knew about Assemblyman Sheldon Silver's backroom politics, and no one did anything until Preet Bharara stepped in.

A 2011 episode isn’t part of Sheldon Silver’s corruption indictment, but prosecutors
want to use it to support their case. CreditNathaniel Brooks for The New York Times

Sheldon Silver, Former Assembly Speaker, Helped Developer Block Methadone Clinic’s Relocation, U.S. Says

By BENJAMIN WEISERSEPT. 14, 2015

LINK
When a methadone clinic sought to relocate to Manhattan’s financial district in 2011, parents, local business owners and others rallied in opposition. Perhaps the most prominent opponent was Sheldon Silver, then the powerful speaker of the State Assembly who represented that neighborhood.

“I made it clear to everyone involved that this does not seem to be an appropriate location for this facility,” Mr. Silver said in a statement released at the time.

But what Mr. Silver did not reveal then, federal prosecutors said in court papers filed last week, was that a real estate developer who owned a building near the proposed location had asked him for his help in blocking the project — and that Mr. Silver had a secret interest in providing such assistance.

Mr. Silver, prosecutors said in the filing, was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal payments disguised as referral fees from a law firm to which he had steered some of the developer’s legal business.

 

Mr. Silver, 71, a Democrat from the Lower East Side, is scheduled for trial on Nov. 2 on corruption charges in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Prosecutors say he abused his official position to obtain nearly $4 million in illicit payments through two law firms, including one that received the developer’s business. The developer has been identified as Glenwood Management.

The clinic episode is not cited in the indictment against Mr. Silver. But the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, asked in the filing that Judge Valerie E. Caproni allow the government to present it in support of its case.

Mr. Silver, who was forced to step down as speaker after his arrest in January, has pleaded not guilty to charges that include extortion under color of official right and honest services fraud.

Mr. Silver’s lawyers have not yet responded in court papers to the government’s claims about Mr. Silver’s role in the clinic real estate deal.

Steven F. Molo, one of Mr. Silver’s lawyers, said on Monday, “Mr. Silver served his constituents and the people of the state of New York well in connection with that matter and committed no crime.”

A lawyer for Glenwood Management did not respond on Monday to a message seeking comment.

Mr. Bharara’s office said in its filing that in November 2011, after the state’s Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services had tentatively approved the clinic’s move to 90 Maiden Lane, near one of Glenwood’s buildings, the developer requested Mr. Silver’s assistance “to prevent such clinic from opening.”

Prosecutors say that Mr. Silver responded by “intervening with the relevant state agency and further advocating against” the clinic’s opening.

When the clinic’s proposed relocation became public, it drew sharp criticism in the community, and Mr. Silver said at the time that he arranged for the clinic to make a presentation, which occurred before a committee of Community Board No. 1 in Lower Manhattan.

Catherine McVay Hughes, the community board’s current chairwoman who was then its vice chairwoman, recalled in an interview on Monday that the meeting, held on Dec. 7, 2011, was “packed with parents and local business people.”

Among people’s objections was that the clinic had not notified the board in advance of the proposal, and that the location was too close to a school for young children. One resident presented petitions with 600 signatures in opposition that were collected over just a few days, Ms. Hughes recalled.

“This was a hot-button issue,” she said.

Ron Vlasaty, then the chief operating officer of Gramercy Park Services, the clinic’s operator, said on Monday that the company had proceeded with the location because it believed it had the state’s “blessing.”

But one day after Mr. Vlasaty appeared before the community meeting and saw the extent of the opposition, he said, the company withdrew its application.

After the project was dropped, a Glenwood Management lobbyist drafted a letter to the residents of the firm’s nearby building, praising Mr. Silver’s “outstanding efforts,” the government said in its filing.

“Assemblyman Silver sprung into action as soon as it was revealed that this application was pending,” the letter said.

Two years later, a proposal was made for another substance abuse center on Maiden Lane near that same Glenwood Management building.

 “I thought Shelly killed this damn thing?!” a Glenwood representative wrote in an email that prosecutors attached to their filing.

“We need to kill this again,” a lobbyist for the company responded, the government said.

The substance abuse center did not relocate to the Maiden Lane address, the government said in its filing, which does not state whether Mr. Silver played a role in blocking it.

Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.

 

Former New York State Assemblyman William Scarborough, Who Resigned After Pleading Guilty To Federal Corruption, is Sentenced To 13 Months in Prison

 Another NY State politician hits the dust. Albany was, and is, a free-for-all cesspool of corruption.

Betsy Combier

William Scarborough, Ex-New York Assemblyman, Is Sentenced to 13 Months

LINK

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSSEPT. 14, 2015

 

ALBANY — William Scarborough, a former state assemblyman from Queens, was sentenced on Monday to 13 months in prison after he admitted submitting at least $40,000 in false expense vouchers for days he did not actually travel to Albany.

Mr. Scarborough, who pleaded guilty and resigned in May, was ordered to pay $54,355 in federal penalties and forfeit the same amount to the state.

Hours after his federal sentencing, Mr. Scarborough, 69, was sentenced in state court for taking $38,000 in unauthorized cash withdrawals from his campaign fund for personal use. As part of a deal with prosecutors, the one-year prison sentence handed down there will be served at the same time as his federal sentence, meaning that Mr. Scarborough will not have to serve longer than 13 months.

At both court appearances, Mr. Scarborough apologized for what he said was his own “stupidity.”

Mr. Scarborough, a Democrat who was first elected in 1994, will begin serving his sentence in November and said he planned to work on behalf of the community when he is released.

“I intend to be a better person,” he said. “My goal is to be the person that I thought I was.”

The conviction is another black eye for a state government that has seen its two top lawmakers indicted on federal corruption charges within the past year. Since 1999, more than 30 state lawmakers have been forced from office because of convictions for or allegations of ethical misconduct.

“It is a sad day when an elected official is sentenced to prison,” said Richard S. Hartunian, the United States attorney for the Northern District of New York, whose office worked on the case with the state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, and the state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, both Democrats. “Sadly, some legislators confuse their public service with self-service.”

Of 198 expense vouchers totaling $147,400 filed by Mr. Scarborough from 2009 to 2012, 174 were found to contain false information, according to prosecutors. The vouchers included claims for some overnight stays in Albany when the lawmaker was actually in Georgia and at home in Queens.

In an earlier statement, Mr. Scarborough, whose district includes parts of Jamaica and nearby communities, said he was unable to keep up with bills despite taking a second job at a college and was angry that lawmakers had not had a raise in their $79,500 salary in 16 years.

Mr. Scarborough faced 10 to 16 months in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

Several dozen people, including former constituents, filed letters with the court on Mr. Scarborough’s behalf describing his accomplishments as a legislator. Judge Stephen W. Herrick of Albany County Court said the letters showed that Mr. Scarborough had accomplished some good in public service.

“It’s obvious you represented your constituents well,” Judge Herrick said. “But you also betrayed those constituents.”

 

Sheldon Silver's Lawyers Try To Limit Testimony At Trial

Public corruption for the length of time and the extent to which Mr. Silver's use of his powerful position to gain financial rewards for himself was exposed needs to reach throughout the New York State dens of inequity.

No limits!!!

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, accused of taking $4M in bribes, kickbacks, says he 'will be vindicated'

Updated January 22, 2015 10:57 PM
By YANCEY ROY  yancey.roy@newsday.com 

Lawyers for Silver seek to limit corruption testimony at extortion trial

Updated September 11, 2015 9:43 PM
By JOHN RILEY  john.riley@newsday.com

LINK

Former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, right, exits Federal Court in Manhattan after being re-arraigned on new charges on Tuesday, April 28, 2015. Silver was arraigned on additional corruption charges. Photo Credit: Charles Eckert

Lawyers for former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver asked a federal judge in a motion filed Friday to limit at his upcoming extortion trial any testimony about corruption cases against other legislators or the reasons for creating the now-defunct Moreland Commission on Albany ethics.

"Lumping Mr. Silver together with other prosecuted New York legislators runs the obvious risk of guilt by association," Silver's lawyers told Manhattan U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni. "The Government seeks to paint Mr. Silver as merely the latest example of a long line of corrupt Albany politicians, implying that Mr. Silver must be corrupt because of his job."

Democrat Silver, 71, is scheduled to go on trial in November on charges that he used his legislative power in two schemes to generate $4 million in kickbacks in the form of fees from law firms he was affiliated with. He stepped down as speaker, but still represents an Assembly district in Manhattan.

 

SEE ALSORead the complaint vs. Silver
SEE ALSOEditorial: Reform Albany

Silver's lawyers said the government wants to put in Silver's comments, while speaker, on corruption cases against five ex-legislators, including Senate leader Joe Bruno, Sen. Carl Kruger and Assemb. William Boyland, as evidence to show Silver knew the legal limits on outside income for legislators.

They said prosecutors also claim they need to put in evidence of widespread corruption in Albany as a backdrop to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's creation of the Moreland Commission, because Silver allegedly took steps to conceal his outside income from the commission before it was dissolved.

"Evidence about that allegation requires no proof about Governor Cuomo's motives in forming the Commission, any historical events that may have informed those motives, and -- most certainly -- sordid (and often unproven) allegations about misconduct by other specific legislators," argued lawyers Joel Cohen and Steven Molo.
 

 

The lawyers also asked the judge to keep out evidence of $200,000 in campaign contributions from a company he helped, and a letter he wrote questioning the property tax assessment of the Manhattan housing complex where he lived, calling both matters irrelevant.

A spokesman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara had no comment on the filing.

Judicial Watch Files Brief Asking the Supreme Court To Require Maryland Gerrymandering Challenge Case in the Fourth Circuit To Follow Three-Judge Court Act

re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

Judicial Watch Files Amicus Brief Asking Supreme Court To Require Fourth Circuit to Follow Three-Judge Court Act in Maryland Gerrymandering Challenge

 

Tom Fitton

LINK

Contact: Jill Farrell, Judicial Watch, 202-646-5188

WASHINGTON, Aug. 28, 2015 /Standard Newswire/ --Judicial Watch announced today that it filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to affirm the Three-Judge Court Act, a law requiring three federal judges to be empaneled to hear key federal lawsuits concerning redistricting, voting rights, and other key constitutional issues. In contravention of the Three-Judge Court Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed a single judge to rule on a critical Maryland gerrymandering case (Stephen M. Shapiro, et al., v. David J. McManus, Jr., Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. (No. 14-990)). Judicial Watch filed the amicus brief on August 14, 2015.

The Three-Judge Court Act requires that three-judge panels must hear all constitutional challenges to legislative redistricting unless, according past Supreme Court rulings, a case is "obviously frivolous," "essentially fictitious," "wholly insubstantial," or "obviously without merit."

In 2013, the Fourth Circuit departed from this precedent, determining that a single judge could decide not to convene a three-judge panel if he determined the case was not "plausible." The Fourth Circuit applied the same standard in its 2014 ruling against Shapiro and fellow plaintiffs John Benisek, and Maria Pycha.

In November 2013, Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha sued Maryland state officials alleging that the 2011 congressional districts established by the Maryland General Assembly violated their constitutional rights. When the District Court dismissed the suit, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In October 2014, a single Fourth Circuit Court judge upheld the District Court ruling, denying the plaintiffs an oral hearing before a three-judge panel. In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court which the Supreme Court granted in June 2015.

Judicial Watch has particular interest, as it represents several Maryland voters in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland's gerrymandered congressional district maps. Judicial Watch's amicus brief argues that:

(T)he Fourth Circuit's ruling violates the Three-Judge Court Act and will allow states to delay judicial review of gerrymandered redistricting plans that disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution. Moreover, on June 24, 2015, Judicial Watch filed a new constitutional challenge to Maryland's redistricting plan on behalf of several plaintiffs. See Parrott v. McManus, No. 1:15-cv-01849 (D. Md.). The plaintiffs have asked for a three-judge panel in Parrott, but no such panel has been convened yet, and a motion to dismiss is currently pending before the single judge initially assigned to the case.

MORE: www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-amicus-brief-asking-supreme-court-to-require-fourth-circuit-to-follow-three-judge-court-act-in-maryland-gerrymandering-challenge/

Amicus Curiae

Judicial Watch Files Amicus Brief Asking Supreme Court To Require Fourth Circuit to Follow Three-Judge Court Act in Maryland Gerrymandering Challenge
AUGUST 28, 2015

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to affirm the Three-Judge Court Act, a law requiring three federal judges to be empaneled to hear key federal lawsuits concerning redistricting, voting rights, and other key constitutional issues. In contravention of the Three-Judge Court Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed a single judge to rule on a critical Maryland gerrymandering case (Stephen M. Shapiro, et al. v. David J. McManus, Jr., Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. (No. 14-990)). Judicial Watch filed the amicus brief on August 14, 2015.

The Three-Judge Court Act requires that three-judge panels must hear all constitutional challenges to legislative redistricting unless, according past Supreme Court rulings, a case is “obviously frivolous,” “essentially fictitious,” “wholly insubstantial,” or “obviously without merit.”

In 2013, the Fourth Circuit departed from this precedent, determining that a single judge could decide not to convene a three-judge panel if he determined the case was not “plausible.” The Fourth Circuit applied the same standard in its 2014 ruling against Shapiro and fellow plaintiffs John Benisek, and Maria Pycha.

In November 2013, Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha sued Maryland state officials alleging that the 2011 congressional districts established by the Maryland General Assembly violated their constitutional rights. When the District Court dismissed the suit, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In October 2014, a single Fourth Circuit Court judge upheld the District Court ruling, denying the plaintiffs an oral hearing before a three-judge panel. In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court granted in June 2015.

Judicial Watch has a particular interest, as it represents several Maryland voters in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional district maps. Judicial Watch’s amicus brief argues that:

The Fourth Circuit’s ruling violates the Three-Judge Court Act and will allow states to delay judicial review of gerrymandered redistricting plans that disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution. Moreover, on June 24, 2015, Judicial Watch filed a new constitutional challenge to Maryland’s redistricting plan on behalf of several plaintiffs. See Parrott v. McManus, No. 1:15-cv-01849 (D. Md.). The plaintiffs have asked for a three-judge panel in Parrott, but no such panel has been convened yet, and a motion to dismiss is currently pending before the single judge initially assigned to the case.

Judicial Watch points out that the Fourth Circuit’s circumvention of federal law results in “an allocation of authority” to one federal court judge that “cannot be squared with Congress’s judgment—recognized by this Court and others—that apportionment challenges and other types of three-judge cases are too important to be decided in the first instance by a single judge. Nor is the difference between one and three judges merely a formality.”

Congress intended redistricting and other constitutional challenges under laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be heard under the “exceptional procedure” of a special three-judge panel. In 1976, Congress specifically tried to ensure that redistricting cases were handled by such panels in order “to assure more weight and greater deliberation by not leaving the fate of such litigation to a single judge. By instead using motions to dismiss to limit access to three-judge courts, the Fourth Circuit has turned the Three-Judge Court Act’s purpose and framework on its head.”

The Three-Judge Court Act allows appeals from the three judge panels to go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. This statute assures a more speedy resolution to this important class of cases, which is undermined by the Fourth Circuit’s rule, especially in redistricting cases (which impact both federal and state elections):

And when the clock is always counting down towards the next election, such a delay can control whether the alleged constitutional violation can be remedied or if it is something that a state’s voters simply must swallow.

The 2013 lawsuit by Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha came in response to a Congressional Districting Plan signed into law by then-Gov. Martin O’Malley in October 2011. Critics at the time charged that the new congressional map was specifically designed to enhance the power of select incumbents while minimizing the voting power of minorities, rural voters and Republicans. The Washington Post editorialized: “The map, drafted under Mr. O’Malley’s watchful eye, mocks the idea that voting districts should be compact or easily navigable. The eight districts respect neither jurisdictional boundaries nor communities of interest. To protect incumbents and for partisan advantage, the map has been sliced, diced, shuffled and shattered, making districts resemble studies in cubism.”

Earlier this year, when the Supreme Court was deciding whether to take up the Three-Judge Court Act challenge, Judicial Watch filed the only amicus brief. The Supreme Court agreed with Judicial Watch and the petitioners and granted cert. on June 8, 2015.

“The Supreme Court should affirm the Three-Judge Court Act and remind the Fourth Circuit that the federal courts are not above the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Fourth Circuit subverts the law by allowing one judge inordinate power to effectively decide whether voters can challenge how a state draws congressional and state legislative districts. The Supreme Court should now check this judicial legislating that makes it harder for voters to vindicate their constitutional rights.”

Judicial Watch is working with attorneys Meir Feder and Rajeev Muttreja of the Jones Day law firm, who prepared and filed this amicus brief on Judicial Watch’s behalf.

Judicial Watch first entered the Maryland redistricting battle on August 10, 2012, when it represented MDPetitions.com and Delegate Neil Parrott in its successful lawsuit to block a move by the state’s Democrat party to have an Election Day voter referendum on the state’s controversial gerrymandering plan removed from the ballot. Three weeks later, Judicial Watch again represented Delegate Parrott in filing a complaint against Maryland Secretary of State John McDonough and the State Board of Elections challenging the misleading language of the wording of the ballot question. The current constitutional challenge to the Maryland gerrymander is pending in federal court (Parrott, et al, v. Lamone, et al (No. 1:15-cv-01849).

Read more about gerrymandering, Maryland, Maryland redistricting