A majority of the Court concurring, by Order dated June 11, 2002, we concluded, for reasons to be set forth in an opinion later to be filed, that significant portions of the Governor’s 2002 Redistricting Plan were not consistent with the requirements of Article III, § 4, of the Constitution of Maryland that “[e]ach legislative district shall, consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population” and that “[d]ue regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions” and, for that reason, “the Plan [wa]s in violation of the Maryland Constitution and [wa]s invalid.” In that Order, we advised the parties that “this Court will endeavor to prepare a constitutional plan.” We invited the parties to recommend one or more technical consultants to assist us in that endeav- or.1
After considering the recommendations of the parties, by Order dated June 17, 2002, this Court appointed Nathaniel A. *319Persily and Karl S. Aro, as technical consultants to assist the Court in preparing a redistricting plan that complied with applicable federal and state law.2 On June 21, 2002, consistent with our June 11th Order, we promulgated and adopted a legislative redistricting plan that is in compliance with both state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements. We now give our reasons for the June 11th Order.
INTRODUCTION
A fairly apportioned legislature lies at the very heart of representative democracy. That is the message behind the *320Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963), and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), which invalidated the apportionment of state legislatures purely on a county or other subdivision basis, as Maryland had done, and mandated legislative districts of substantially equal population. Reapportionment of Maryland’s General Assembly following each decennial national census, therefore, is a matter of interest to every citizen of the State, not just the candidates or the political parties and groups who support or oppose them. Because it involves redrawing the lines of legislative districts, the process of reapportionment is an intensely political process. But it is also a legal one, for there are constitutional standards that govern both the process and the redistricting plan that results from it.
The constitutional provisions that now govern the redistricting process were adopted by the voters, in 1970 and 1972, through amendments to the State Constitution. In addition to setting forth the procedure for the decennial redistricting, these sections provide for forty-seven legislative districts, each to elect one senator and three delegates. As we explain in greater detail later in this opinion, the Governor and the General Assembly are the key players in the development and adoption of the plan but, on petition of any registered voter, this Court must review that plan to insure that it' conforms with constitutional requirements, and, if the Court finds that the plan “is not consistent with the requirements of either the Constitution of the United States of America or the Constitution of Maryland,” grant appropriate relief. Four plans have been adopted pursuant to those 1970 and 1972 amendments, each of which has been challenged in this Court. We found the plan for the 1974 and subsequent elections unconstitutional because of a procedural violation and, using the Governor’s plan as a guide, promulgated our own plan. In re Legislative *321Districting, 271 Md. 320, 317 A.2d 477 (1974). We upheld the 1982 plan, finding no violations. In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. 658, 475 A.2d 428 (1984). A divided Court approved the 1992 plan, but cautioned that it came “perilously close to running afoul” of the requirement that due regard be given to natural and political subdivision boundaries. Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574, 614, 629 A.2d 646, 666 (1993).
When, in 1970 and 1972, the constitutional provisions on apportionment were redrafted, the only legal constraint the drafters were under was that the factors chosen to govern the development and promulgation of a redistricting plan be consistent with supervening federal constitutional and statutory law. Had the framers of the constitution wished, therefore, instead of requiring that significant weight be given to natural or political subdivision boundaries, they could have proposed such things as defining and preserving communities of interest, promoting regionalism, retaining (or not retaining) incumbents and the preservation of urban (or rural) areas. And had the people agreed, those factors would have become the constitutional guideposts.
Instead, however, the Legislature chose to mandate only that legislative districts consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and be of substantially equal population, and that due regard be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions. That was a fundamental and deliberate political decision that, upon ratification by the People, became part of the organic law of the State. Along with the applicable federal requirements, adherence to those standards is the essential prerequisite of any redistricting plan.
This is not to say that, in preparing the redistricting plans, the political branches, the Governor and General Assembly, may consider only the stated constitutional factors. On the contrary, because, in their hands, the process is in part a political one, they may consider countless other factors, including broad political and narrow partisan ones, and they may pursue a wide range of objectives. Thus, so long as the plan does not contravene the constitutional criteria, that it *322may have been formulated in an attempt to preserve communities of interest, to promote regionalism, to help or injure incumbents or political parties, or to achieve other social or political objectives, will not affect its validity.
On the other hand, notwithstanding that there is necessary flexibility in how the constitutional criteria are applied — the districts need not be exactly equal in population or perfectly compact and they are not absolutely prohibited from crossing natural or political subdivision boundaries, since they must do so if necessary for population parity — those non-constitutional criteria cannot override the constitutional ones. We made this clear in both our 1984 and 1993 decisions. Specifically, we acknowledged the importance of natural and subdivision boundaries and rejected the argument that such things as the promotion of regionalism and the protection of non-official communities of interest could overcome that requirement. The Legislature apparently understood and acquiesced in that ruling, as no attempt was made in the intervening decades to amend the Constitution and, thereby, include those or any other factors in the constitutional framework.
When the plan adopted by the Governor or Legislature is challenged, it becomes our lot to review it for constitutionality. We first look at the plan on its face, in light of the challenges, to see whether, and to what extent, the federal and state legal requirements have been met. When, from the petitions and the answers alone, we perceive deviations that do not appear to be permissible, but for which there may be some explanation that could serve to justify them, we have appointed a special master, thus affording the State and the petitioners the opportunity to present evidence and argument to supply that explanation. Following those proceedings, if we conclude that the deviations are within a permissible range or for a permissible purpose, we have approved the plan. On the other hand, if we are satisfied that, despite the proffered explanation, the deviations are constitutionally impermissible, we have but one choice: declare the plan unconstitutional and void. The former is exemplified by the 1982 and, as held by the majority, *3231992 plans. As indicated, we declared the 1972 Plan unconstitutional, albeit for procedural, rather than substantive, default.
The Maryland Constitution requires us, in addition to reviewing the plan, to provide a remedy — appropriate relief— when the plan is determined to be invalid. Although it is possible, when the time constraints do not prohibit it — when there is no legislative election imminent, as was the case in 1972 and 1992 — to give the political branches another opportunity to produce a new or amended plan, thus allowing the Governor and the Legislature to continue to seek political or other non-constitutional objectives, we have opted for developing the plan ourselves. When, as now, legislative elections are imminent, there simply is no time to return the matter to the political branches.
When the Court drafts the plan, it may not take into account the same political considerations as the Governor and the Legislature. Judges are forbidden to be partisan politicians. Nor can the Court stretch the constitutional criteria in order to give effect to broader political judgments, such as the promotion of regionalism or the preservation of communities of interest. More basic, it is not for the Court to define what a community of interest is and where its boundaries are, and it is not for the Court to determine which regions deserve special consideration and which do not.
Our only guideposts are the strict legal requirements. Accordingly, in drafting our plan, we directed the consultants to remove even from view where any incumbents lived. Our instruction to the consultants was to prepare for our consideration a redistricting plan that conformed to federal constitutional requirements, the Federal Voting Rights Act, and the requirements of Article III, § 4 of the Maryland Constitution.
I.
Article III, § 5 of the Maryland Constitution provides:
“Following each decennial census of the United States and after public hearings, the Governor shall prepare a plan setting forth the boundaries of the legislative districts for *324electing of the members of the Senate and the House of Delegates.
“The Governor shall present the plan to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Delegates who shall introduce the Governor’s plan as a joint resolution to the General Assembly, not later than the first day of its regular session in the second year following every census, and the Governor may call a special session for the presentation of his plan prior to the regular session. The plan shall conform to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Article. Following each decennial census the General Assembly may by joint resolution adopt a plan setting forth the boundaries of the legislative districts for the election of members of the Senate and the House of Delegates, which plan shall conform to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Article. If a plan has been adopted by the General Assembly by the 45th day after the opening of the regular session of the General Assembly in the second year following every census, the plan adopted by the General Assembly shall become law. If no plan has been adopted by the General Assembly for these purposes by the 45th day after the opening of the regular session of the General Assembly in the second year following every census, the Governor’s plan presented to the General Assembly shall become law.
“Upon petition of any registered voter, the Court of Appeals shall have original jurisdiction to review the legislative districting of the State and may grant appropriate relief, if it finds that the districting of the State is not consistent with requirements of either the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Constitution of Maryland.”
Pursuant to this section, after each decennial census, the Governor must prepare, with public input via public hearings, an apportionment plan that conforms to §§ 2,3 *3258,4 and 45 of Article III and sets forth “the boundaries of the legislative districts for electing of the members of the Senate and the02 House of Delegates.” In addition to these constraints, the plan also must comply with federal constitutional and statutory requirements. Under the United States Constitution, the states are required to apportion both houses of their legislatures on an equal population basis,6 to assure that one citizen’s vote is approximately equal in weight to that of every other citizen, see In re Legislative Districting, supra, 299 Md. at 672, 475 A.2d at 435, citing Reynolds v. Sims, supra; Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595 (1964), rev’d on other grounds, Maryland Committee v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595 (1964), and are prohibited from intentionally discriminating through the apportionment process against racial or ethnic minorities.7 In *326addition, the Federal Voting Rights Act prohibits denying minorities an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.8
Obviously, the purpose for redistricting the State is to reflect the changes and shifts in the state’s population. See Legislative Redistricting Cases, supra, 331 Md. at 578, 629 A.2d at 648. Section 5 of Article III requires the Governor to submit the apportionment plan to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates for introduction as a joint resolution in the General Assembly not later than the first day of that regular session of the General Assembly occurring in the second year following the census or at a *327special session of the General Assembly prior to that regular session called for the purpose of presenting the plan.
The General Assembly may, but is not required to, adopt its own plan for the redistricting of the State’s legislative districts. If it does adopt a plan, that plan, like the Governor’s plan, must conform to the constitutional requirements of §§ 2-4 of Article III and be passed by joint resolution prior to the 45th day of the session, in which event, that plan thereafter will become law. If it does not adopt its own plan, or does so after the 45th day of the session, the Governor’s plan becomes law.
In either event, on petition of any registered voter, this Court is given original jurisdiction to review the legislative districting plan of the State and to grant appropriate relief, “if it finds that the districting of the State is not consistent with requirements of either the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Constitution of Maryland.” Md. Const, art. III, § 5.
II.
Pursuant to Article III, § 5, after receiving the results of the 2000 decennial census, Governor Parris N. Glendening, undertook to develop a redistricting plan setting forth the boundaries of the legislative districts. To assist him with this constitutional responsibility, the Governor appointed a five-member Redistricting Advisory Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”).9 The Committee held its organizational meeting on June 12, 2001. At that meeting, according to a Declaration of the Committee Chair, the Committee was briefed as to the legal standards applicable to its work: “the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States *328Constitution, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the concepts of contiguity, compactness, population equality, and due regard for natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions, expressed in Article III, § 4 of the Maryland Constitution.” Thereafter, between June 27, and September 6, 2001, the Committee held 12 public meetings, each advertised in advance, in newspapers and on the websites of the Maryland Department of Planning, the Secretary of State, and the General Assembly, as well as at various locations throughout the state. Citizens were invited to, and did, attend these public meetings. In fact, more than one thousand citizens attended the meetings, nearly three hundred actually testified, and members of the public submitted thirty-eight third party plans to the Committee.
The Committee released its preliminary recommendations as to the boundaries of Maryland’s legislative districts on December 17, 2001. On December 21, 2001, a public hearing was held that the Governor and over two hundred people attended. After making several changes to the Committee’s preliminary recommendations, pursuant to, and consistent with, Article III, § 5, the Governor timely submitted the plan to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Delegates. They, in turn, introduced it on January 9, 2002,10 the first day of the General Assembly session, as Senate Joint Resolution 3 and House Joint Resolution 3. By the 45th day of its . regular session, the General Assembly had not adopted its own plan for the legislative districting of the State. Therefore, the plan submitted by the Governor became law on February 22, 2002 (hereinafter the “State’s Plan” or the “Plan”).
*329Wayne K. Curry, the County Executive of Prince George’s County, having filed in this Court, on February 25, 2002, a petition challenging the validity of the State’s Plan and the Attorney General, predicting that other such challenges would be forthcoming, having requested that this Court promulgate procedures to govern all such actions brought to challenge the validity of the Plan or any part of it, by Order dated March 1, 2002, the Court did just that.11 In addition to setting deadlines for the filing of petitions and answers thereto, the Order scheduled a hearing on the facial validity of the State’s Plan and to define any issues that may need to be referred to a Special Master. In anticipation that further proceedings before the Special Master may be required, it also set dates for the hearing before the Special Master, for the filing of his report with this Court, for the filing of exceptions to the Special Master’s Report, and for a hearing on exceptions. That Order also extended the deadline for candidates to establish their residence in a new district from May 5, 2002 to July 1, 2002, and extended from July 1, 2002 to July 8, 2002 the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy for seats in the State Senate and House of Delegates as well as some State Central Committees.
In all, registered voters of the State who were dissatisfied with the State’s Plan, filed fourteen petitions challenging its validity, each requesting the Court to review the Plan for consistency with the requirements of the constitutions and laws of the United States and Maryland and to grant appropriate relief. The violations alleged by the various petitions *330ran the gamut from the equal population requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Voting Rights Act to the constituent components (contiguity, compactness, substantial equality of population, and due regard for political and natural boundaries) of Article III, § 4 of the Maryland Constitution.
In Misc. No. 20, Wayne K. Curry, the County Executive of Prince George’s County and an African-American, joined by other African-American residents and registered voters of Prince George’s County, contended that the Plan denied African-American, Latino and other minority voters generally throughout the State, but specifically in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, “an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice to the Maryland General Assembly,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Articles 2, 7, and 24 of the Declaration of Rights, and Article I, § 7 of the Maryland Constitution.12
*331In Misc. No. 22, Eugene E. Golden and other registered voters in the former 7th and 31st Legislative Districts, joined by Jacob J. Mohorovic and John R. Leopold, members of the House of Delegates, complained that District 44, a district shared by Baltimore City and Baltimore County, and District 31, a district shared by Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County, in the Plan, violated Article III, § 4, in that they were neither compact nor contiguous and did not give due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions. Moreover, they asserted, because under the Plan Baltimore City controlled seven legislative districts and Baltimore County only five, that the Plan violated Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, and also that “the Governor’s plan for redistricting punishe[d] voters in Baltimore County with reduced representation and rewarded] voters in the City with increased representation,” thus evincing “a feckless regard for the principle of proportionality, central to representative government that defiefd] both law and reason.”
In Misc. No. 23, Barry Steven Asbury,13 a registered voter in Baltimore County, generally decried the number of subdivision and natural boundary crossings that the Plan sanctioned and, therefore, contended that the Plan violated the Maryland Constitution.
Lack of due regard for natural and political subdivision boundaries, compactness, and contiguity were the primary focus of Misc. No. 24, filed by J. Lowell Stolzfus, a registered voter in Somerset County and member of the Maryland Senate, John W. Tawes, also a registered voter in Somerset County, and Lewis R. Riley, a registered voter in Wicomico County. In particular, they maintained that, under the Plan, Districts 37 and 38, which separated Somerset County from the “Lower Shore,” its traditional alliance with Worcester County and part of Wicomico County, were not compact and *332were not configured giving due regard to the boundaries of political subdivisions or natural boundaries. In addition, they observed “the Governor’s Plan just ‘happened’ to gerrymander14 two incumbent Republican Senators into the newly ordained 37th District.”
Norman R. Stone, Jr., a member of the Maryland Senate, and John S. Arnick and Joseph J. Minnick, members of the House of Delegates, joined by other Baltimore County registered voters, challenged in Misc. No. 25, Districts 7, 34, 44, and 46 of the Plan as being neither compact nor contiguous. They also contended that due regard was not given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions when the districts were configured. Like the petitioners in Misc. 22, these petitioners asserted that the Plan gave “peculiar and clear preference for the City which lost population in derogation of Baltimore County which gained population” and contended that the many Districts that Baltimore County shared with other political subdivisions under the Plan — twelve in all — reflected the “balkanization” of the County and the diminution of the representation of Baltimore County voters.15
In Misc. No. 26, Gail M. Wallace, a registered voter in Calvert County, claimed that Subdistrict 27A in the Plan *333violated the State Constitution because it was not compact and also because it failed to give due regard to boundaries of political subdivisions. She further asserted that because Calvert County residents would comprise less than 9% of the district, which included residents of Prince George’s, Anne Arundel, and Charles Counties, they would be denied effective representation.
In Misc. No. 27, Stephen A. Brayman and other residents of the incorporated municipality of College Park, as registered voters in Prince George’s County, complained that the Plan divided the City between Districts 21 and 22, thus failing to give due regard to the boundaries of political subdivisions.
Gabriele Gandel and Dee Schofield, registered voters in Montgomery County, contended, in Misc. No. 28, that Districts 18 and 20 were not compact, had boundaries that were the product of impermissible reasons and political gerrymandering, and were configured without giving due regard to natural boundaries or the boundaries of political subdivisions. They further alleged that, in violation of Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the Federal Equal Protection Clause, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Plan undermined and diluted minority voting strength in District 20, which, again, due to impermissible reasons, like political gerrymandering, also was not substantially equal in population or proportional in size to other Montgomery County districts.
In Misc. No. 29, Michael S. Steele a registered voter in Prince George’s County, the Chairman of the Maryland Republican party, and an African-American, challenged the Plan in its entirety on several grounds. He alleged that it diluted minority voting rights, thus violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, was a racial gerrymander that discriminated against minority voters in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, created legislative districts which were neither compact nor contiguous and that also failed to give due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions in violation of Article III, § 4, violated the “one person, one vote” guarantee of the Federal Equal *334Protection Clause, was a partisan gerrymander that discriminated against Republican voters in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and penalized Republican voters in violation of the First Amendment.
The Plan was invalid, asserted Dana Lee Dembrow, a registered voter in Montgomery County and member of the House of Delegates, in Misc. No. 30, because District 20 was not compact in form, the changes to its boundary with District 14 were implemented without due process, and the boundary disregarded the natural boundary of Randolph/Cherry Hill Road, “splitting precincts and dividing along residential streets well established neighborhoods, communities, and homeowners’ associations.” In addition, he maintained that the Plan was implemented without due process and that it undermined the right of opportunity of minority representation to the citizens of Montgomery County by “gerrymandering of the boundary for District 20 with an extension to the west from its southern end ... to place a particular Caucasian incumbent out of his existing district, District 18, and into District 20.”
Katharina Eva DeHaas and other Anne Arundel County registered voters argued, in Misc. No. 31, that by creating a new Subdistrict 23A, “which crosse[d] the Patuxent and carve[d] out a tiny, isolated segment of Anne Arundel County, consisting of two precincts, that were formerly part of the 33rd Legislative District,” they were thereby denied effective representation, as required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.. They also complained that the Plan, as to them, “flout[ed] the Constitutional mandates of Article III, § 4,” by failing to give due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.
In Misc. No. 32, Rayburn Smallwood and other Anne Arundel County registered voters voiced similar concerns. They complained that the Plan placed “a tiny, isolated portion of Anne Arundel County, consisting of three full precincts and one partial precinct, that were formerly part of the 32nd *335Legislative District,” in District 13, which was principally a Howard County district. They argued that, in doing so, the Plan failed to give due regard to natural boundaries or the boundaries of political subdivisions and that it deprived them of any real representation.
In Misc. No. 33, John W. Cole, Franklin W. Prettyman and John S. Lagater, registered voters in, and also the County Commissioners of, Caroline County, asserted that the State’s Plan was invalid because it: created legislative districts that were not compact or contiguous and that lacked due regard for natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions; violated the concept of proportionality of representation embodied in Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights; limited the counties on the Eastern Shore to three senators and 11 delegates in the House of Delegates; and, created Subdistrict 38A as a majority minority district in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.16
In Misc. No. 34, Joseph M. Getty, a member of the House of Delegates from Carroll County and a registered voter in that County, challenged the entire Plan on the ground that certain counties, including Carroll, have populations that exceed that required for an ideal legislative district (112,691 persons), but the Plan failed to include a district within their boundaries. He further asserted that the Plan failed to observe the state constitutional requirement that each legislative district be compact and that due regard be given to the boundaries of political subdivisions.
*336The hearing on the facial validity of the Plan and what, if any, issues should be referred to the Special Master was held on April 11, 2002.17 Following that hearing, by order of the same date, having concluded “that sufficient evidence ha[d] been presented to preclude a finding that the Governor’s Legislative Redistricting Plan [wa]s valid as a matter of law,” the Court referred the petitions and responses to the Special Master “for the taking of further evidence and the making of a report to the Court in conformance with the Order of this Court entered March 1, 2002.” Addressing the burden of proof at the hearing before the Special Master, while allocating it to the petitioners with respect to the federal issues, we ordered:
“with respect to challenges based upon Article III, Section 4, of the Maryland Constitution, the State shall have the burden of producing sufficient evidence to show:
“1. that the districts in the Governor’s Legislative Redistricting Plan are contiguous,
“2. that they are compact, and
*337“3. that due regard was given to natural and political subdivision boundaries.”
Two days earlier, by order dated April 9, 2002, the Court had appointed the Honorable Robert L. Karwacki, a former Judge of this Court, as the Special Master, designating in that Order the date of the hearing for the taking of further evidence and setting May 24, 2002 as the deadline for his report to the Court.
The Special Master held hearings on April 25, 26, and 29, 2002. Thereafter, he filed his Report of the Special Master (hereinafter the “Report”) with the Court on May 21, 2002. In the Report, the Special Master initially reviewed the contentions of each of the petitioners. Distilling those contentions down to three issues — alleged violations of the equal population requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Maryland Constitution Article III, § 4, alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act, and alleged violations of one or more of the component requirements of Maryland Constitution, Article III, § 4 — he discussed each in turn.18
The contentions with respect to population equality and those premised on the Voting Rights Act were all rejected by the Special Master, who recommended that we do likewise. As to the former, the Special Master included Misc. Nos. 20,19 23, 28 29 and 34. As Article III, §§ 2 and 3 of the Maryland Constitution provide for 47 legislative districts, from each of which one senator and three delegates are to be elected, and for the election of delegates to be at large, from single member districts or multiple member districts, whether there is an equal population problem depends upon the State’s population and its distribution in forming the required number of districts. The census data indicated that Maryland had a *338population in 2002 of 5,296,486 residents, which translates into “ideal” legislative districts containing 112,691 persons, “ideal” single member subdistricts containing 37,563 persons, and “ideal” two member subdistriets containing 75,126 persons. From the evidence as to population deviation among the districts and subdistricts, the Special Master found, citing Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 594, 600-01, 629 A.2d at 656, 656-60, that “[s]ince all legislative districts and subdistricts under the State’s plan fall within a range of ± 5%, the population disparities are sufficiently minor so as not to require justification by the State under the Fourteenth Amendment ... or under Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution.”20 Although, quoting Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 597, 629 A.2d at 676, and, therefore, recognizing that this Court has not closed the door on a petitioner overcoming the 10% rule by presenting compelling evidence that the drafters of the plan created the deviations solely to benefit one or more regions at the expense of another or others, the Special Master further found that no such compelling evidence was presented in this case.
Both petitioners Curry and Steele mounted challenges relying on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and petitioner Steele also offered claims that relied on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. In addition, the Cole petitioners brought a Voting Rights claim related to Subdistrict 38A, a majority-minority district for which they claimed the State had not established any need. The Special Master recom*339mended that the Court reject each of these claims. With regard to petitioners Curry and Steele, he reasoned:
“These challenges fail since the Petitioners cannot satisfy the threshold conditions mandated by Gingles21 that require the plaintiffs in the instant case to identify a geographically compact minority and a pattern of polarized voting by that minority as well as the surrounding white community. The evidence offered before me showed that more than 60% of Maryland’s African American population is concentrated in two political subdivisions, Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. Thus, the contention that African Americans have suffered vote dilution clearly is not based upon a specific ‘geographically compact’ minority population. Likewise, these statewide challenges are not supported by evidence of racially polarized voting by both the minority population and the surrounding white population. It is not enough to show a general pattern of racial polarization to require that district lines be drawn to maximize the number of majority black districts, at least up to a number constituting the same proportion that African Americans constitute of the total state population. Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F.Supp. 1022, 1048 (D.Md.1994).”
With respect to the Cole petitioners’ challenge, the Special Master concluded, contrary to their argument that it was the State’s burden, that the burden of proving a vote dilution claim under the Voting Rights Act was the plaintiffs. Moreover, he noted that “Subdistrict 38A under the State’s plan [wa]s substantially similar to Subdistrict 37A under the current plan” and that plan was created as a result of a decision of the United States District Court as a result of finding a Voting Rights Act violation.
Only one petition raising a state law claim, Misc. No. 24, filed by Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus, Lewis R. Riley and John W. Tawes, was found by the Special Master to have any merit, *340but only as it related to the Eastern Shore districts that were its principal focus.22 That petition challenged the configuration of Districts 37 and 38 as violating Article III, § 4’s admonition that legislative districts be' compact in form and pay due regard to political subdivision boundaries. The petitioners argued for the “traditional longitudinal division of the Eastern Shore” into a Lower Shore district, consisting of Somerset, Worcester and part of Wicomico Counties, a Middle Shore district, consisting of all of Dorchester, Talbot, and Caroline Counties and part of Wicomico County, and an Upper Shore district. They maintained:
“Separating Somerset from its traditional, territorial ‘close union’ with Worcester and Wicomico,
“(a) [wa]s facially contrary to this Court’s previous discussion of compactness;
“(b) [wa]s contrary to the configuration recognized by Maryland’s Department of Planning ...;
“(c). disrupted] the Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland ...; and
“(d) demean[ed] the historic fact that Somerset County (created by an Order in Council in 1666) originally comprised Worcester and Wicomico Counties — with Worcester being created in 1742 and Wicomico being carved out of Somerset and Worcester in 1867.”
As to the configuration of the districts, the petitioners argued:
“The Plan concocted by the Governor for the 37th and 38th Legislative District [wa]s contemptuous of geography and, on a map, appearfed], weirdly, as ink blots or worse. Indeed, the 38th District contrived in the Governor’s Plan meander[ed] from Cambridge to Salisbury and then spread[] through part of Wicomico County and all of *341Worcester County. This configuration defie[d] description, having neither symmetry nor form.”[23]
The solution, the petitioners proposed was simple, requiring no more than the movement of proposed delegate District 88A *342back into District 37 and the movement of proposed delegate District 37A back into District 38.
The Special Master found as fact that following the plan submitted by petitioner Stoltzfus, would not affect the population equality of Districts 37 and 38, which would have 118,193 and 118,326 residents, respectively, within the range of acceptable deviation from the ideal district. He also determined that the shore counties of Somerset, Worcester and part of Wicomico had been in the same legislative district since In re Legislative Districting, 271 Md. at 332, 317 A.2d at 483, and consistently had formed alliances, such as the Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore and the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee, to promote their interests. Moreover, the Special Master concluded, the Stoltzfus plan for these districts, would not affect the composition of the majority-minority district created by Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, supra.
Rejecting, therefore, the State’s reason for designing such noncompact districts — the “more favorable split of the voters in Wicomico County and in the City of Salisbury so that those voters would supposedly enjoy a better chance of electing a senator of their choice — the Special Master was not persuaded that the State carried its burden of proof to establish that Districts 37 and 38 complied with the constitutional requirements of compactness and due regard for political subdivision boundaries. He recommended that the Stoltzfus petition be granted, reasoning as follows:
“Furthermore, District 38B proposed by the State includes portions of five counties: Caroline, Talbot, Dorchester, Wicomico and Worcester Counties stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Caroline County. I do not believe that this configuration of District 38B demonstrates that its drafters gave due regard to the boundaries of political subdivisions. The State’s configuration of Districts 37 and 38 divides Somerset County from Worcester County and part of Wi*343comico County. Those three areas have been aligned in one legislative district since 1966. No acceptable reason has been presented, in my view, to justify divergence from the longstanding tradition of including the lower shore counties in one legislative district.”
As to the remaining state law claims, the Special Master recommended that we reject them as being without merit.
The Special Master noted that Districts 31 and 44 and Subdistricts 34A, 38A, and 37B, because they were divided by rivers — the Patapsco in the case of Districts 31 and 44, the Nanticoke, Wicomico, and Choptank rivers, in the case of Subdistricts 38A and 37B, and the Patuxent in the case of Subdistrict 34A — were alleged, in Misc. No. 22, Misc. No. 24, Misc. No. 25, Misc. No. 29 and Misc. No. 33, to be noncontiguous, i.e., not consisting of adjoining property. Tracing the phrase, “adjoining property” to the proposed 1968 Constitution, the Special Master reviewed the floor debate on the subject as an aid to determining its meaning and, from that review, concluded that the intent was to preclude a district intersected by the Chesapeake Bay, but not one intersected by a river.
Summarizing, he reported that an amendment offered to substitute “adjoining land area” for “adjoining property” prompted the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative Branch to conclude that “we can’t use a prohibition about crossing a body of water.” See Report of the Special Master at 18 (quoting Minutes of the Proceedings at 6315-16, 6332-35). Another amendment that would have prohibited the creation of a district “that crosses the center of the Chesapeake Bay,” id. (quoting Minutes of the Proceedings at 6525-31, 6439-42), was withdrawn, id. (quoting Minutes of the Proceedings at 6541-42), when it appeared that it might also prevent the creation of a district that crossed the Susquehanna River. The Committee Chairman expressed concern that “if we start adding tributaries, estuaries, and other bodies of water ... we won’t know where we stand,” id., and stated that he would support the amendment only if it was limited to the Bay. Id. (quoting Minutes of the Proceedings at 6529-31). *344The Committee of the Whole of the Convention placed on the record a statement of its intention: “that under the interpretation of the words adjoining and compact ... a redistricting commission or the General Assembly could not form a district, either a Senate district or a Delegate district by crossing the Chesapeake Bay.” Id. at 19 (quoting Minutes of the Proceedings at 6574-75). In addition, citing Anne Arundel County v. City of Annapolis, 352 Md. 117, 721 A.2d 217 (1998) (under municipal annexation statute, separating areas of land by water does not render them non-contiguous), the Special Master noted that we have, in other contexts, interpreted the term “adjoining territory” so that the separation of two areas by water does not render the areas non-contiguous.
Having reviewed our cases discussing the concept of compactness and the due regard requirements, Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 590-92, 629 A.2d at 654; In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 681, 475 A.2d at 440, and found facts as to challenged districts,24 the Special Master *345separately discussed the dispositive factors pertaining to each. Addressing the due regard provision first, the Special Master proceeded on two premises: 1) “[t]he requirement of ‘due regard’ for natural boundaries and boundaries of political subdivisions may be subordinated to achieve a ‘rational goal,’ such as avoiding the additional loss of senior legislators, reducing the number of incumbent contests and ‘achieving racial balance among the districts,’ ” (quoting In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 691, 475 A.2d at 445), and 2) balancing the various conflicting constitutional requirements of Article III, § 4 in the drafting of the legislative districting plan required the exercise of discretion.
As to the Stone and Golden petitions, Misc. Nos. 22 and 25, the Special Master found “the effect of the State’s plan leaves undisturbed the core of existing districts, minimizes incumbent conflicts, and preserves for its African-American voters the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.” Crediting the testimony of the Secretary of State, therefore, he determined that the principles underlying compactness as well as all other constitutional concerns had been fairly considered and applied in designing Districts 31 and 44. Moreover, he pointed out that no more districts crossed the boundary between Baltimore City and Baltimore County under this Plan than under the plan approved by the Court in 1993. See Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574, 629 A.2d 646. In addition, the Special Master found support for the Plan by noting the weaknesses in the petitioners’ alternative plans, as well as relying on the testimony of a senator who represented a shared district that such districts worked well and the testimo*346ny of a potential candidate in such district that he would do his best to represent the district if the Plan was approved.
Having already found that the population of Anne Arundel County was too large for four districts, but too small for five and, thus, had to share districts with other subdivisions, the Special Master found that the placement of Anne Arundel County residents in Subdistrict 23A, (Misc. No. 31) which encompassed part of Prince George’s County, was justified, reiterating that “[d]ue to the population of Anne Arundel County, it [wa]s not possible for all residents of Anne Arundel County to be placed in legislative districts entirely within Anne Arundel County.” He also observed the absence of evidence that any representative of a shared district had failed to address concerns raised by residents of a political subdivision within the district or that the Patuxent River, a natural boundary, posed any obstacle to travel or effective representation.
A similar finding was made with respect to the Smallwood petition) Misc. No. 32, which challenged the propriety of a shared District, 13, between Anne Arundel and Howard Counties. Noting the absence of testimony or evidence that the concerns of a resident of a shared district had not been addressed and that the District 13/District 32 boundary line followed a natural boundary, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the Special Master concluded:
“The State’s plan was based on appropriate criteria, including preserving the core of the existing districts in Anne Arundel County, recognizing the population restraints presented by District 22, which is close to the maximum allowable deviation, and not diluting the African American population in District 13.”
Rejecting the Cole petition, Misc. No. 33, the Special Master pointed out that Caroline County, which has shared a district with other counties since 1966, was considerably below the ideal population for a single member district. Moreover, recognizing that the Cole petitioners conceded that either Caroline or Talbot County had to be split between District 36 *347and District 37, he reasoned that the Committee’s decision as to which to split was discretionary and, therefore, did not establish the failure to give due regard for political subdivision or natural boundaries.
In rejecting the Steele petition, Misc. No. 29, the Special Master, as he did in Misc. Nos. 22, 25, 31 and 32, relied on the failure of the petitioner to identify an instance in which a representative had not responded to the concerns of residents of a political subdivision within a shared district. In addition to suggesting that the Steele petition’s aim was partisan, the Special Master found that the petitioner had not justified, by evidence, the need to abandon “the State’s long-standing multimember districts.”
The Getty petition, Misc. No. 34, having conceded that the five Western Maryland Counties, including Carroll, had to share legislative districts and, as they had since 1966, Frederick and Carroll Counties shared districts with neighboring counties, also was found to be without merit for failing to identify an instance in which a representative had not responded to the concerns of residents of a political subdivision within a shared district. The Special Master further determined that the crossing of the Carroll County and Baltimore County line and the splitting of Hampstead were necessary due to the substantial population equality requirement. He also observed: “The State’s plan responded to population changes and recognized municipalities when it created a district in the City of Frederick. That the Getty petitioners present no legally valid claim is confirmed by their alternative plan for that area, which advances partisan interests, but not constitutional requirements.”
Concerning the complaint of the Brayman petitioners, Misc. No. 27, that the State did not give due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivision because, under the Plan, the City of College Park was located in both Districts 21 and 22, the Special Master noted first that every alternative plan submitted, except the partial one submitted by the Brayman petitioners, split College Park. That was *348consistent, he asserted, with the redistricting for the Prince George’s County Council, which similarly split College Park between districts. Furthermore, he reasoned, because the City is located in an area where there are a number of adjacent municipalities and the creation of substantially equal districts required that the boundaries of some of them be split, it was a matter of discretion which to divide and that choice should not be disturbed.
The Special Master found the Brayman petitioners’ proposal to unite the City of College Park unacceptable, believing that the relocation of three City of Laurel precincts from District 21 and District 23, would have had the effect of splitting another political subdivision, the City of Laurel, among those districts. He also observed that, despite their complaints, the Brayman petitioner’s plan “d[id] nothing to rectify the sharing of District 21 among Prince George’s and Howard Counties. Under the Brayman petitioners’ plan, District 21 would still cross the Patuxent River into Howard County. This [wa]s because, as the State lan recognize[d], population from Howard County [wa]s needed to make District 21 of substantially equal population.”
Despite the testimony of petitioners Gandal and Schofield, and Delegate Sharon Grosfeld that the Plan split the neighborhood of Rollingwood, placing part of it in District 18 and part of it in District 20, instead of leaving it entirely within District 18, as formerly, relying on Delegate Grosfeld’s further testimony that the residents of both districts would be represented by incumbent senior representatives, “in terms of both tenure in Annapolis and leadership in the General Assembly” and the lack of evidence that those elected “would or could not be responsive to the needs of Rollingwood,” the Special Master found that Rollingwood’s ability to participate in the political process would not be adversely affected by the Plan. The districts did give due regard to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions, in any event, he concluded. District 20’s eastern boundary was the Montgomery/Prince George’s County line, the bottom of the district was the Montgomery County/District of Columbia line, and most of *349its remaining boundaries were precinct lines, consisting of roads and other natural boundaries. Like District 20, District 18, the Special Master determined, also followed natural boundaries, although not all major roads, for the entire boundary. That latter decision was explained, he said, by the need to maintain population equality.
Perceiving the Dembrow petition, Misc. No. 30, as alleging that the “well recognized thoroughfare of Randolph/Cherry Hill” should have been the dividing line between Districts 14 and 20, in addition to complaining about the splitting of precincts and dividing well established neighborhoods, communities, and homeowners’ associations along residential streets,25 the Special Master denied that Randolph Road had ever been the sole dividing line for District 20. He pointed out that, in fact, the State’s Plan came closer to following Randolph Road than had any past plan.
III.
In accordance with this Court’s initial scheduling Order of March 1, 2002, the State and most of the petitioners filed exceptions to the Report of the Special Master. We held a hearing on those exceptions on June 10, 2002. As we have seen, a majority of the Court concurring, by Order dated June *35011, 2002, we invalidated the State’s Plan, indicating that our reasons for doing so would be set forth in an opinion later to be filed, that we would “endeavor to prepare a constitutional plan,” and that we intended to appoint one or more technical consultants to assist. By Order dated June 17, 2002, this Court appointed technical consultants, Nathaniel A. Persily and Karl S. Aro. On June 21, 2002, we promulgated and adopted a legislative redistricting plan that is in compliance with both state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements.
We have already set out the findings and recommendations of the Special Master with regard to the Stoltzfus petition. It is to those findings and that recommendation to which the State’s exceptions are directed. Not surprisingly, the State denies that it failed to meet its burden to prove the compactness of Districts 37 and 38 or to demonstrate that they were drawn with due regard for political subdivision boundaries. With regard to the former, the State says that considerations of minority electoral opportunity were important in shaping the Districts. As to those districts, it submits, the Plan had two important objectives:
“First, the Plan creates a Somerset County-oriented District 37A, which not only enhances electoral opportunity for African-Americans, but will also serve the interests of all Somerset residents by helping to redress the anomaly that the delegate supposedly elected to represent Somerset County as a resident delegate in the 1998 election did not receive the most votes cast by Somerset County voters, but was effectively elected by residents of other counties who combined to defeat the choice of Somerset voters. Second, by combining Worcester with portions of Dorchester and Wicomico counties in the new 38th, it places the existing minority subdistricts in a Democratic Legislative district with two senior Democratic incumbent delegates and no incumbent Senator, and with other communities where considerable minority populations have successfully elected minority candidates to office.”
*351Both objectives, the State asserts, will enhance minority electoral opportunities now and in the future.
Concerning the latter, the State maintains that the requirement of due regard for political subdivision boundaries was neither implicated nor violated, there being no more shared districts or counties on the Eastern Shore split under the State’s Plan than were split in the 1992 plan. Moreover, citing In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 691, 475 A.2d at 445, the State argues that a due regard claim may be trumped by a rational goal, in this case, “the Governor’s attempt to address the issue of stability and growth of minority representation in a new Democratic district.” As to compactness, the State asserts that the shape, or “geographic contours,” of the districts is dictated by the boundaries established by prior Voting Rights Act challenges, which cannot render a boundary non-compact and that, in any event, they are “not oddly shaped.” The State also contends that the ground of the Special Master’s decision, the inappropriateness of separating Somerset County from Worcester and Wicomico Counties, its traditional allies, is neither a compactness nor a “due regard” issue but, rather, an acceptance of a regionalism argument that this Court rejected in Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 614, 629 A.2d at 666 (acknowledging that reliance on “communities of interest — where districts cross local jurisdictional lines and group communities that share interests” and “regional interests through the intra-regional sharing of districts” in formulating the City/Baltimore County region of the Governor’s plan constituted use of “improper non-legal criteria.”).26
*352As indicated, most of the petitioners filed exceptions to the Special Master’s Report. Although the exceptions certainly were not confined to a single issue,27 the primary focus of most of them, as it was in the Special Master’s Report, was on those findings and recommendations with respect to which this Court’s April 11th Order provided that the State had the burden of proof: those pertaining to Article III, Section 4’s requirements of compactness, contiguity, and due regard. As to those exceptions, a consistent theme is that the State did not carry its burden, placed on it by this Court in its April 11, 2002 Order, to prove the constitutionality of the challenged districts, i.e., that the districts were, in fact, compact and contiguous and, as to shared districts, that due regard was, in fact, given to natural and political subdivision boundaries in their configuration. Some assert that the State has offered no valid explanation for the excessive number of subdivision crossings (Misc. Nos. 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34) and, further, touting alternative plans that have been offered that they contend contain fewer such crossings while also satisfying state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements, that any claim that the crossings were necessary *353to satisfy federal requirements is disingenuous (Misc. Nos. 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34). Some accuse the State of sacrificing mandatory requirements under the State Constitution to nonlegal considerations such as regionalism (Misc. Nos. 22, 25, 29, 31, 32, and 33) and political gerrymandering (Misc. Nos. 28, 29, 30, 38, and 34).
IV.
We have determined that significant portions of the State’s Plan violate Article III, § 4 and, in particular, the “due regard” provision such that we held the Plan unconstitutional. We begin our analysis, as we must, with the State Constitution itself.
At the outset, we make clear, “We do not tread unreservedly into this ‘political thicket’; rather, we proceed in the knowledge that judicial intervention ... is wholly unavoidable.” Burton v. Sheheen, 793 F.Supp. 1329, 1338 (D.S.C.1992) (footnote omitted), vacated and remanded on other grounds, Statewide Reapportionment Advisory Comm. v. Theodore, 508 U.S. 968, 113 S.Ct. 2954, 125 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993). Article III, § 5 of the Maryland Constitution expressly entrusts to this Court the responsibility, upon proper petition, to review the constitutionality of districting plans prepared and enacted by the political branches of government and the duty to provide appropriate relief when the plans are determined to violate the United States and Maryland Constitutions or other laws. In other words, it is this Court’s duty to enforce adherence to the constitutional requirements and to declare a redistricting plan that does not comply with those standards unconstitutional.28 Non-compliance with a state constitutional requirement is permitted only when it conflicts *354with a federal requirement or another more important Maryland constitutional requirement.
Courts have recognized that when the political branches of government are exercising their constitutional duty to prepare a constitutional redistricting plan, politics and political decisions will impact the process. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 753, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 2331, 37 L.Ed.2d 298, 312 (1973) (“[politics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment.... The reality is that districting inevitably has and is intended to have substantial political consequences”). This does not automatically or necessarily render the process, or the result of the process, unconstitutional; rather, that will be the result only when the product of the politics or the political considerations runs afoul of constitutional mandates. In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 685, 475 A.2d at 442.
It is different, however, when the judiciary is required to undertake to promulgate a districting plan. In that circumstance, politics or political considerations have no role to play. Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury, 769 F.2d 265, 268 (5th Cir.1985); Johnson, v. Miller, 922 F.Supp. 1556, 1561 (S.D.Ga.1995), aff'd Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 117 S.Ct. 1925, 138 L.Ed.2d 285 (1997); Burton, supra, 793 F.Supp. at 1340. See also Hays v. Louisiana, 862 F.Supp. 119, 125 (W.D.La.1994), vacated on other grounds, United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995) (“The districts that we drew split only 6 parishes of the sixty-four, followed traditional lines, only one town of approximately 3000 was divided, and the plan met all Constitutional one man — one vote requirements. It did ignore all political considerations.”).
In Burton, for example, having concluded that it was necessary due to deadlock in the South Carolina Legislature to “assume the ‘unwelcome obligation’ of devising and approving redistricting plans for the General Assembly,” the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina stated:
“Discharge of the duty thrust upon this court requires us to adhere more strictly than state legislatures to those consti*355tutional and statutory standards governing the redistricting process. A federal court must act 'circumspectly, and in a manner “free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination.” ’ ”
Burton, 793 F.Supp. at 1340 (citations omitted). Similarly, in Wyche, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opined, in relevant part:
“However, as defendants conceded at argument, 8C is not a legislative plan, but one devised by the special master at the order of the court. A court-ordered plan is subject to a more stringent standard than is a legislative plan. Many factors, such as the protection of incumbents, that are appropriate in the legislative development of an apportionment plan have no place in a plan formulated by the courts....
“Plan 8E as modified adheres to the guidelines established in our 1981 opinion. It avoids diluting minority voting strength while fixing boundaries that are ‘compact, contiguous and that preserve natural, political and traditional representation.’ The duty of the federal courts in this matter is complete.”
769 F.2d at 268 [emphasis added, citations omitted]. And the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, explained:
“Since the Court is not limited to Georgia’s current unconstitutional plan, the Court’s task is akin to those cases in which states had no plans. Thus, when devising the remedy, the Court was bound by the stricter guidelines applicable to court plans. These guidelines include the one person-one vote requirement and the state’s traditional districting principles.”29
*356Johnson, v. Miller, 922 F.Supp. 1556, 1561 (S.D.Ga.1995), aff'd Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 117 S.Ct. 1925, 138 L.Ed.2d 285 (1997). More recently, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire opined, “While political considerations are tolerated in legislatively-implemented redistricting plans, they have no place in a court-ordered plan.” Burling v. Chandler, 804 A.2d 471, 482 (2002). See Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 823 P.2d 545, 576 (1992).
Article III, § 4 of the Maryland Constitution, as we have seen, requires that each legislative district shall be contiguous, i.e., consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and substantially equal in population, and also that due regard be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions. These requirements are mandatory and not “suggestive,” as asserted by the State. In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 681, 475 A.2d at 439.
Although exclusively a state constitutional provision, the rationale underlying Article Ill’s component requirements is well recognized and stated by the United States Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. Sims, supra, having held that the Equal Protection Clause requires state legislatures to make an “honest and good faith effort” to construct districts “as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” id., 377 U.S. at 577, 84 S.Ct. at 1390, 12 L.Ed.2d at 536, the Court acknowledged that there are legitimate reasons for states to deviate from creating districts with perfectly equal populations, among them, maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions and providing compact and contiguous districts. Reasoning that “[s]o long as divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible,” the Court explained:
“A State may legitimately desire to maintain the integrity of various political subdivisions, insofar as possible, and provide for compact districts of contiguous territory in designing a legislative apportionment scheme. Valid considerations may underlie such aims. Indiscriminate districting, *357without any regard for political subdivision or natural or historical boundary lines, may be little more than an open invitation to partisan gerrymandering.”
Id., 377 U.S. at 579, 84 S.Ct. at 1391, 12 L.Ed.2d at 537. The Court provided a specific rationale for according respect to subdivision boundaries, stating:
“A consideration that appears to be of more substance in justifying some deviations from population-based representation in state legislatures is that of insuring some voice to political subdivisions, as political subdivisions. Several factors make more than insubstantial claims that a State can rationally consider according political subdivisions some independent representation in at least one body of the state legislature, as long as the basic standard of equality of population among districts is maintained. Local governmental entities are frequently charged with various responsibilities incident to the operation of state government. In many States much of the legislature’s activity involves the enactment of so-called local legislation, directed only to the concerns of particular political subdivisions. And a State may legitimately desire to construct districts along political subdivision lines to deter the possibilities of gerrymandering.”
Id., 377 U.S. at 580-81, 84 S.Ct. at 1391, 12 L.Ed.2d at 538.
Our jurisprudence provides another rationale for being protective of subdivision boundaries. Political subdivisions have played, and continue to play, a critical role in the governance structure of this State. See Maryland, Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, supra, 229 Md. at 411-12, 184 A.2d at 717-18; see also Hughes v. Maryland Committee, 241 Md. 471, 498-509, 217 A.2d 273, 289-295 (Barnes, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 950, 86 S.Ct. 1569, 16 L.Ed.2d 547 (1966); see generally Matthew P. Andrews, History of Maryland 617 (1929) (“In the matter of representation Maryland has been likened to a ‘confederacy of counties,’ or a federated republic — the counties and the city of Baltimore ... being comparable to the states in the Federal Union”); Theodore J. *358Maher, State-County Relations in Maryland 312-319 (1971) (discussing the importance of county governments within the organization of the State).
Although reversed because a mandatory requirement for each county, regardless of population, to have one senator violated the one man, one vote principle, what the Court said in Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, supra, with regard to the important role counties play in the governance scheme remains accurate:
“The counties of Maryland have always been an integral part of the state government. St. Mary’s County was established in 1634 contemporaneous with the establishment of the proprietary government, probably on the model of the English shire.... Indeed, Kent County had been established by Claiborne before the landing of the Marylanders ----We have noted that there were eighteen counties at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1776. They have always possessed and retained distinct individualities, possibly because of the diversity of terrain and occupation.... While it is true that the counties are not sovereign bodies, having only the status of municipal corporations, they have traditionally exercised wide governmental powers in the fields of education, welfare, police, taxation, roads, sanitation, health and the administration of justice, with a minimum of supervision by the State. In the diversity of their interests and their local autonomy, they are quite analogous to the states, in relation to the United States.” [Citation omitted.]
Subsequently, in Hughes, rather than dispute or debate the extensive discussion about the importance of Maryland’s political subdivisions in Judge Barnes’ dissent, the majority “concede[d] the postulates” of that discussion. 241 Md. at 481, 217 A.2d at 278. And, dissenting in Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 621, 629 A.2d at 670, Judge Eldridge offered the following elaboration on this point:
“Unlike many other states, Maryland has a small number of basic political subdivisions: twenty-three counties and Balti*359more City. Thus, ‘[t]he counties in Maryland occupy a far more important position than do similar political divisions in many other states of the union.’
“The Maryland Constitution itself recognizes the critical importance of counties in the very structure of our government. See, e.g., Art. I, § 5; Art. Ill, §§ 45, 54; Art. IV, §§ 14, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 40, 41, 41B, 44, 45; Art. V, §§ 7,11, 12; Art. VII, § 1; Art. XI; Art. XI-A; Art. XI-B; Art. XIC; Art. XI-D; Art. XI-F; Art. XIV, § 2; Art. XV, § 2; Art. XVI, §§ 3, 4, 5; Art. XVII, §§ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. After the State as a whole, the counties are the basic governing units in our political system. Maryland government is organized on a county-by-county basis. Numerous services and responsibilities are now, and historically have been, organized at the county level.
“The boundaries of political subdivisions are a significant concern in legislative redistricting for another reason: in Maryland, as in other States, many of the laws enacted by the General Assembly each year are public local laws, applicable to particular counties. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 580-581, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1391, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 538 (1964) (“In many States much of the legislature’s activity involves the enactment of so-called local legislation, directed only to the concerns of particular political subdivisions”). Many of Maryland’s counties have not established local legislative bodies, (for these “non-home rule” counties, the Maryland General Assembly is the local legislature.) In practice, members of the General Assembly from such county (the county delegation) decide upon the legislation for the county and are the de facto local legislature. Home rule counties under Art. XI-A of the Constitution, which have local legislative bodies, may enact laws on subjects enumerated in the Express Powers Act, Code (1957, 1990 Repl.Vol., 1992 Cum.Supp.), Art. 25A, § 5, and in Art. 4, § 6, of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland. On subjects not covered by these grants of express powers, however, the county delegation in the General Assembly serves as the legislative body even for a home rule county. *360In addition, the General Assembly regularly makes exceptions to and variations in public general laws on a county-by-county basis. In addition, the State’s annual Budget frequently makes appropriations on a county-by-county basis.”
Id. (quoting Hughes, 241 Md. at 499, 217 A.2d at 290, in turn, quoting the Maryland Geological Survey, The Counties of Maryland, Their Origin, Boundaries and Election Districts 419 (1907) (footnotes omitted)).
We have considered each of the component requirements of Article III, § 4. Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 578, 629 A.2d at 648; In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 672, 475 A.2d at 435. In In re Legislative Districting, we discussed contiguity and compactness. Noting that courts with similar constitutional provisions have construed the contiguity and compactness requirements, we reported their conclusion, “that the contiguity and compactness requirements, and particularly the latter, are intended to prevent political gerrymandering.” 299 Md. at 675, 475 A.2d at 437, citing Schrage v. State Board of Elections, 88 Ill.2d 87, 58 Ill.Dec. 451, 430 N.E.2d 483 (1981); Preisler v. Doherty, 365 Mo. 460, 284 S.W.2d 427 (1955); Schneider v. Rockefeller, 31 N.Y.2d 420, 340 N.Y.S.2d 889, 293 N.E.2d 67 (1972); Opinion to the Governor, 101 R.I. 203, 221 A.2d 799 (1966). We then observed, our only other mention of it, that “the contiguity requirement mandates that there be no division between one part of a district’s territory and the rest of the district; in other words, contiguous territory is territory touching, adjoining and connected, as distinguished from territory separated by other territory.” Id. at 675-66, 475 A.2d at 436-37, citing Schneider, supra; see also In re Sherrill, 188 N.Y. 185, 81 N.E. 124 (1907).
Our consideration of the compactness requirement was much more detailed, consisting of a review and analysis of the various court decisions on the subject. We concluded,
“that the state constitutional requirements of § 4 work in combination with one another to ensure the fairness of *361legislative representation. That they [state constitutional requirements] tend to conflict in their practical application is, however, a plain fact, viz, population could be apportioned with mathematical exactness if not for the territorial requirements, and compactness could be achieved more easily if substantially equal population apportionment and due regard for boundaries were not required.”
In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 681, 475 A.2d at 440. We rejected the compactness claims raised in that case, explaining as follows:
“We are essentially in agreement with those cases which view compactness as a requirement for a close union of territory (conducive to constituent-representative communication), rather than as a requirement which is dependent upon a district being of any particular shape or size. Of course, in determining whether there has been compliance with the mandatory compactness requirement, due consideration must be afforded, as the cases almost uniformly recognize, to the ‘mix’ of constitutional and other factors which make some degree of noncompactness unavoidable, i.e., concentration of people, geographic features, convenience of access, means of communication, and the several competing constitutional restraints, including contiguity and due regard for natural and political boundaries, as well as the predominant constitutional requirement that districts be comprised of substantially equal population.”
Id. at 688, 475 A.2d at 448. We also acknowledged that the redistricting process is a political exercise for determination by the legislature and, therefore, that the presumption of validity accorded districting plans applied with equal force to the resolution of a compactness challenge. Id. Thus, we instructed, “the function of the courts is limited to assessing whether the principles underlying the compactness and other constitutional requirements have been fairly considered and applied in view of all relevant considerations,” and not to insist that the most geometrically compact district be drawn. Id.
*362Although we acknowledged and commented on the due regard provision in the 1974 redistricting litigation, construing the term, “political subdivisions” to include incorporated municipalities, see In re Legislative Districting, supra, 271 Md. 320, 317 A.2d 477, and made more extensive, but still general, observations in our 1984 redistricting opinion concerning the due regard provision’s relationship to the compactness and contiguity requirements, see In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 681, 475 A.2d at 439 (noting they “all involve the physical configuration of District lines”), our most expansive consideration of the provision occurred during the last redistricting cycle. See Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 611-13, 629 A.2d at 665. In the 1984 case, we observed:
“The primary intent of the ‘due regard’ provision is to preserve those fixed and known features which enable voters to maintain an orientation to their own territorial areas. Like compactness and contiguity, the ‘due regard’ requirement is of mandatory' application, although by its very verbiage it would appear to be the most fluid of the constitutional components outlined in § 4.... Thus it is that the state constitutional requirements of § 4 work in combination with one another to ensure the fairness of legislative representation. That they tend to conflict in their practical application is, however, a plain fact, viz, population could be apportioned with mathematical exactness if not for the territorial requirements, and compactness could be achieved more easily if substantially equal population apportionment and due regard for boundaries were not required.”
In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 681, 475 A.2d at 439-40 (footnotes omitted). Applying the requirement, we rejected an argument that it protected “communities of interest,” a concept we found “nebulous and unworkable,” pointing out that such communities, “involving concentrations of people sharing common interests,” are virtually unlimited and admit of no reasonable standard. Id. at 692-93, 475 A.2d at 445-46.
In the 1992 case, Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574, 629 A.2d 646, the petitioners argued that due regard was not given to the subdivision boundaries of Baltimore City and *363Baltimore County when drawing the legislative lines, as demonstrated by the fact that five legislative districts, one of which was subdistricted into a two member City district and a single member County district, crossed the border between those subdivisions, with three being dominated by City voters and two by County voters. Id. at 583, 629 A.2d at 650. The petitioners also pointed to two of the stated rationales given for the districts as drawn by the Chair of the Redistricting Advisory Committee: to “[rjecognize communities of interest — where districts cross jurisdictional lines and to group communities that share interests” and “[t]o support regional interests through the intra-regional sharing of districts.” Id. at 613-14, 629 A.2d at 666. Despite reiterating our rejection of the concept of communities of interest as being within the ambit of the due regard provision, agreeing that the Redistricting Advisory Commission appeared to have relied “to some extent” on improper non-legal criteria that “possibly diluted the full application of the ‘due regard’ provision,” and acknowledging that the presumption of validity to which a districting plan is entitled is overcome “when compelling evidence demonstrates that the plan has subordinated constitutional requirements to substantial improper considerations,” a divided Court applied the presumption and upheld the districting plan. Id. (quoting In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 688, 475 A.2d at 443). The Court cautioned, however, that, in the Baltimore City/County region, the plan came “perilously close to running afoul of’ the due regard provision. Id. Explaining that “[t]he danger lurking in legislative districts which cross jurisdictional boundaries ... is that representatives from those districts may face conflicting allegiances as to legislative initiatives which benefit one of their constituencies at the expense of the other,” id. at 614-15, 629 A.2d at 666, the Court was satisfied that “the danger of divided loyalties [wa]s minimized” because only in one of the inter-jurisdictional districts would a legislator be called upon to represent numerous persons in two different jurisdictions. Id. at 615, 629 A.2d at 666.
*364In 1992, there were eighteen shared senatorial districts. Baltimore County was involved in seven of them, for the first time, its boundary with Baltimore City being crossed on five occasions (Districts 8, 10, 42, 46, 47), as well as its boundaries with Harford (District 6) and Howard Counties (District 12), once each. Harford County also shared a district with Cecil County (District 35). And Howard County’s boundary was breached three times. In addition to the Baltimore County crossing, it shared districts with Prince George’s County (District 13) and Montgomery County (District 14). Prince George’s County also shared a district (27) with both Anne Arundel and Calvert Counties, which, in turn, shared another district with St. Mary’s County (District 29). On the Eastern Shore, Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties, Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot and Wicomico Counties, and Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Talbot Counties, all shared districts. Four of the shared districts consisted of more than two counties: 27 (Prince George’s, Anne Arundel and Calvert); 36 (Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Talbot); 37 (Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot and Wicomico) and 38 (Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester).
The State’s Plan for 2002 had twenty-two inter-jurisdictional, or shared, senatorial districts, an increase of four. While the number of districts shared by Baltimore City and Baltimore County remained static, at five (Districts 8, 42, 43, 44, 46), the number of times Baltimore County’s boundary was crossed increased by two, from seven to nine. Thus, counting its wholly contained districts, Baltimore County was in twelve senatorial districts. In addition to sharing a district with each of Howard (District 12) and Harford (District 7) Counties, under the State’s Plan, the County also would have shared a district with Anne Arundel (District 31) and Carroll (District 5) Counties. Moreover, whereas Anne Arundel County’s boundary was breached once in 1992, under this Plan it was breached five times (Districts 31 and 13 with Howard County, 23 with Prince George’s County, and 27 with Prince George’s, Calvert and Charles Counties). The number of shared districts involving Howard County also increased, from three to *365four. In addition to Prince George’s (District 21) and Baltimore Counties, as in 1992, Howard County would have shared a district with Anne Arundel and Carroll Counties (District 9). And, while it only shared a district with Frederick County in 1992, under the State’s Plan for 2002, Washington County would have shared two districts, the one with Frederick County (District 3) as well as another with Allegany and Garrett Counties (District 1).
Similarly, the number of districts consisting of more than two counties increased by one, as the State’s 2002 Plan included five such districts: Districts 1 (Allegany, Garrett, and Washington Counties) 27 (Anne Arundel, Calvert, and Charles Counties) 36 (Caroline, Cecil, Kent, and Queen Anne’s Counties), 37 (Caroline, Dorchester, Somerset, Talbot, and Wicomico Counties), and 38 (Dorchester, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties), with two, (Districts 27 and 36) rather than one, as in 1992 (District 37), consisting of four counties. In addition, the State’s Plan split the City of College Park between two districts, Districts 21 and 22.
As indicated, most of the petitioners filed exceptions to the Special Master’s findings and conclusions, challenging the breach of subdivision and natural boundaries. Noting that they consisted of four counties, in the case of District 27, one more than in the last cycle, and crossed two natural boundaries, the Patuxent River and the Mattawoman Creek, Curry maintains that District 27 and its component delegate district were prima facie violative of the due regard provision. The Golden, DeHaas and Smallwood petitioners argue that the Special Master used “regional” principles to the detriment of Baltimore County to sustain the Baltimore County/Baltimore City districts, noting in particular that four of the five shared districts were controlled by the City, notwithstanding its population being more than 100,000 residents smaller than the County’s population. They also contend that Anne Arundel County was one of the most heavily divided of the counties, sharing four of the seven districts into which it was divided with other counties and, in two instances, Subdistrict 23A and *366District 31, supplying so few residents “as to hardly merit the attention of non-resident legislators.”
Petitioner Stone’s exceptions are to similar effect. He argues that Districts 31 and 44 “both defied a natural boundary [the Patapsco River] and crossed subdivision lines.” The Brayman petitioners maintain that they have demonstrated viable alternatives for the splitting of the City of College Park, that the reasoning of the Special Master in rejecting their alternative plans is flawed and based on false information, and that the division of the City is both unnecessary and unconstitutional. Petitioner Steele’s exceptions state that the Plan increased significantly the number of subdivisions split and the pieces of subdivisions created over the numbers in 1992 and that the Special Master failed to address these increases. Complaining that the Plan divided neighborhoods and precincts, thus, failing to preserve fixed and known features that enable voters to maintain an orientation to their territorial areas, petitioners Gandal and Schofield dispute that the neighborhood of Rollingwood is not a political subdivision. They assert that “[p]recincts are ... legislatively recognized ‘subdivisions’ that are regulated by very ‘political’ boards,” also established under the Election Code. Petitioner Dembrow’s exceptions include his objection to the irrational and unjustified split, without good cause, of numerous precincts and several residential subdivisions.
The State describes the requirements of Article III, § 4 as “secondary requirements,” that are “relative,[ ] must yield to mandatory requirements of population equality and compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act, tend to conflict with one another in application, and can be subordinated to the achievement of legitimate rational goals.” It asserts further that “the language, history and purpose of the due regard provision and previous decisions of this Court demonstrate that its application must of necessity be the most fluid and must give way to more important considerations.” Further, the State maintains that “[t]his Court has also said that due regard can be sacrificed to achieve a rational goal, such as *367avoiding additional loss of experienced Baltimore City legislators, reducing the number of incumbent contests, and achieving racial balance among the districts” and that “crossings that involve ‘minimal overlap’ or subdistricts within one county are ‘safe harbors’ that the Court will not disturb.” The State argues that each of the challenged crossings was necessary to achieve population equality, to protect or enhance opportunities for minority representation,-to preserve the core of existing districts, or to accommodate a combination of these factors. Otherwise, the State claims that the challenged crossings involve minimal overlap or the creation of subdistricts within a single jurisdiction.
The State’s arguments are consistent with the findings and conclusions of the Special Master, as well as the premise underlying those findings, that avoiding the additional loss of senior legislators, reducing the number of incumbent contests and achieving racial balance among the districts are discretionary decisions to which deference is required and rational goals that trump the due regard provision. Accepting the testimony of the Secretary of State with respect to the reasons for the districts, as indicated, the Special Master offered as justification for many of the districts as drawn, the maintenance of the core of existing districts, thus, perpetuating the plan adopted in 1993, the minimization of incumbent contests, and the preservation of African American opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. That was the explicit rationale for the Baltimore City/County districts, and the Anne Arundel County shared districts, 31, 23A and 13, and the implicit rationale for the others. In addition, the Special Master relied on testimony that the shared districts worked well and the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Additional support for the districts was found in the flaws and weaknesses of the various plans offered by the petitioners; that none of them resolved all of the issues raised by the petitioners was an acceptable basis, the Special Master concluded, for deferring to the Plan. Yet another justification accepted for the Plan was the need to maintain acceptable population variances.
*368As we have seen, when we referred the State’s Plan to the Special Master, we placed the burden of proof on the State to justify the Plan with regard to state constitutional requirements. By so doing, we made clear that the Plan raised sufficient issues with respect to those requirements as to require further explanation. We hold that the State has failed to meet its burden to establish the constitutionality of the Plan and, in particular, that in its formulation, due regard was given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.
As Judge Eldridge has pointed out, prior legislative redistricting plans, 1992 being the exception,30 considered the counties and Baltimore City “the primary element in apportionment,” only crossing subdivision lines to achieve population equality. Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 619, 629 A.2d at 669 (Eldridge, J., dissenting) (citing Report to the Governor of Maryland by the Commission to Study Reapportionment of the General Assembly (January 31, 1964) and Final Report of the Committee on More Equitable Representation in the General Assembly of Maryland (January 15, 1960)). There is simply an excessive number of political subdivision crossings in this redistricting plan such that the evidence presented to the Special Master did not justify it and it cannot be justified as necessary to meet federal constitutional and statutory requirements. This holding is consistent with the decisions of our sister states with constitutional provisions similar to the due regard provision of Article III, § 4. See, e.g., In Re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 45 P.3d 1237, 1243 (Colo.2002) (“A direct line of accountability between citizens, their elected city councils and county com*369missioners, and their elected state representatives is at the heart of responsive government in Colorado and is built into the county-oriented design of the Constitution’s reapportionment provisions.”); Davenport v. Apportionment Commission, 124 N.J.Super. 30, 304 A.2d 736, 745 (1973) (“The citizens of each county have a community of interest by virtue of their common responsibility to provide for public needs and their investment in the plants and facilities established to that end”) (quoting Jackman v. Bodine, 43 N.J. 453, 205 A.2d 713, 718 (1964)); In re Reapportionment, 160 Vt. 9, 624 A.2d 323, 330 (1993) (“Local governmental units have various responsibilities incident to the operation of state government in a wide range of areas, including the court system, law enforcement, education, mental health, taxation, and transportation. Consequently, unnecessary fragmentation of these units limits the ability of local constituencies to organize effectively and increases voter confusion and isolation.”); Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F.Supp. 68, 88 (D.Colo.1982)(“These political subdivisions [counties and municipalities] should remain undivided whenever possible because the sense of community derived from established governmental units tends to foster effective representation.”). But see Town of Brookline v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 417 Mass. 406, 423-24, 631 N.E.2d 968, 978 (1994).
To be sure, it is the responsibility of the Governor, initially, and the Legislature ultimately, if it chooses to act, to draw the legislative districts. Fulfillment of that responsibility involves the exercise of discretion in the balancing of the various constitutional requirements, as well as other considerations, to the extent they do not undermine the requirements. And because the process is partly a political one, entrusted to the political branches, political considerations and judgments may be, and often are, brought to bear as this balance is struck. Such considerations and judgments, as reflected in a districting plan that meets constitutional muster, will not be, indeed, cannot be, second guessed by the Court.
*370But neither discretion nor political considerations and judgments may be utilized in violation of constitutional standards. In other words, if in the exercise of discretion, political considerations and judgments result in a plan in which districts: are non-contiguous; are not compact; with substantially unequal populations; or with district lines that unnecessarily cross natural or political subdivision boundaries, that plan cannot be sustained. That a plan may have been the result of discretion, exercised by the one entrusted with the responsibility of generating the plan, will not save it. The constitution “trumps” political considerations. Politics or non-constitutional considerations never “trump” constitutional requirements.
That being said, we flatly reject the State’s characterization of the due regard and other provisions of Article III, § 4 as “secondary requirements.” While it is true that, consistent with Article 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, supra n. -8, state constitutional requirements necessarily yield to federal requirements, state constitutional requirements are nonetheless mandatory, as In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 681, 475 A.2d at 439, on which the State so heavily relies for the opposite conclusion, expressly states. Thus, the State’s assertion that the due regard provision is suggestive rather than mandatory, relying on its comparison of Article III, § 4 to comparable provisions of other state constitutions,31 the interpretation, by other courts, of the term *371“due regard,” as used in other contexts, and the legislative history of the provision, is just plain wrong.
The premise on which the Special Master proceeded, that the due regard requirement may be subordinated to achieve a “rational goal,” and the State’s argument that the provision must give way to “more important considerations,” also are wrong. Both rely, inappropriately, on our discussion in In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 691-92, 475 A.2d at 445, of the compactness requirement as applied to the districting of Baltimore City. Support also may be sought in the Court’s characterization, in that case, id at 681, 475 A.2d at 440, of the due regard provision as the most fluid of the Article III, § 4 components.
In In re Legislative Districting, we noted that, due to population loss, Baltimore City’s eleven districts were reduced to nine, all of which, the State decided, would continue to lie entirely within the City’s borders. Recognizing the massive undertaking the redrawing of the lines had been, we commented:
“Since Baltimore City would thereby lose two seats in the Senate and six seats in the House of Delegates, the rational goal of avoiding additional loss of senior legislators by reducing the number of contests between incumbents was adopted, as was the legitimate achievement of racial balance among the nine districts. See United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144, 97 S.Ct. 996, 51 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977). Necessarily these goals required careful adjustment of district lines and resulted in some sacrifice of ideal geometric *372compactness and due regard for natural boundaries, although the requirement for substantial equality of population among the districts was in no way compromised.”
In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 691-92, 475 A.2d at 445. Despite this comment, we nonetheless held that the districts in Baltimore City “were ‘compact in form’ in light of the constraints upon geometric form imposed by other constitutional commands and the geography of the city itself.” Id. at 692, 475 A.2d at 445. Conspicuous by its absence is any acknowledgment that the decision was dictated by any of the political considerations that went into the drawing of the boundaries. Thus, in light of the reference to the constraints imposed by constitutional commands, one of which, subdivision boundaries, was a significant factor in determining the scope of the constraint, the achievement of these “rational goals” obviously did not result in unconstitutional non-compactness.
Nor can solace be obtained from the Court’s characterization of the due regard provision as “the most fluid.” As the context of that language, and indeed the language itself, confirms the comparison was to the other “constitutional components outlined in § 4.” That point was emphasized earlier in the discussion of § 4, when we acknowledged that the component requirements “work in combination with one another to ensure the fairness of legislative representation” and “tend to conflict in their practical application,” illustrating the latter by speculating that “population could be apportioned with mathematical exactness if not for the territorial requirements, and compactness could be achieved more easily if substantially equal population apportionment and due regard for boundaries were not required.” Id. at 681, 475 A.2d at 440. It was not a comment on the priority of the due regard provision vis-a-vis a non-constitutional factor. But, had that issue been presented, there is little doubt as to its outcome.
The Maryland Constitution is the expression of the will of its citizens. That will is binding on all the parties to the redistricting process, including the Governor and the Genex-al Assembly. Any change in the constitutional x-equix-e*373merits of a districting plan must be effected via the process of amending the Constitution. Article III, § 4 is quite clear in setting out the requirements for legislative districts. That being the case, accepting a “rational goal” as a basis for avoiding a clear requirement under that section is to allow a constitutional mandate to be overridden by a non-constitutional one. Indeed, to interpret this constitutional provision as to subjugate it or any of its component constitutional requirements to lesser principles and non-constitutional considerations or factors would be to amend the constitution without the involvement of the most critical players: the State’s citizens. This we cannot, and are not willing, to do. We hold that the goals of avoiding the loss of experienced legislators and reducing incumbent contests, though rational, do not override the constitutional requirement that due regard be given the subdivision boundaries.
While we recognize that a legislative districting plan is entitled to a presumption of validity, we also have stated that the presumption “may be overcome when compelling evidence demonstrates that the plan has subordinated mandatory constitutional requirements to substantial improper alternative considerations,” Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. at 614, 629 A.2d at 666, or when, having been allocated the burden of proof, the State fails to carry it. See id.; see also In re Legislative Districting, 299 Md. at 688, 475 A.2d at 443. At the very least, the latter is the situation, here.
Another persistent theme in the Report of the Special Master, touted as a “rational goal” and offered as justification for the drawing of some of the district lines and, in particular, for disregarding subdivision boundaries, \vas the preservation of the core of existing districts. Of course, while it may be an appropriate and even laudable goal, that consideration also is not a constitutional requirement. Therefore, although it may be considered and used as a factor in drawing the lines so long as there is no violation of the constitutional mandates, preserving district cores may not, as we have seen, excuse a constitutional violation. Moreover, preserving the core of a district *374may, and often will, be in conflict with the due regard provision and, perhaps, the compactness requirement, in that it tends to perpetuate the status quo. By incorporating this goal in a districting plan, subdivision crossings already in existence will likely continue, or in the case of compactness, non-compactness may be inevitable. The Golden petitioners have it right when they suggest that, to use an existing plan as a constraint, especially if that constraint were allowed to override constitutional requirements, is to dictate a continuation of the deficiencies in the old plan. Due regard, under such an approach, would certainly be undermined, if not completely nullified as to shared districts already in existence, as the Baltimore City/Baltimore County districts in the State’s Plan demonstrate.
We have declared the State’s Plan unconstitutional in its entirety, having concluded that there were substantial violations of the due regard provision. With that declaration, we undertook to promulgate a constitutional districting plan. Our obligation under that undertaking was to promulgate a plan that would pass constitutional muster. Consequently, we do not address the other exceptions; since we have promulgated a constitutional plan and did so without political considerations, those other grounds likely have been addressed and resolved.
With the assistance of technical consultants, as previously indicated, we have promulgated a plan that we believe to be constitutional and to address all of the issues raised by the parties. It adopts the Special Master’s recommendation to implement the Stoltzfus plan. Accordingly, the State’s exceptions on that point are overruled. The Court’s Plan differs considerably from the Plan we declared unconstitutional. Containing many fewer shared senatorial districts and many fewer subdivision crossings, it acknowledges the importance of the political subdivisions by giving due regard, as the Constitution demands, to their boundaries.
All five of the Baltimore City/Baltimore County shared districts have been eliminated, with two becoming solely County Districts and three solely City Districts. The result is that *375Baltimore City now has six fully self-contained districts, consistent with its population, while Baltimore County has six fully within its borders and shares three, one with each of Harford, Howard and Carroll Counties. Thus, Baltimore County is in only nine, as compared with twelve senatorial districts and its boundaries have been crossed only three, rather than nine times. Whereas Anne Arundel County, under the Plan, shared four districts, we have reduced that number to one. Bather than sharing Districts 31, with Baltimore County, 13 with Howard County, 23 with Prince George’s County, and 27 with Prince George’s, Calvert and Charles Counties, it will share only District 21 with Prince George’s County. Prince George’s County’s three shared districts have been reduced to two, District 21 with Anne Arundel and District 27 with Calvert and Charles, District 23A having been absorbed entirely in Prince George’s County. Thus, District 27 has been reduced from a four county district to a three county district. Carroll County’s shared districts number three (District 5 with Baltimore County, District 9 with Howard and District 4 with Frederick), the same as under the State’s Plan, while Harford (District 7 with Baltimore County and District 34 with Cecil County) and Howard (District 12 and District 9) share two. And the twenty-two shared senatorial districts proposed in the State’s Plan have been reduced by eight, to fourteen in the Court’s Plan. In addition, the Court’s Plan contains districts still substantially equal in population — remaining, in fact, within the ten percent deviation — and that are more compact than those in the State’s Plan, having been constructed without regard to considerations extraneous to the constitutional requirements. Finally, the City of College Park has been united in a single district, without the necessity of splitting any other City or subdivision.
V.
It is for the foregoing reasons that, pursuant to the authority vested in this Court by Article III, § 5 of the Constitution of Maryland, we declared the State’s Plan invalid as inconsistent with the requirements of the State Constitution.
*376The costs, including the fee and expenses of Nathaniel A. Persily, one of the Court’s technical consultants, are to be paid by the State of Maryland.
. This is not the first time that this Court has declared a redistricting plan unconstitutional and promulgated its own. In In re Legislative *319Districting, 271 Md. 320, 317 A.2d 477, cert. denied sub. nom. Twilley v. Governor of Md., 419 U.S. 840, 95 S.Ct. 70, 42 L.Ed.2d 67 (1974), having determined that the Governor’s districting plan was invalid (or failure to comply with Article III, § 5’s requirement that the Governor conduct public hearings prior to submitting his legislative districting plan to the General Assembly, the Court promulgated and adopted its own districting plan, albeit substantially the Governor’s plan.
. Mr. Persily is a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. He is the former Associate Counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, where he specialized in voting rights law. He filed amicus briefs in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000) and California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 120 S.Ct. 2402, 147 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000). He has testified on voting rights issues before the United States House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution in respect to "Legal and Policy Issues Raised by the States' Choice of Voting Systems Act." He currently is acting as an expert consultant to a federal court in the State of New York in respect to a Voting Rights Act case. He was one of the persons that was recommended by both the State and a number of the petitioners responding to the Court’s invitation to submit recommendations.
Karl Aro is the Director of the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.
Although draft plans were prepared by the consultants, they did so only under the guidance and direction of the Court. Essentially, they were told to prepare a plan that, without regard to political considerations, complied with federal law, including the Voting Rights Act, and met the Maryland constitutional requirements of substantial equality of population, compactness, and contiguity, and contained as few breaches of natural and political subdivision boundaries as possible. Of particular consequence to our disregard of political considerations, we directed that the portion of the redistricting software program that identified the location of the residences of incumbent state legislators *320be disabled for purposes of the Court’s work in developing a constitutional plan.
. Section 2 provides:
"The membership of the Senate shall consist of forty-seven (47) Senators. The membership of the House of Delegates shall consist of one hundred forty-one (141) Delegates."
. Section 3 provides:
"The State shall be divided by law into legislative districts for the election of members of the Senate and the House of Delegates. Each legislative district shall contain one (1) Senator and three (3) Delegates. Nothing herein shall prohibit the subdivision of any one or more of the legislative districts for the purpose of electing members of the House of Delegates into three (3) single-member delegate districts or one (1) single-member delegate district and one (1) multimember delegate district.”
. Section 4 provides:
"Each legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population. Due regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.”
As we have seen, while contiguousness and compactness principles predate 1972, the provision mandating respect for' the boundaries of political subdivisions and natural boundaries was the result of a constitutional amendment, passed by the voters that year.
. Otherwise known as the “one person, one vote” principle, this requirement is rooted in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides that “[n]o State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See Reynolds v. Sims, supra; see also Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963).
. Both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit such invidious discrimination. See. White v. Reges*326ter, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973). The Fifteenth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
. Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. See NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973); see also Legislative Redistricting Cases, supra, 331 Md. at 602, 629 A.2d at 660. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the only provision at issue in this case, generally prohibits states and political subdivisions from enforcing voting practices that undermine minority voting strength. As amended, it provides in full:
"(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of tire guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2) [42 USCS § 1973b(f)(2) ], as provided in subsection (b).
"(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”
42 U.S.C. § 1973.
. The members of the Committee were: John T. Willis, Secretary of State, Chairman; Thomas V. Miller, Jr., President of the Senate and Senator from Legislative District 27; Casper R. Taylor, Speaker of the House and Delegate from Legislative District 1C; Isiah Leggett, Montgomery County Councilman; and Louise L. Gulyas, Worcester County Commissioner.
. The joint resolutions describing the plan received a "second printing.” According to a letter from the Governor’s Chief Legislative Officer and Special Legal Counsel to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates, "several technical, nonsubstantive corrections to drafting errors” were necessary "because the report generator used to draft the legislative districting plan at times incorrectly assigned census tracts and blocks to the wrong precincts.”
. The Order prescribed the content of the petitions as follows:
"The petition shall set forth the petitioner's objection to the plan, the particular part or parts of the plan claimed to be unconstitutional under the Maryland Constitution or federal law, the factual and legal basis for such claims, and the particular relief sought, including any alternative district configuration which may be suggested or requested by the petitioner.”
It also invited, but did not require, the parlies to "file a legal memorandom (a) addressing the facial validity of the plan under Article III, §§ 4 and 5 of the Maryland Constitution or federal law, and (b) issues that should be referred to a Special Master.”
. Articles 2, 7, and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provide, respectively, as follows:
"Article 2. Constitution, laws and treaties of United States to be supreme law of State. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.
"Article 7. Elections to be free and frequent; right of suffrage. That the right of the People to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty and the foundation of all free Government; for this purpose, elections'ought to be free and frequent; and every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage.
“Article 24. Due process. That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land.”
. Mr. Asbury filed no exceptions to the Special Master’s recommendations, but did present oral argument at the exceptions hearing. We will not further address Mr. Asbury’s challenge.
. The term "gerrymandering” is defined generally as "[t]he practice of dividing a geographical area into electoral districts, often of highly irregular shape, to give one political party an unfair advantage by diluting the opposition’s voting strength." Black’s Law Dictionary 696 (7th ed.1999). In In re Legislative Districting, supra, 299 Md. 658, 475 A.2d 428, writing for the majority, Chief Judge Murphy discussed the origin of the word, noting that it "was given birth in 1812 following a cartoonist’s drawing of a Massachusetts legislative district that he described as appearing like a 'salamander.' An astute observer suggested that the district might more properly be described as a ‘gerrymander’ after then Governor of Massachusetts Eldridge Gerry who had a role, albeit a minor one, in the construction of the district.” Id. at 676, fn. 8, 475 A.2d at 436, fn. 8, citing Hardy, "Considering the Gerrymander,” 4 Pepperdine L.Rev. 243, 255 (1977).
. The State's Plan included five shared districts between Baltimore County and Baltimore City, as well as four additional districts that Baltimore County shared with each of Howard, Harford, Carroll, and Anne Arundel Counties.
. The Cole petitioners raised another issue, whether the Plan improperly repealed Md.Code State Gov’t § 2-201(d)(2) (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol., 2001 Supp.). Section 2-201 required that the delegates from an inter-jurisdictional district come from separate counties. The Cole petitioners claimed lhat the joint resolutions by which the Plan was adopted unconstitutionally deleted that provision of § 2-201. As we have invalidated the State’s Plan, the joint resolutions by which it was presented to the Legislature are no longer effective because they are not part of a legitimate constitutional process. The plan adopted and promulgated by this Court does not delete any statutes that preexisted the joint resolutions and the State’s Plan. Moreover, our Order adopting this Court’s Plan specifically noted that § 2-201 (d)(2) remains in the Maryland Code.
. Such a preliminary hearing is not unprecedented in the modern history of Maryland legislative districting jurisprudence. Although not a common occurrence, such a precautionary prelude to the assignment of a districting challenge to a special master is not unlike in function what the Court did in 1974. See In re Legislative Districting, supra, 271 Md. 320, 317 A.2d 477. Then, challengers to the Governor’s 1973 redistricting plan, in addition to filing petitions raising a myriad of issues, filed with the Court motions for summary judgment asking that the 1973 Plan summarily be declared invalid based on, among other reasons, the Governor’s failure to conduct required public hearings prior to preparation of the plan. As the Court’s order of July 31, 1973, makes clear, the Court: (1) considered memoranda and affidavits submitted by the parties for and in opposition to the motions for summary judgment; (2) considered stipulations submitted by the parties; and, (3) heard arguments. In the same order, the Court "cured” the Governor’s procedural error by declaring, pursuant to its constitutional power to "grant appropriate relief,” the 1973 Plan as nonetheless duly adopted for the purpose of considering the remaining challenges mounted by the petitioners, and referred the matter to a special master for further evidentiary hearings and a written report before taking final action. This procedure, for all intents and purposes, is substantially similar to that followed by the Court in scheduling its April 11,2002, hearing in the present case.
. The Special Master summarily rejected petitioner Curry’s claims based on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Articles 2, 7, and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
. Petitioner Curry denies that he made such a claim and a review of his petition and amended petition in Misc. 20, confirms that he did not.
. The Cole petitioners, and only the Cole petitioners, dispute this finding. To the contrary, they maintain that the population spread or dispersion between the smallest and largest districts is 10.4%, rather than 9.91%, and that the spread or dispersion between the smallest and largest single member districts is 11.0%, instead of the 9.89% as the Special Master determined. The Cole petitioners submit that the disparity stems from the Special Master using a State exhibit, rather than the tables attached to the Plan or the joint resolutions that introduced it in the General Assembly.
We need not resolve this issue, however. As we have declared the Plan unconstitutional and promulgated a new one that meets both state and federal standards, the issue is moot.
. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 49-51, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2766, 92 L.Ed.2d 25, 46-47 (1986).
. The petition also stated that the petitioner "generally, but assuredly, claim[ed] that the Governor’s Plan, as a whole, gives no regard to political subdivision boundaries in cavalier disregard for the strictures of § 4 of Article III of the Maryland Constitution.” This suggests that they challenged the Plan as a whole on due regard grounds. It is clear, however, that the Special Master did not credit this challenge.
. Prior to the Legislative Plan, the Stoltzfus district included Somerset County, Worcester County and portions of Wicomico County. By reconfiguring that district, the Plan extended the district from the southern border of Somerset County into a portion of Wicomico County, then across the Wicomico River, and then across the boundary line between Wicomico County and Dorchester County, across the Nanticoke River at its widest point, and into the southern half of Dorchester County. The district then proceeded west to the Chesapeake Bay and on to the shores of the Choptank River, where its land area wraps around a majority-minority district (38A in the State’s Plan) and proceeded up river, at one point appearing to be separated by the majority-minority district (although it is not readily apparent, we have been assured that this district includes some land that takes it past the majority-minority distrid so as not to comprise contiguousness principles).
Next, after its fast land managed to skirt around the majority-minority district, it crossed the Choptank River to encompass Talbot County, Ihereby also crossing tire subdivision boundary between Dorchester and Talbot Counties. It then crossed the subdivision boundary between Talbot and Caroline Counties to take in a portion of Caroline County. Because it was separated from its other area by the majority-minority district, the district line then crossed the Caroline/Dorchester County boundary line just east of the majority-minority district. Its arrangement was almost impossible to describe in geographical terms. It was clearly, on its face, non-compact.
The district, as contemplated in the Plan, ran from Delaware to the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, and from Virginia to north of the northerly boundaty of Talbot County. In the process, it took in portions of Somerset, Wicomico, Dorchester, Talbot and Caroline Counties. It crossed the subdivision 'boundary between Caroline County and Dorchester County twice (because it wrapped around another district), crossed the subdivision boundary between Caroline and Talbot Counties, crossed the subdivision boundary between Talbot and Dorchester Counties, the subdivision line between Dorchester County and Wicomico County, and crossed the subdivision boundary between Wicomico County and Somerset County. In the process, it crossed over the Wicomico River at its widest point, over the Nanticoke River at its widest point, and over the Choptank River at its widest point. From Shelltown, in the southeast corner of Somerset County, to approximately the farthest point in Caroline County, in the vicinity of Bridgetown, the approximate mileage, using all roads, between the points, is approximately 105 miles, according to the Maryland Official Highway Map. Using major highways where possible, the distance between the easterly *342boundary of Somerset County, at Pocomoke City, to Tilghman, in Talbot County, is approximately 125 miles.
. The Special Master found as a fact that Baltimore County gained population, 62,158 residents over the last ten years, but that the gain was not evenly distributed throughout the County. Thus, southeastern Baltimore County, where Baltimore County was joined with Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County, respectively, to form Districts 44 and 31, lost population, whereas the northern and western County grew. The Special Master concluded that, ‘‘[a]s a result, a portion of the county's population must share districts with residents of another county, because Baltimore County has too much population for six legislative districts and not enough for seven legislative districts.” This conclusion was consistent with other redistrictings from 1966 to the present, he determined, in which the County shared districts with Carroll, Harford and Howard Counties and, beginning in 1992, with Baltimore City.
He further explained that the Committee had decided to preserve the core of most Baltimore County districts and to minimize incumbent contests, which meant keeping the same number of crossings between Baltimore County and Baltimore City. Finally, he noted that although there were more crossings between Baltimore County and other subdivisions in this Plan than in the 1992 plan, there was less territory and a smaller percentage of the County’s population involved.
Preserving the core of districts and minimizing incumbent contests were recurring themes throughout the Special Master's fact-finding, as these were the reasons found for many of the subdivision crossings. See Report of the Special Master at 24, 27 (discussing findings of fact as *345to District 31, as well as District 13). Maintaining districts within the ten percent tolerance of the ideal district was another reason given to justify crossings, as was that shared districts work well or, at least, that there was no evidence that a representative of a shared district had failed to respond to the concerns in that district. Yet another was that the breach of subdivision boundary preserved, or enhanced, African-American voters’ opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. See Report of the Special Master at 27, 31, 38-40, 22-23 (discussing findings of fact as to District 13, District 22, Districts 37 and 38, and District 44).
. In the plan the Committee submitted to the Governor on December 17, 2001, the Redistricting Advisor)' Committee recommended that District 20's northern boundary run along Randolph and Cherry Hill Roads, a fairly straight thoroughfare that already divides the surrounding precincts. However, the plan the Governor presented to the General Assembly, ultimately the State’s Plan, did not follow this recommendation. Rather, as drawn in the State's Plan, District 20's northern boundary stretched beyond Randolph and Cherry Hill Roads at three separate locations, dividing the precincts to the north and resulting in irregularly shaped outgrowths. Petitioner Dembrow alleged that "[t]he gerrymandering of the boundary for District 20 with an extension to the west from its southern end was deliberately designed to place a particu- ■ lar Caucasian incumbent out of his existing district and into District 20.” Although we express no opinion on the legitimacy of this allegation, we agree that, as drawn, the boundary showed no regard for the requirement that districts be compact in form and, moreover, that its design cannot be justified on the basis of any other mandatory requirements.
. The Stoltzfus petitioners filed a memorandum in support of the Special Master’s Report, in which, among others, they raised the following points: their plan, unlike the Governor’s, was compact at a glance; their plan preserved the core of the former district and the configuration that had existed for three decades; their plan preserved the majority-minority district created by the federal district court in 1994; their plan avoided pitting incumbents, albeit Republican incumbents, against each other, they also pointed out; and their plan could be implemented without affecting other districts.
. Petitioner Curry (Misc. No. 20)'s exceptions were to the findings and recommendations concerning the alleged Voting Rights Act violations and due regard for natural and political subdivision boundaries; the Golden, DeHaas and Smallwood petitioners (Misc. No. 22, 31, 32) challenged the Special Master's findings and conclusions as to compactness, contiguity and due regard and for sustaining the use of ''regional” principles in upholding the Plan; the Stone petitioners (Misc. No. 25) excepted on essentially the same grounds; petitioners Gandal and Schofield (Misc. No. 28) filed exceptions, which in addition to challenging the Special Master’s findings with respect to compactness and due regard, raised an issue as to the equality of the population between districts in Montgomery County; the Steele (Misc. No. 29) exceptions involved the Voting Rights Act and the constitutional components of Article III, § 4, compactness, contiguity and due regard; petitioner Dembrow (Misc. No. 30) excepted on the basis of due regard and compactness; the Cole petitioners (Misc. No. 33) filed exceptions to the Special Master’s conclusions as the population equality claims, due regard, compactness, contiguity and the Voting Rights Act; petitioner Getty (Misc. No. 34)’s exceptions are to the compactness and due regard findings. Only the Brayman petitioners (Misc. No. 27) excepted only on the due regard ground.
. The United States Constitution does not contain specific contiguity, compactness, or due regard for political subdivision boundaries requirements. The discussion of such factors in the federal cases is in the context of whether such matters constitute a "rational basis” for deviating from the one person, one vote mandate.
. Those traditional redistricting principles were maintaining: political subdivisions, four traditional “corner districts,” an urban majority-black district in the Atlanta area, district cores and protecting incumbents. The court subordinated the latter to the others because it was “inherently more political.” Johnson, v. Miller, 922 F.Supp. at 1564-65.
. Indeed, in Legislative Districting of State, supra, 299 Md. at 691 n. 22, 475 A.2d at 445 n. 22, we acknowledged this historical fact:
“H.J.R. 32’s maintenance of the city’s boundaries represents a continuation of a long practice of preserving the city's integrity as a discrete and insular jurisdiction — a practice which cannot be faulted on constitutional grounds so long as it does not impair equality in apportionment, or violate principles of compactness and contiguity or disregard natural or political boundaries.”
. The subdivision boundaries provisions of the constitutions of other States differ from Article III, § 4, many using more mandatory terms: Pa. Const., Article II, § 16 (“Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a Senatorial or Representative District”); Ca. Const. Article XXI, § 1, Section 1(e) ("the geographical integrity of any city, county or city and county, or of any geographical region shall be respected to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any other subdivision of this section”); Co. Const. Article V, § 47(2) (“except when necessary to meet the equal population requirements of section 46, no part of one county shall be added to all or part of another county in forming districts”); Me. Const. Article 4, Part 1, § 2 ("Each Representative District shall be formed of contiguous and compact territory and shall cross political subdivision lines the least number of *371times necessary to establish as nearly as practicable equally populated districts").
The due regard provision of the Maryland Constitution, however phrased, nevertheless clearly was meant to be a limitation on the power of the Governor and/or the Legislature in the redistricting process and to afford protection to the political subdivisions of Maryland. Given the importance in Maryland of counties and the fact that the provision, though phrased in terms of "due regard,” is a mandatory constitutional provision, the responsibility for the interpretation of which rests with the Court, it would be an abdication of the Court's responsibility to interpret the provision as the State proposes.