Background
During an August 2026 special session, the Maryland General Assembly enacted Chapter 881, proposing a state constitutional amendment concerning congressional redistricting. The amendment would clarify that specified districting requirements apply only to General Assembly districts, authorize the legislature to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction to review congressional districting plans, and provide that the Maryland Constitution supplies no applicable criteria for congressional-district boundaries. The proposal was designated Question 3 for the November 2026 general-election ballot.
Separate groups of registered voters challenged Question 3 in the Circuit Courts for Anne Arundel and Dorchester Counties. Both courts granted summary judgment to the voters and enjoined the State Board of Elections from placing the question on the ballot, concluding that the ballot language was misleading, the proposal violated the Maryland Constitution’s single-subject requirement, and election officials could not meet certain statutory requirements because of the enactment’s timing. The injunctions were stayed pending 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 relying on executive officials’ inability to comply completely with Title VII of the Election Law Article, and also erred in concluding that Question 3 violated the state Constitution’s single-subject requirement.
The Court agreed, however, that the ballot statement claiming the amendment “requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws” was misleading and violated due process. Because Election Law § 12-204(c) permitted appropriate relief short of removing the question from the ballot, the Court ordered the circuit courts to require the Board of Elections to replace the misleading text with Chapter 881’s purpose paragraph. Justice Gould, joined by Senior Justice Harrell, dissented, expressing skepticism that § 12-204 authorized the Court to draft ballot language and arguing that the substituted language remained misleading.
Key Takeaways
- The original Question 3 language violated due process because its statement about applicable federal laws was misleading and did not appear in Chapter 881’s purpose paragraph.
- The timing-related election-law issues and the constitutional single-subject requirement did not justify excluding Question 3 from the November 2026 ballot.
- The proper remedy was substitution of the statute’s purpose paragraph for the defective ballot text, not an injunction removing the proposed amendment from the ballot.
Why It Matters
The order allows Maryland voters to consider the proposed constitutional amendment while requiring ballot language that more accurately describes its legal effect. It also illustrates the broad remedial authority Maryland courts may exercise in election challenges under § 12-204(c), including correcting defective language when invalidating or postponing a ballot question is unnecessary.
The dissent highlights an unresolved institutional concern: whether that statutory authority permits courts to draft replacement ballot language and whether the Court’s chosen substitute adequately alerts voters that the amendment would remove Maryland constitutional protections, including provisions of the Declaration of Rights, as criteria for evaluating congressional maps.