Maryland Judge Blocks Redistricting Question From November Ballot, State Appeals

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — An Anne Arundel County judge has ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with congressional redistricting cannot appear on Maryland’s November ballot, finding that lawmakers failed to follow state ballot-question procedures and that portions of the proposed wording were misleading.

Circuit Court Judge Robert J. Thompson issued the ruling Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026, in Howell & Morgan v. Maryland State Board of Elections, granting the challengers’ motion for summary judgment and denying the state’s competing motion.

Thompson ordered the Maryland State Board of Elections not to include Question 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot. However, he stayed the injunction pending an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland, meaning the question remains in play while the appeal proceeds.

Earlier this year, Maryland enacted new requirements governing statewide ballot questions through Senate Bill 29. Those requirements included a July 1 deadline for the Secretary of State to prepare and certify statewide ballot-question information to the State Board of Elections, a 15-day public comment period, and requirements that certain ballot information be made widely available before the election.

Gov. Wes Moore called the General Assembly into a special session beginning Aug. 3 for the stated purpose of considering a constitutional amendment dealing with congressional redistricting.

HB 2100 was introduced Aug. 3, more than a month after the July 1 certification deadline had passed, and was approved by both chambers Aug. 4.

In his ruling, Thompson rejected the state’s argument that the General Assembly was not bound by those procedures because lawmakers themselves had written the ballot question.

“Because the legislature did not follow the very laws it enacted, the court finds the enactment of HB2100 to be legally deficient,” Thompson wrote.

The judge found that while the Maryland Constitution itself does not impose a specific cutoff date for lawmakers to propose a constitutional amendment, the General Assembly had enacted laws establishing the ordinary process for placing those questions before voters.

Question 3 stated that the proposed amendment “clarifies” that certain standards in the Maryland Constitution apply only to districts used to elect members of the General Assembly.

Thompson found the use of that word misleading.

The court noted that a previous redistricting ruling, Szeliga v. Lamone, held that the same constitutional districting requirements applied to both state legislative and congressional districts.

“There is nothing in the record to suggest that was ever a common understanding,” Thompson wrote of the state’s argument that the requirements had historically been understood to apply only to state legislative districts.

The judge concluded that the word “clarifies” was “intentionally misleading” and should disqualify the question as written.

Court Finds Question Combined Separate Issues

Thompson also found that Question 3 violated Maryland’s requirement that a referred constitutional amendment address a single issue.

The proposal did more than change how constitutional districting requirements apply to congressional maps.

It also would have allowed the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over challenges to congressional redistricting plans.

Thompson found those to be separate issues.

While he wrote that giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over such cases could be beneficial, he concluded that issue was distinct from whether constitutional compactness and other districting requirements apply to congressional districts.

The measure also proposed allowing the General Assembly to give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over challenges to congressional redistricting plans.

A separate provision would have stated that no provision of the Maryland Constitution, including the Declaration of Rights, supplies criteria for congressional district boundaries, leaving those boundaries governed by applicable federal law.

Supporters argued the amendment was intended to clarify Maryland’s redistricting rules following the 2022 litigation over the state’s congressional map.

Opponents argue the amendment would give lawmakers greater freedom to redraw Maryland’s congressional map in a way that could threaten the state’s lone Republican-held seat.

Democrats currently hold seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats, while Republican Rep. Andy Harris represents the 1st Congressional District.

Del. Matt Morgan, a Republican representing St. Mary’s County and chairman of the Maryland Freedom Caucus, called the decision a victory for the rule of law.

“A chamber that holds a supermajority is still a chamber bound by the law,” Morgan wrote following the ruling.

“Today the court made clear that three-fifths of the vote doesn’t buy you an exemption from the rules you wrote yourself. Maryland doesn’t answer to kings, and it doesn’t answer to a legislature that thinks it’s one.”

Morgan argued lawmakers could not disregard deadlines they had enacted earlier in the year simply because those deadlines had become inconvenient.

He also accused Democratic lawmakers of attempting to use the amendment to gain greater control over congressional redistricting.

“The court has no choice but to enjoin the board of elections from including ballot Question 3 on the general election ballot for the November 3, 2026,” Thompson wrote. “To preserve the state’s ability to present a ballot, the court will stay the injunction pending an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland.”

The dispute now moves to the Supreme Court of Maryland.

A hearing before the state’s highest court is scheduled for Sept. 3.

Until that appeal is resolved, Question 3’s place on the Nov. 3 ballot remains unsettled.

Read the full court opinion below:

---