A Maryland court has ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2028 elections.
The ruling Wednesday by a judge in the state’s capital city marks another setback in Democrats’ national attempts to counter a Republican redistricting movement pushed by President Donald Trump in previous election cycles. The judge ruled that the amendment cannot appear on the November ballot, but he paused the effect of that ruling to allow for an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Currently, Democrats control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats. In response to a competitive political landscape, Democratic Governor Wes Moore convened lawmakers in a special session in August, aiming to facilitate the claim to the remaining seat.
An amendment referred to the ballot by lawmakers sought to circumvent a court decision that invalidated a previous Democratic redistricting plan in 2022. This proposed amendment aimed to declare that a constitutional requirement for districts to be compact and consider “natural boundaries” would only apply to state legislative districts, not congressional ones.
This change would enable Democratic state lawmakers to create congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, potentially reshaping a district east of the bay currently held by Republican Representative Andy Harris, who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson determined that lawmakers failed to meet their own deadlines for ballot measures. Earlier this year, a law passed and signed by Governor Moore established a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify summaries of all statewide ballot questions to the Maryland State Board of Elections.
The attorney general’s office contended that this deadline didn’t apply to the redistricting amendment because lawmakers crafted their own ballot summary, exercising their constitutional authority. However, Judge Thompson disagreed, siding with arguments presented by the conservative Oversight Project and Republican state lawmakers who filed the lawsuit.
Moreover, Thompson criticized lawmakers for using “intentionally misleading” language in the ballot question, which suggested it merely “clarifies” the Constitution’s redistricting standards. He also pointed out that the amendment violated a single-issue requirement in the Constitution by including a provision granting the state Supreme Court original jurisdiction over lawsuits concerning congressional redistricting.
In his ruling, Thompson stated, “The court has no choice but to enjoin the board of elections from including ballot Question 3 on the general election ballot for November 3, 2026.”
Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court also invalidated a redistricting ballot measure due to procedural violations by state lawmakers. In that instance, voters had already approved an amendment in April authorizing mid-decade redistricting when the court ruled that lawmakers had delayed too long to take the necessary steps for qualification.
Both Virginia and Maryland were attempting to follow California’s lead, where voters approved a Democratic-backed amendment allowing mid-decade redistricting. Democrats in California hope to gain up to five congressional seats from redrawn districts, along with an additional seat from new districts in Utah.
Conversely, Republicans aim to capture as many as 16 additional seats from new U.S. House districts implemented in states such as Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.
Redistricting typically occurs at the beginning of each decade, following the release of new census data. However, the mid-decade redistricting battle emerged after Trump encouraged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts, hoping this strategy might help maintain a slim House majority in the midterm elections.
