Perhaps one of the most controversial figures in Maryland politics at the moment is former Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon. On the one hand, she was convicted of fraudulent misappropriation in 2009 and forced to resign. On the other, during her tenure as mayor, the city’s homicide rate dropped for the first time in 30 years. All of which made her the perfect guest for the Elevate Maryland podcast last fall.

The Howard County-based podcast is approaching its third anniversary, and by bringing provocative and underserved voices to the table, it continues to serve its mission: “Build Community. Present Solutions.”

It is co-hosted by Candace Dodson-Reed, 46, chief of staff and executive director in the office of equity and inclusion at a local university, and Tom Coale, 38, a land issue and zoning attorney.

“We’ve tried to address some of the most controversial issues that face the county and state,” says Dodson-Reed. “We are unapologetic in having thoughtful, spirited dialogue on these topics.”

A look through the past guest list attests to that. Former education secretary Dr. John B. King, Jr. spoke on education equity. “Just Up the Pike’s” Dan Reed addressed advocacy for inclusive housing in Montgomery County. And state senator Dr. Clarence Lam discussed topics ranging from immigration to his op-ed on Governor Hogan.

Maryland state delegate Brooke Lierman was a guest on the podcast’s first live show, which Dodson-Reed and Coale host bi-weekly from the welcome center in Columbia’s Merriweather district.

“It was the first podcast I’ve ever been part of, and having a live audience made for a full and robust conversation,” she says. “One of the reasons I’m a follower, as well as a guest, is that they bring on voices from such a wide range of backgrounds and jobs. They tackle the issues that challenge us here in Maryland.”

Coale points out that, because he is white and Dodson-Reed is black, they also have the opportunity to bring in a wider ranging audience. “There are plenty of white content creators catering to white audiences, and vice versa,” he says. “We use our chemistry to create a bigger audience and the reception we get is reflective of that.”

In doing so, the podcast has become a must stop for politicians across the region. Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski, Jr. has made two appearances to date, the first as candidate and the second in his leadership role.

“Tom and Candace have a similar philosophy as mine, to bring as many voices as possible into public discourse,” he says. “Thoughtful conversations can build community, and they’re accomplishing that.”

Because the podcast doesn’t shy away from controversy, it has received its share of blowback on social media, but that doesn’t deter the hosts. “We might get beat up at times, but it’s important to talk about these things,” says Dodson-Reed.

It also means people are listening, to a tune of approximately 1,500 downloads per episode, according to Coale.

And while the co-hosts will continue to bring on the underrepresented voices of the region, Dodson-Reed does have a dream guest in mind for the future: “My big goal would be to have a presidential candidate on,” she says. “But ultimately, as long as a guest is challenging the community and presenting solutions in an innovative way, we want them on the show.”

The word “disappointing” seems to be the prevailing sentiment among many local leaders after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maryland Democrats in a gerrymandering case. The ruling maintains the status quo and gives legislatures continued free reign to draw district maps how they see fit.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote in the 5-4 decision, concluding that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.” Essentially, Roberts asserts in his opinion that gerrymandering is not a constitutional question, but rather a political one, the merits of which should be decided in individual legislatures. It’s a win for Maryland Democrats, who already hold a 7-1 majority in the state’s eight-member U.S. House delegation.

In a statement, Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh called the ruling “a sad day for our democracy,” adding that “the attention now turns to Congress.” Congressman Elijah Cummings offered his reaction as well, reinforcing the need for reform when it comes to the practice of gerrymandering.

“Americans deserve to know that, when they cast their ballot, their vote truly matters in choosing who represents them,” Cummings said in a statement. “The ballot is our voice, and we must not let it be muted by partisan gerrymandering. [The] Supreme Court decision reinforces the urgent need for comprehensive redistricting reform to ensure that every American’s vote matters.”

Gerrymandering is not a new issue or practice, but, as technology and the means by which mapping is carried out has become highly specialized, a small tweak can now mean a huge advantage for either side. It’s called into question what should and can be done about the issue—many saw the Supreme Court case as a potential avenue to kickstart reform.

“Gerrymandering is wrong, and both parties are guilty,” reads part of Governor Larry Hogan’s statement on the ruling. “It stifles real political debate, contributes to our bitter partisan polarization, and deprives citizens of meaningful choices. The voters should pick their representatives, not the other way around.”

Chief among the concerns surrounding this hyper-focused gerrymandering is the question of whether or not it infringes upon a person’s freedom of speech or association, says Todd Eberly, an associate professor of political science and public policy at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. Eberly also notes that, especially in Maryland, district Democratic candidates are more incentivized to win their primary over the general election, where the maps are already drawn in a way that favors them to win. The voters represented in these two elections are vastly different, too, and it can result in more extreme candidates ending up as representatives of their districts.

This is particularly important with the impending 2020 election, 2020 census, and subsequent redrawing of maps that will shape elections for the following decade. The 2020 election—of which the Supreme Court has said, at least for now, can proceed onward with maps that have been heavily gerrymandered—will determine the party in power that will be responsible for drawing districts. In Maryland, that could likely mean an overwhelmingly Democratic General Assembly free to continue the same practices the Supreme Court just ruled in favor of.

“[A given party] wants their candidate to win—that’s why they draw their districts the way they do,” Eberly says. “At the same time, they don’t care what the other part wants. Gerrymandering has a whole host of negative effects on governance.”