Maryland Democrats just managed to lose a redistricting fight on rules their own government had written weeks earlier.

That is the sharpest part of Wednesday’s ruling—and the part the usual “court blocks map” headline misses.

In May, Gov. Wes Moore signed a new election law that set deadlines and notice requirements for statewide ballot questions. Among them was a July 1 deadline for key ballot information to be certified before the November election.

Then Moore called lawmakers back for a special session in August to push a constitutional amendment clearing the way for a new Democratic congressional map.

House Bill 2100 was introduced on August 3 and passed both chambers the next day. By then, the deadline Maryland had placed into law had been gone for more than a month.

ADVERTISEMENT

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert J. Thompson was not persuaded that the General Assembly could simply write the ballot language itself and escape the rules it had enacted.

His conclusion was devastatingly simple: “Because the legislature did not follow the very laws it enacted,” HB 2100 was legally deficient.

WBOC reported that Thompson found both the process and the wording of Ballot Question 3 legally deficient. The judge barred the State Board of Elections from placing the question on the November 3 ballot.

The local outlet detailed the deadlines created by Senate Bill 29: certification by July 1, a 15-day public-comment period, and broad public access to the amendment text for at least 90 days before the election. HB 2100 was not even introduced until August 3.

The state argued that those requirements did not apply because the General Assembly drafted the ballot question itself instead of leaving the job to the secretary of state. Thompson rejected that distinction and found that the legislature remained bound by the process it had enacted.

The court immediately stayed its injunction while Maryland pursues an appeal. That means the question is not yet physically gone from the ballot while the state’s highest court reviews the dispute.

Election officials are working against an August 31 deadline to finalize ballot language. The rushed timeline Democrats created has now become part of the problem they are asking the Maryland Supreme Court to solve.

The amendment was never a harmless housekeeping measure.

Maryland Democrats already control seven of the state’s eight U.S. House seats. The new constitutional language would remove state compactness and natural-boundary standards from congressional redistricting, making it easier to draw a map threatening the lone Republican seat held by House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris.

ADVERTISEMENT

The proposed change would not redraw the map for the 2026 midterms. It would clear a constitutional obstacle for a new map before the 2028 election.

The official Maryland General Assembly record shows exactly what HB 2100 attempted to do. It would state that Maryland’s constitutional requirements for district boundaries apply to General Assembly districts, not congressional districts.

The measure would also authorize lawmakers to give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over congressional redistricting plans. It further declared that nothing in the state constitution supplies criteria for congressional district boundaries beyond applicable federal law.

Legislators accelerated the measure through a special session, suspending normal readings before passing it 96-38 in the House and 32-13 in the Senate. That speed is now sitting at the center of the court fight.

The missed deadline was only the first problem Thompson found.

The ballot language told voters the amendment merely “clarifies” how Maryland’s Constitution applies. Thompson ruled that description was “intentionally misleading” because existing Maryland law treats the compactness requirements as applying to both state and congressional districts.

The judge also found that Question 3 bundled two separate issues into one vote: changing the constitutional rules for congressional maps and changing which court hears redistricting cases first.

Maryland’s Constitution requires a referred ballot question to concern a single issue. Thompson concluded the jurisdiction provision and the map standards were distinct matters.

Just the News reported that Oversight Project President Mike Howell brought the challenge against the State Board of Elections. The court granted summary judgment to Howell and the other plaintiffs after a hearing on August 25.

ADVERTISEMENT

The plaintiffs argued that lawmakers could not bypass the election procedures simply by writing the question themselves. Thompson agreed that the legislature must follow the ordinary notice process when asking citizens to alter the constitution under which that legislature operates.

The outlet also emphasized that the injunction is stayed pending appeal, leaving the Maryland Supreme Court with the final word on whether Question 3 survives. The state filed its notice of appeal shortly after Thompson issued his decision.

If the ruling holds, voters will not decide Question 3 this November and Maryland Democrats will lose their chosen path toward redrawing the congressional map for 2028. The current 7-1 delegation and the map used for this year’s election are not changed by Wednesday’s order.

The timing is politically explosive because the ruling arrived less than ten weeks before the 2026 midterms. But the immediate legal fight is over what Maryland voters may see this November—not a last-minute replacement map for this year’s congressional races.

The full memorandum opinion in Howell v. Maryland State Board of Elections lays out all three defects. First, the legislature ignored the deadline and notice procedures it had placed into Maryland election law.

Second, Thompson found that calling the amendment a “clarification” misrepresented the legal status quo. A 2022 Maryland ruling had already applied the state constitution’s compactness and boundary protections to congressional districts.

Third, the question paired that map-rule change with a separate provision on the Supreme Court of Maryland’s original jurisdiction. Thompson wrote that the legislature’s rush through a hastily called special session left both the process and the wording deficient.

The opinion ends by enjoining Question 3 from the November ballot and staying that injunction for an immediate appeal. In other words, Maryland’s highest court now gets the final say—but Democrats arrive there carrying three independent defects, not one technical complaint.

Democrats wanted voters to authorize a rewrite of Maryland’s map rules. First they had to obey the election rules already on the books.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to the court, they did not.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.