BALTIMORE (WBFF) — The legal fight over Maryland’s proposed congressional redistricting amendment is moving quickly toward a court hearing, with plaintiffs now asking a judge to rule in their favor before voters have a chance to consider the measure in November.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment Monday evening in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, arguing there is no genuine dispute over the facts of the case and that the court should rule as a matter of law that the amendment was improperly placed on the ballot.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Oversight Project President Mike Howell, members of the Maryland Freedom Caucus, Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey and Whip Justin Ready.
The motion argues the General Assembly violated Maryland election law and constitutional protections in several ways when it approved the amendment during its two-day special session in early August.
At the center of the lawsuit is Senate Bill 29, which became effective June 1 and established new requirements for statewide ballot questions. Among other things, the law required the Secretary of State to certify ballot-question information by July 1 and required election officials to make the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment publicly available for at least 90 days before the general election. For this year’s election, that 90-day date was Aug. 5.
The plaintiffs argue those deadlines had already passed when HB 2100 was introduced on Aug. 3.
“This filing is a major step in this rapid litigation. Ultimately this case will come down to whether Governor Moore and his General Assembly are allowed to ignore Maryland’s newly passed elections laws to fast track this highly partisan constitutional amendment,” said Marshall Yates, strategic counsel and leader of the Oversight Project’s REPAIR initiative.
The motion cites the Department of Legislative Services’ fiscal and policy note, which said the new July 1 certification deadline had already passed and acknowledged the special session was scheduled to end on Aug. 5, exactly 90 days before the Nov. 3 election.
The filing also points to language added to HB 2100 shortly before passage stating that the ballot question would be submitted to voters “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Plaintiffs argue that language does not allow supporters of the legislation to sidestep the deadline requirements outlined in SB 29. The group and Republican lawmakers behind the suit argue the ballot language isn’t clear enough for voters to understand what they are being asked to vote on. Yates said the plaintiffs believe the courts should intervene before the amendment reaches voters.
“We do not believe the courts should condone this lawlessness from the Governor and the General Assembly by expanding their power to mislead voters to pass this constitutional amendment by an unconstitutional process,” Yates said.
Following the passage of the plan in Annapolis, Senate President Bill Ferguson said legislative leaders took steps to ensure the measure complied with state law.
“I think we did everything we could to prepare, to make sure that we dotted every I, crossed every T,” Ferguson said. “I think that we took every measure and made the appropriate accommodations to follow the law to make sure that this was on the ballot appropriately.”
Ferguson has argued the amendment is an effort to clarify the legal standards governing congressional redistricting following a 2022 Maryland court ruling and subsequent developments involving redistricting elsewhere in the country.
Ferguson has also emphasized that voters will ultimately decide whether to amend the state constitution.
“At the end of the day, this is about giving Marylanders a voice,” Ferguson said.
Yates, however, argues the legislation fuels Gov. Wes Moore’s political ambitions, and said “free and fair elections in Maryland cannot be excused as politically inconvenient”
During the regularly-scheduled session, Moore pushed for redistricting to continue. The House of Delegates passed a proposed new congressional map that could give Democrats an 8-0 advantage, picking up the last seat currently held by Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Harris.
But the plan was met with opposition in the senate, even when U.S. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries paid a visit to the State House to continue lobbying for redistricting.
Reply briefs are due Aug. 21, and oral arguments are scheduled for 10 a.m. Aug. 25. The filing notes the case is on an expedited schedule in anticipation of a potential appeal.
Follow Political Reporter Mikenzie Frost on X and Facebook. Send tips to mbfrost@sbgtv.com.
Local Story
