Maryland Judge Blocks Democrats’ Redistricting Amendment, Citing Constitutional Breaches

An Anne Arundel County judge on Friday struck down a Democratic-backed constitutional amendment aimed at reshaping Maryland’s congressional districts, ruling that state lawmakers violated constitutional procedures in their rush to get the measure on the November ballot. The decision is the latest legal setback for party lawmakers seeking to redraw electoral maps, and it draws a direct parallel to a similar failure in Virginia earlier this year.

Judge Robert Thompson found that Maryland’s General Assembly missed a statutory July 1 deadline to certify ballot questions when it passed the amendment in August during a special session. The ruling also determined that the ballot language presented to voters was misleading and that the amendment violated the state constitution’s single-subject requirement by bundling changes to redistricting standards with alterations to the Maryland Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

The amendment, known as Question 3, would have removed constitutional requirements that congressional districts be compact and respect natural boundaries, and it would have given the legislature authority to set new rules for future mid-decade redistricting. Supporters framed it as a cleanup measure, but opponents saw it as a power grab by Democrats, who already hold seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats.

Judge Thompson’s ruling ordered Question 3 removed from the ballot, though the order has been stayed while the state appeals. Maryland’s highest court will now decide whether the lower court’s reasoning stands, leaving the amendment’s fate uncertain as early voting begins.

A Repeat of Virginia’s Redistricting Blunder

The Maryland ruling comes months after the Virginia Supreme Court vacated a similar redistricting referendum pushed by Democrats in that state. In Virginia, lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment proposal in a single legislative session, failing to comply with the requirement that such amendments pass the General Assembly twice with a House election in between. By the time the first vote occurred, more than 1.3 million Virginians had already cast ballots in the 2025 House elections, meaning those voters could not hold their representatives accountable for the proposed change.

Virginia’s ballot language also drew criticism for describing the amendment as a measure to “restore fairness” to congressional elections — language that critics, including former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, decried as advocacy rather than neutral explanation. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down the referendum in May, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

Cuccinelli, who served eight years in the Virginia Senate and four years as attorney general, argued in an analysis published by The Daily Wire that both states’ efforts demonstrate a troubling pattern: lawmakers seeking to rewrite redistricting rules while ignoring the constitutional constraints that bind them.

“Redistricting is political by nature. Legislators fight over maps; parties fight over partisan advantage, and courts are frequently asked to referee. But one rule applies regardless of which party has the votes: You follow the Constitution,” Cuccinelli wrote.

Constitutional Safeguards vs. Political Expediency

In Maryland, Democrats argued that the amendment was necessary to correct imbalances in congressional representation, citing concerns about partisan gerrymandering. But Judge Thompson found that the process was flawed from the start. The legislature’s August action came after the state’s July 1 deadline for certifying ballot questions, and the attorney general’s office conceded the timing issue in court. The judge also noted that the ballot language explicitly told voters the amendment “clarifies” the constitution, which he deemed misleading given the substantive changes it proposed.

The single-subject rule, a fixture in many state constitutions, is designed to prevent legislators from bundling unrelated provisions into a single vote, forcing voters to accept or reject multiple changes at once. Judge Thompson ruled that combining redistricting changes with a new grant of original jurisdiction to the Maryland Supreme Court violated that principle.

The decision has immediate political implications. Without the amendment, Democrats will not have the legal cover to redraw districts mid-decade in ways that could eliminate the state’s sole Republican-held congressional seat. The state’s current map, drawn after the 2020 Census, was itself the subject of litigation, but a new map would require a constitutional change that is now in legal limbo.

A Warning for Lawmakers

Cuccinelli highlighted the broader lesson from the twin defeats. “A constitution exists precisely because political majorities cannot always be trusted to restrain themselves,” he wrote. “If a legislative majority can disregard constitutional procedures whenever it believes its political objective is important enough, then those procedures aren’t safeguards at all.”

He also cautioned voters to be wary of ballot initiatives pushed by the same officials who would benefit from the resulting maps, noting that both parties are guilty of seeking partisan advantage. But he emphasized that following the rules is non-negotiable.

“You don’t get to break the rules to rewrite the rules,” he concluded.

Maryland’s Court of Appeals is expected to hear arguments in the coming weeks, and a decision could come before Election Day. If the lower court’s ruling is upheld, Maryland Democrats will have to decide whether to restart the amendment process, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers and compliance with the July deadline — a timeline that appears all but impossible for the current cycle.

For now, the amendment remains off the ballot, and the state’s congressional map stands as is. But the legal fight over how far lawmakers can go to manipulate electoral boundaries is far from over.

Source: www.dailywire.com — https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-democrats-botched-the-rules-to-rig-the-election-maps