BALTIMORE (WBFF) — The Oversight Project is urging Maryland’s highest court to keep a proposed congressional redistricting amendment off the November ballot, arguing lawmakers knew they were bypassing election procedures and failed to explain to voters what Question 3 would actually change.
The group filed a 73-page brief Tuesday with the Supreme Court of Maryland defending an Anne Arundel County judge’s ruling that blocked Question 3 from appearing on the ballot.
The filing comes ahead of oral arguments Thursday in the state’s expedited appeal.
At the center of the case is a constitutional amendment passed during the General Assembly’s August special session. The amendment would specify that certain Maryland constitutional standards apply only to state legislative districts, not congressional districts. It would also allow lawmakers to give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over challenges to congressional maps.
The amendment itself would not redraw Maryland’s congressional districts.
But in the latest filing, the Oversight Project argues the process lawmakers used to put the question before voters violated election laws the General Assembly had passed just months earlier.
“The merits of congressional redistricting are not before this Court,” attorneys for the challengers wrote. “Only the process owed to the voters of this State is, and that process is defective.”
The brief points to Senate Bill 29, which Gov. Wes Moore signed into law in May. Among other changes, the law established deadlines for certifying statewide ballot questions.
The General Assembly did not begin its special session until Aug. 3, more than a month after a July 1 certification deadline had passed.
“Appellants and the General Assembly understood what they were doing,” the challengers wrote.
The brief points to comments from the Department of Legislative Services, which warned lawmakers that “the new statutory deadline of July 1 for certification of ballot questions by SOS and SBE has passed.”
It also points to comments from lawmakers made during the special session.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Cheryl Kagan, a sponsor of SB 29, said there was “no time to comply with the plain language of the law” because the July 1 deadline was already “in the rearview mirror.”
Lawmakers ultimately added language to HB 2100 stating that “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” Question 3 would be submitted to Maryland voters.
The Department of Legislative Services said that language “effectively exempts the ballot question from existing statutory requirements governing the timing and content of ballot questions.”
The Oversight Project argues that exemption does not solve the problem.
The filing says if the “notwithstanding” provision is considered part of the constitutional amendment, it must also be submitted to voters. If it is ordinary legislation, the challengers argue it lacks an emergency declaration or effective date and therefore would not take effect until June 1, 2027, months after the election.
Challengers also continue to take issue with the wording voters would see on their ballot.
“The ballot question is independently defective,” attorneys wrote.
Question 3 says the amendment “clarifies that certain standards in the Maryland Constitution apply only to districts used to elect members of the General Assembly.”
“It says the amendment ‘clarifies’ the law,” attorneys wrote, when they contend it represents “a reversal of the status quo, not a clarification.”
The brief also argues the question refers vaguely to “certain standards” without telling voters which standards are affected and “omits the practical-outcome statement” required under the election law.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson sided with the challengers last week.
Thompson, who was appointed by former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, found the General Assembly “did not follow the very laws it enacted” and concluded HB 2100 was “legally deficient.” He also found the use of the word “clarifies” misleading and ruled Question 3 violated the state Constitution’s single-subject requirement.
His order blocking Question 3 was paused while the state appeals.
Following Judge Thompson’s ruling, Senate President Bill Ferguson defended the General Assembly’s actions during the special session, arguing lawmakers “acted squarely within its constitutional authority.”
Ferguson said the amendment gives Maryland a chance to settle legal questions surrounding congressional redistricting before another map is adopted.
“This constitutional amendment presents an important opportunity to resolve legal questions that could have arisen had the General Assembly simply adopted a new congressional map, potentially forcing the courts to weigh in after the fact on an actual map and its consequences,” Ferguson said.
“Marylanders deserve the right to vote on this question,” Ferguson added. “I expect this case to receive prompt review, and I look forward to a clear ruling that affirms the General Assembly’s constitutional authority.”
The Oversight Project is asking the Supreme Court to affirm Thompson’s ruling and keep Question 3 off the November ballot.
Just days after Judge Thompsons’s ruling, Democrats and the General Assembly were dealt another blow – this time from the Eastern Shore. Dorchester County Circuit Court Judge S. James Sarbanes ruled Friday that Question 3 should not appear on the ballot in a separate lawsuit brought by Republican Sens. Mary Beth Carozza, Johnny Mautz and Chris West, Del. Chris Adams and Dorchester County Republican Central Committee member Lindsay Wheatley.
Sarbanes, who was appointed by former Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, reached a similar conclusion to Thompson. Sarbanes found the General Assembly failed to comply with election law requirements and concluded the ballot language “is misleading and does not provide voters with adequate information or an explanation for an informed vote.”
Like Thompson, Sarbanes ordered the question blocked from the November ballot but paused his ruling while the case is appealed.
“Two Circuit Courts, on separate records and reasoning, reached the same conclusion,” the challengers wrote.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Thursday in both cases, the same day the State Board of Elections is scheduled to begin printing ballots.
Follow Political Reporter Mikenzie Frost on X and Facebook. Send tips to mbfrost@sbgtv.com.
Local Story
