Frederick County Data Center Referendum — Maryland Supreme Court bars referendum on data center zoning ordinance

Case
In the Matter of Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee
Court
Supreme Court of Maryland
Date Decided
June 30, 2026
Docket No.
No. 67, September Term, 2025
Topics
Referendum law, Local government, Zoning & land use, Election law
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Frederick County, Maryland enacted Ordinance 26-01-001, a County Council measure related to data center development. The Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee sought to subject the ordinance to a public referendum and obtained certification of its petition from the Frederick County Board of Elections’ Election Director.

Several parties — including Quantum Maryland LLC, individual property owners, and various real estate entities — filed petitions in the Circuit Court for Frederick County challenging both the certification and the sufficiency of the referendum petition. The circuit court consolidated the cases and, on June 21, 2026, ruled in favor of the challengers on three independent grounds: the ordinance was not a permissible subject of referendum under the Frederick County Charter; the Election Director’s certification was improper; and the referendum petition failed to include the full and accurate text of the law as required by Maryland Election Law § 6-206(c)(6) and the Frederick County Charter, Article 3, § 308(b).

The Referendum Committee appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Maryland, which heard argument on June 30, 2026 — the same day it issued its ruling.

The Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in full, issuing a per curiam order on June 30, 2026, with a full opinion to follow. The Court upheld all three grounds on which the circuit court relied: that Ordinance 26-01-001 is not a subject matter eligible for referendum under the Frederick County Charter; that the Election Director’s certification of the petition was therefore improper and must be reversed; and that the referendum petition was independently deficient for failing to provide the full and accurate text of the law.

The Court ordered costs against the Referendum Committee and directed that the mandate issue forthwith, reflecting the time-sensitive electoral context of the dispute.

Key Takeaways

  • A county council ordinance authorizing or regulating data center development in Frederick County falls outside the class of legislation subject to citizen referendum under the Frederick County Charter.
  • A referendum petition that does not include the full and accurate text of the challenged law is independently deficient under Maryland Election Law § 6-206(c)(6), regardless of other grounds for invalidation.
  • The Election Director lacked authority to certify a referendum petition directed at a non-referable ordinance, and that certification is subject to judicial reversal.
  • The Supreme Court of Maryland expedited its ruling — arguing and deciding the case on the same day — signaling that referendum deadline pressures warrant immediate appellate resolution.

Why It Matters

This decision clarifies that not all county council action in Frederick County is subject to the referendum power, and that local charters can restrict the categories of legislation available for popular review. Developers and local governments in Maryland can point to this ruling when contending that land-use and economic-development ordinances fall outside citizen referendum rights, potentially insulating similar measures from ballot challenges in other charter counties with analogous provisions.

The ruling also reinforces a strict compliance standard for referendum petitions under Maryland Election Law: failure to reproduce the full text of the challenged law is fatal to a petition, giving election officials and courts a clean procedural basis to reject facially deficient filings before reaching the merits of any substantive referendum-eligibility question.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top