Why did our delegate fail to mention Prince George’s rule over Charles?

In the article “Candidates scramble during redistricting uncertainty in region” on Page 1 of the Nov. 26 edition of Southern Maryland News, Del. Edith Patterson (D-Charles) is quoted as saying “Having individuals from St. Mary’s County rule on Charles County affairs would not be fair.”

Here is some history. The 1990 legislative redistricting was the last time District 28 and Charles County boundaries were identical. In the 2000 redistricting, areas around Benedict were in District 29 (then held by former Democratic Del. Johnny Wood, basically St. Mary’s County). In the 2010 redistricting, areas around Benedict were in District 27, which was held by former Democratic Del. James E. Proctor until September 2015, followed by Elizabeth G. “Susie” Proctor (D-Prince Georges, Charles), basically Prince Georges’s County.

With the proposed 2020 redistricting map, the northeastern part of Charles County will move to District 39 (old District 27, basically Prince George’s County) and the southern part of Charles County will move to District 41 (the old District 29, basically St. Mary’s County). The “core” of Charles County (La Plata and most of Waldorf) will remain intact as the new District 40 (old District 28).

It’s a well-known fact that the burgeoning population growth of La Plata and Waldorf are reducing the area needed to maintain a legislative district. Just look at Baltimore city. With all the new subdivisions popping up in Waldorf and La Plata, it would not surprise me if Waldorf and La Plata will be in different districts come the 2030 redistricting.

It’s strange that Del. Patterson made no mention of the fairness of having individuals in Prince George’s County (in 2010 or the proposed 2020 redrawn districts) ruling on Charles County affairs. I wonder if she considers having individuals from Prince George’s County rule on Charles County affairs just as unfair?

Sidney O. Marcus III, Waldorf