Maryland Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Redistricting Ballot Question

The Supreme Court of Maryland heard oral arguments on September 3 regarding whether Question 3, a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting, should appear on the November ballot. The measure, passed by a three-fifths majority of the Maryland General Assembly, seeks to clarify that certain state constitutional standards apply only to General Assembly districts and would grant the state's highest court original jurisdiction to review congressional districting plans.

Republican challengers, including The Oversight Project and Senator Chris West, argue that the General Assembly bypassed statutory certification deadlines and used misleading language. Two circuit court judges, Robert Thompson and S. James Sarbanes, previously ruled against the measure, citing legal deficiencies in the enactment of HB2100 and failures to meet election law deadlines.

Supporters and Democratic lawmakers contend the amendment follows all constitutional requirements for submission to voters. Senate President Bill Ferguson defended the process as an exercise of the General Assembly's constitutional authority. The court's decision is urgent, as the State Board of Elections was scheduled to begin printing ballots on the same day as the arguments. A ruling in favor of the question could potentially allow Democrats to gain control of all eight of Maryland's U.S. House seats.