Maryland judge strikes down ballot question on congressional redistricting, state files appeal
A judge has ruled against Maryland's ballot question regarding the future of congressional redistricting in the state.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson issued the ruling Wednesday, following a court hearing on the matter Tuesday.
The question that was set to appear on the November ballot asks Maryland voters to decide whether to clear the way for a new congressional map.
The case is now expected to head to the Maryland Supreme Court, as the state appeals the judge's decision.
Both sides respond to judge's ruling
Gov. Wes Moore signed the measure into law earlier this month after the Democratic-controlled state legislature voted to approve it during a special legislative session. The bill needed three-fifths approval from both chambers to move forward, and it cleared the House 96-38 and the Senate 32-13.
The Oversight Project, a conservative advocacy group, the Maryland Freedom Caucus and other Republican lawmakers then sued to block the measure from the ballot.
Moore's office reacted to Wednesday's ruling, saying they "respectfully disagree with the Circuit Court's decision" and have already filed an appeal.
"At a moment when states across the country are manipulating congressional maps to silence voters and undermine fair representation, Maryland cannot afford to sit on our hands. We believe Maryland voters deserve the opportunity to make their voices heard, and we will continue fighting to ensure they can," a spokesperson for the governor's office said.
"The General Assembly acted because we believe Maryland voters should have the opportunity to decide whether these standards belong in our Constitution. Today's ruling has been stayed pending appeal, and we will allow that legal process to proceed," Maryland House Speaker Joseline A. Peña-Melnyk added in a statement. "We remain confident in the authority of the General Assembly and believe Maryland voters should have the final say."
Maryland Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey, meanwhile, called the ruling "an important victory."
"Today's ruling is an important victory for the rule of law and for every Maryland voter who expects government to follow the Constitution and the election laws it enacts," Hershey said in a statement. "This case has never been about preventing Marylanders from having a voice. It has been about ensuring that before voters are asked to amend our Constitution, the State first complies with the Constitution and the election procedures established by law."
"A chamber that holds a supermajority is still a chamber bound by the law. Today the court made clear that three-fifths of the vote doesn't buy you an exemption from the rules you wrote yourself," Maryland Freedom Caucus Chair Matt Morgan added in a statement. "Maryland doesn't answer to kings, and it doesn't answer to a legislature that thinks it's one."
Maryland's redistricting ballot question
If approved in November, the redistricting changes would favor Democrats in all eight of the state's U.S. House districts, beginning with the 2028 elections.
Specifically, the ballot question would ask voters whether future congressional maps should be judged under federal constitutional standards, rather than the state's current constitutional standards.
As the map stands right now, Republicans only hold one congressional district in the state, which currently belongs to Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the House Freedom Caucus.
The ballot question would not immediately redraw congressional districts, nor affect the 2026 midterms.
What came from Tuesday's court hearing
In court Tuesday, attorneys for the plaintiffs focused on the timing of the legislature's special session, arguing lawmakers missing a July 1 deadline to finalize ballot questions. The deadline was established under SB 29, which was approved during the last legislative session.
The attorneys also raised concerns about due process, saying Maryland voters were not given enough time to provide public comments or participate in creating the ballot question.
Assistant Attorney General Daniel Kobrin defended the state, arguing the state's constitution gives the General Assembly the authority to propose constitutional amendments, so lawmakers can override statutes like the July 1 deadline.
The judge, however, appeared unconvinced by that interpretation.
"Doesn't seem right to me," Thompson said Tuesday.
Kobrin had asked the judge to issue an injunctive relief if he ultimately ruled against the state. That would prevent the ruling from taking effect while the state appeals.
