Background
During an August 2026 special session, the Maryland General Assembly enacted Chapter 881, proposing a state constitutional amendment concerning congressional redistricting. The proposal would clarify that specified state constitutional districting requirements apply only to General Assembly districts, authorize the General Assembly to give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction to review the State’s congressional districting plan, and provide that the Maryland Constitution supplies no criteria for congressional district boundaries. The proposal was designated Question 3 for the November 2026 general-election ballot.
Registered voters brought separate challenges in Anne Arundel and Dorchester Counties. Both circuit courts granted summary judgment for the voters and enjoined the State Board of Elections from placing Question 3 on the ballot, concluding that the ballot language was misleading, the measure violated the Maryland Constitution’s single-subject requirement, and the General Assembly had acted too late for executive officials to comply fully with statutory election requirements. The injunctions were stayed pending the State defendants’ direct appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the circuit courts erred, at least in part, by treating incomplete compliance with Title VII of the Election Law Article as grounds to exclude Question 3 from the ballot. It also held that the circuit courts erred in concluding that the proposed amendment violated the Maryland Constitution’s single-subject requirement.
The Court agreed, however, that the enacted ballot text was misleading and violated due process because it stated that the amendment “requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws.” That clause did not appear in Chapter 881’s purpose paragraph and inaccurately described the proposal. Rather than remove Question 3 from the ballot, the Court invoked the remedial authority in § 12-204(c) of the Election Law Article and directed the circuit courts to require the State Board of Elections to replace the misleading text with Chapter 881’s purpose paragraph.
Key Takeaways
- Question 3 could remain on Maryland’s November 2026 ballot despite incomplete compliance with statutory election-administration requirements.
- The proposed constitutional amendment did not violate Maryland’s single-subject requirement.
- The enacted ballot description violated due process, but substituting Chapter 881’s purpose paragraph was an adequate remedy.
Why It Matters
The order preserved voters’ opportunity to decide the proposed constitutional amendment while requiring a more accurate description of its effect. It also confirms that Maryland courts adjudicating election challenges may tailor relief under § 12-204(c), rather than automatically removing a defective question from the ballot.
Justice Gould dissented, joined by Senior Justice Harrell, arguing that the Court lacked or should not exercise authority to rewrite the General Assembly’s ballot language and that the substituted language remained misleading because it did not expressly tell voters that the amendment would eliminate state constitutional criteria derived from the Maryland Declaration of Rights.