Maryland voters will have the opportunity to decide on a congressional redistricting amendment in November, following a ruling by the Maryland Supreme Court. The court reversed two lower court decisions that had blocked the proposed constitutional amendment from appearing on the ballot, though it directed that the ballot summary be rewritten.
This decision represents a significant win for Democrats, who are working to counter a Republican redistricting initiative supported by former President Donald Trump. Democrats currently hold seven of the state's eight U.S. House seats. The amendment, if approved by voters, would not alter voting districts for the upcoming midterm elections but could enable Democratic lawmakers to draw new congressional districts, potentially increasing their chances of winning all eight seats in the 2028 elections.
State Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey, among the Republican lawmakers who challenged the measure, acknowledged the court's finding that the ballot wording was unfair. However, he expressed disagreement with the judiciary's role in rewriting legislative actions, stating, “The Court ultimately provided political cover for the General Assembly by allowing this misleading constitutional amendment to remain on the ballot.”
Legal and Procedural Reversal
The amendment's journey to the ballot involved a special session called by Democratic Governor Wes Moore in August. The proposed amendment seeks to overturn a 2022 court ruling that invalidated a previous Democratic redistricting plan, deeming it an "extreme partisan gerrymander" and finding that a constitutional provision requiring compact districts with respect to natural boundaries applied to congressional districts. The new amendment would limit this provision's application solely to state legislative districts.
This change could allow for the redrawing of congressional districts, potentially impacting the district held by U.S. Representative Andy Harris, the state's sole Republican congressman and chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. The amendment's passage could enable districts to cross the Chesapeake Bay.
Lower courts had initially ruled against the amendment, citing lawmakers' failure to adhere to their own procedural requirements, including a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify ballot question information and a subsequent 15-day public comment period. These deadlines had passed by the time lawmakers approved the amendment on August 4. However, the Maryland Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that these deadlines did not apply to the redistricting amendment because lawmakers utilized their constitutional authority to draft their own ballot summary.
Republican lawmakers had also succeeded in lower courts on arguments that the ballot question's wording was misleading and that the amendment violated a state constitutional requirement for single-subject provisions by including a clause granting the state Supreme Court original jurisdiction over congressional redistricting lawsuits. While the state Supreme Court rejected the multiple-subject argument, it concurred that the ballot wording was misleading, yet determined this was insufficient to prevent the amendment from reaching voters, directing instead that the wording be revised.
National Redistricting Context
Maryland's legal battle unfolds against a backdrop of broader national redistricting efforts. Republicans had aimed to gain as many as 16 House seats through new districts enacted in several states, including Alabama, Florida, and Texas. However, the Missouri Supreme Court recently blocked new congressional districts there, ordering a statewide vote on the maps instead. Democrats, meanwhile, are hoping to gain seats in states like California and Utah. In May, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a redistricting effort that could have benefited Democrats, ruling that procedural requirements for placing an amendment on the ballot had been violated.
Marilyn voters will decide on the amendment as Question 3 on the November ballot. Ned Miller, chief strategist for Fight Back MD, a group supporting the measure, stated, “Winning in court was only the first step. We are building the statewide campaign to educate voters, organize supporters and build the coalition necessary to stand up to Donald Trump and pass Question 3 in November.”