BALTIMORE (WBFF) — A Dorchester County judge sided with Republican lawmakers seeking to block Maryland’s proposed congressional redistricting amendment from the November ballot, marking the second lower-court win for opponents of Ballot Question 3.
But the ruling is on hold for now. The case is expected to quickly head to the Supreme Court of Maryland, where arguments are already scheduled for Sept. 3 in a separate, overlapping challenge from Anne Arundel County. Sept. 3 is also the same day the State Board of Elections is scheduled to start printing ballots.
In a 12-page opinion, Judge S. James Sarbanes ruled for the plaintiffs on all three of their claims: that the ballot language and process did not give voters adequate notice, that the General Assembly violated election laws, and that the proposed amendment improperly combined multiple subjects into one ballot question.
The Dorchester lawsuit challenged the proposed constitutional amendment’s ballot language, arguing it misleads voters by describing the change as a “clarification” of existing law.
During a two-day special session at the beginning of August, Maryland’s General Assembly passed the proposed constitutional amendment; the language says certain Maryland constitutional redistricting standards apply only to state legislative districts, not congressional districts.
Judge Sarbanes found the language in Question 3 “misleading” and said it does not give voters sufficient information to cast an informed vote.
“The practical effect of HB 2100 is to remove all Maryland Constitutional standards and protections from congressional districting plans,” Sarbanes wrote. “That is not clear from the ballot question.”
The judge also rejected the state’s argument that voters could understand the amendment’s effect by reading several portions of the ballot language together.
“It should not be this confusing for a voter,” Sarbanes wrote
Republicans have argued the amendment removes state constitutional safeguards and maintained the Democrats in control of the General Assembly didn’t follow election deadlines outlined in legislation passed earlier this year.
“The most important issue in our suit is that the language that will appear on the ballot, which every voter will look at just before they cast their vote, is totally misleading,” Sen. Chris West, one of the plaintiffs in the Eastern Shore case, previously told FOX45 News. “It says all this is supposed to do is to clarify existing law. That’s not the case.”
The court concluded the General Assembly failed to comply with parts of the state election law governing ballot questions, including requirements involving public notice, a public-comment period and a statement explaining the practical outcome of each voting choice.
The court noted the General Assembly inserted language directing that the question be submitted to voters “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Sarbanes wrote that lawmakers “attempted to opt out of its own laws” and said the legislature “should not be able to opt out of its own statutory process.”
The plaintiffs, including West, Sens. Mary Beth Carozza and Johnny Mautz, and Del. Chris Adams, called the ruling a “complete win for Maryland voters and the rule of law.”
“The court ruled in our favor on every claim, finding that the General Assembly violated Marylanders’ due process and its own laws enacted just this year that are designed to ensure the public is well-informed when voting on changes to the Maryland Constitution,” the plaintiffs said in a statement. “More importantly, the court found that the General Assembly’s amendment was misleading and hid from Marylanders that a ‘yes’ vote meant surrendering their constitutional protections against partisan gerrymandering.”
A similar challenge filed in Anne Arundel County was decided in Republicans’ favor earlier this week. In that case, Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson ruled the General Assembly “did not follow the very laws it enacted” and blocked the measure from the ballot. Thompson also stayed that order pending appeal.
Supporters of Question 3 said Friday they expect the state’s highest court to have the final say.
“This is a disappointing decision that runs counter to the will of the General Assembly to have this constitutional amendment on the ballot in November,” said state Sen. Clarence Lam, a Democrat. “The voters should be able to decide whether they support or oppose this clarifying amendment on the merits of the case, not to have their voices silenced by the courts before they are even given an option to weigh in.”
Joe Francaviglia, political director of Fight Back MD, similarly said the group believes opponents are using multiple lawsuits to try to prevent the question from reaching voters before ballots are printed.
Follow Political Reporter Mikenzie Frost on X and Facebook. Send tips to mbfrost@sbgtv.com.
Local Story
