Maryland’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday evening that a contested constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting will remain on the November ballot, but with rewritten language — a narrow, split decision that left both sides claiming partial vindication and set off a wave of sharply divided reaction from state political leaders.
The court’s order, in Howell v. Maryland State Board of Elections, reversed injunctions from circuit courts in Anne Arundel and Dorchester counties that had blocked Question 3 entirely just days earlier. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Matthew Fader rejected two of the central arguments Republican lawmakers and the Maryland Freedom Caucus had raised in their lawsuit: that the General Assembly missed a July 1 statutory deadline for certifying ballot language before advancing the amendment during an August special session, and that the measure improperly combined more than one constitutional subject in a single question. The court agreed with the challengers only on a narrower point — that the ballot question as originally written was misleading, specifically because it described “applicable federal laws” as the criteria for congressional district boundaries. Rather than striking Question 3 from the ballot outright, the eight-page majority order substituted language drawn directly from the bill’s own purpose paragraph and directed both circuit courts to lift their injunctions by Friday, Sept. 4.
Justice Steven Gould, joined by Senior Justice Glenn Harrell, dissented in a three-page opinion. Gould wrote he was “skeptical” the Election Law Article gave the court authority to draft ballot language in the first place, and argued that even if it did, rewriting a question the majority itself had just called misleading was the wrong response: “The General Assembly claimed the prerogative to draft the question; it should bear the consequences of drafting a misleading one. It is not our job to rewrite the question for the General Assembly.” Gould went further, writing that the replacement language “remains misleading” because it doesn’t tell voters plainly that they would be giving up Declaration of Rights protections that exist independently of, and sometimes go beyond, federal law — protections he said currently allow a Marylander to challenge a congressional map “drawn to disadvantage a religious minority or punish citizens for their political expression or association.”
Reaction broke sharply along party lines, with Republican officials treating the ruling as a loss dressed up as a technical fix, and Democratic officials treating it as an outright win.
Del. Ryan Nawrocki called the decision “deeply disappointing,” arguing the court had chosen to “rescue politicians from the consequences of breaking” the law rather than enforce it. In his statement, Nawrocki laid responsibility squarely on the governor: “Governor Moore called this emergency session while traveling the country and building a national political profile, using Maryland and its voters to advance his ambitions.” He argued that if the amendment passes, Republican and independent voters — together, he said, nearly half of Maryland’s electorate — “could be denied a meaningful voice in choosing their representation in Congress,” and pledged that opponents would “take our case directly to the people of Maryland” ahead of the Nov. 3 vote.
Del. Matt Morgan, chair of the Maryland Freedom Caucus, went further in a separate statement, framing the ruling in constitutional terms. Quoting Article 8 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights — which states that the “Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers of Government ought to be forever separate and distinct” — Morgan argued the court had crossed into legislating from the bench, and that Article 14, which governs how constitutional amendments reach the ballot, assigns that drafting duty to the General Assembly alone, not the courts. That specific legal question is genuinely contested rather than settled: it’s close to the argument Justice Gould raised in his own dissent, though the majority explicitly rejected it. Morgan was pointed about the missed deadline in particular: “It’s important to remember that the State missed many deadlines that the General Assembly itself passed into law. That is a violation of the law, not a technicality that needs clarification. The next time you miss your car registration or file your taxes late, ask for the same courtesy the General Assembly just received.” He closed by urging a “No” vote on Question 3 “and then vote Republican down the ballot.”
On the other side, Attorney General Anthony Brown credited his office’s attorneys for “successfully” defending the amendment in court, saying his responsibility as the state’s chief legal officer was to defend measures the General Assembly enacts, and that his team “carried out that responsibility with skill and professionalism.” Gov. Wes Moore called the ruling “a massive victory,” and tied it explicitly to national politics: “For over a year, I have warned that Donald Trump and Republicans across the country are working to rig the system, weaken voting rights, and make this pain permanent through aggressive mid-decade redistricting. We refuse to sit on our hands.” Maryland Democratic Party Chairman Steuart Pittman and Ned Miller, chief strategist for Fight Back MD, the campaign organized to support the amendment, both signaled the fight now moves to persuading voters directly; Miller said the group is “building the statewide campaign to educate voters, organize supporters and build the coalition necessary” to pass Question 3 in November.
Independently verifying exactly what the court ruled helps explain why both camps can plausibly claim a piece of the outcome. The rejection of the deadline and single-subject arguments was a genuine defeat for the amendment’s opponents — those specific claims cannot resurface to block the measure again. But the court’s finding that the original ballot language was misleading, even though the remedy was a rewrite rather than removal, is also a real, documented finding that the General Assembly’s drafting fell short of due process requirements — a point Republican critics, including two sitting justices in dissent, have seized on regardless of the ultimate outcome.
The underlying stakes extend well past this November. Maryland Democrats currently hold seven of the state’s eight U.S. House seats, with Rep. Andy Harris the lone Republican in the delegation. Question 3 would not change district lines for this year’s midterms. But if voters approve it, the amendment would clear the way for Democratic lawmakers to redraw congressional boundaries before the 2028 elections, specifically by undoing the legal foundation of a 2022 ruling from Judge Lynne Battaglia, which struck down an earlier Democratic-drawn map as a “product of extreme partisan gerrymandering” by extending a state constitutional compactness requirement to congressional districts for the first time — a novel interpretation that isn’t binding legal precedent but was influential enough that Senate President Bill Ferguson had shelved a new congressional map the House had already approved earlier this year out of concern it could meet the same fate.
Under the court’s order, both circuit courts were required to lift their injunctions and enter new orders by Friday, and the State Board of Elections must replace the ballot language before printing begins. State Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis said Thursday night that the ruling allows the state to still meet its mail-in ballot deadlines, with ballots beginning to go out Sept. 19; he said he was finishing a Spanish-language translation of the new ballot question that same evening. Both Fader and Gould indicated fuller written opinions, explaining more of their reasoning, will follow later.
