MARYLAND - Maryland voters will decide in November whether to approve a constitutional amendment involving congressional redistricting after the Maryland Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the measure must appear on the general election ballot.
The ruling reversed lower court decisions that had blocked the amendment from going before voters. The state Supreme Court also directed that the ballot summary be rewritten after finding that the wording was misleading, according to The Associated Press.
Gov. Wes Moore praised the decision in a statement Thursday. “The final decision on how we draw our maps belongs in the hands of Marylanders, not politicians,” Moore said. Moore called lawmakers into a special session in August to refer the constitutional amendment to the November ballot.
Democrats currently hold seven of Maryland’s eight seats in the U.S. House. The amendment would not change congressional districts for the 2026 midterm elections, but if approved, it could allow lawmakers to redraw districts ahead of the 2028 elections, according to the AP.
The proposed amendment would change how constitutional requirements concerning compact districts and natural boundaries apply to congressional districts. The AP reports that those requirements were central to a 2022 court ruling that struck down a previous Democratic congressional map as a product of extreme partisan gerrymandering. Under the proposed amendment, those provisions would apply only to state legislative districts.
The change could allow lawmakers to draw congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, potentially affecting the district represented by Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland’s only Republican member of Congress.
The legal challenge also involved deadlines established under state law. Lower courts found that lawmakers had not complied with a July 1 deadline for certifying information about statewide ballot questions and a required 15-day public comment period. Lawmakers approved the amendment Aug. 4.
The Maryland Supreme Court rejected a claim that the amendment violated the state constitution’s single-subject requirement. It agreed, however, that the ballot language was misleading and ordered the wording changed rather than removing the measure from the ballot.
Moore said he plans to campaign in support of the amendment. “I look forward to taking this case directly to the people and campaigning vigorously for a strong YES vote on Question 3 this November,” Moore said.
