Maryland Supreme Court allows redistricting vote on November ballot

Key facts

• Maryland voters will decide in November on a congressional redistricting amendment.
• The Maryland Supreme Court ruled the amendment must be placed on the ballot, reversing lower court decisions.
• The proposed amendment could allow for new congressional district maps for the 2028 elections.
• The court agreed the ballot wording was misleading and directed it to be rewritten.
• Republicans had challenged the amendment, citing misleading wording and missed deadlines.

Maryland voters will have the opportunity to vote on a congressional redistricting amendment in November, following a ruling by the Maryland Supreme Court. The court reversed two lower court decisions that had blocked the measure, allowing it to proceed to the ballot, though it mandated a rewrite of the ballot summary.

The amendment, proposed by Democrats, aims to alter the rules for drawing congressional districts in Maryland, potentially impacting the 2028 elections. This move is seen as a counter to Republican redistricting efforts nationwide, particularly those influenced by President Donald Trump. Democrats currently hold seven of Maryland's eight U.S. House seats.

The proposed amendment would undo a 2022 court ruling that invalidated a previous Democratic redistricting plan for being an "extreme partisan gerrymander." The new amendment would apply parameters like compact districts and respect for natural boundaries only to state legislative districts, potentially allowing for congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay. This could reshape the district currently held by U.S. Representative Andy Harris, the state's sole Republican representative.

Republicans had challenged the amendment, arguing that lawmakers missed legal deadlines for certification and public comment, and that the ballot question wording was misleading and violated a single-issue requirement. While the state Supreme Court agreed the wording was misleading, it rejected the multiple-subject argument and found the missed deadlines insufficient to prevent the amendment from reaching voters.