Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson ruled that a proposed Maryland constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting cannot appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The decision blocks the measure from reaching voters due to procedural violations and misleading language identified in the legislative process.

Thompson paused the effect of his ruling to allow for an appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court. The state filed a notice of appeal to the high court shortly after the ruling was issued.

"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," Thompson wrote in his opinion. He determined that lawmakers violated their own deadlines for ballot measures during the special session.

The court found that legislators used intentionally misleading wording in the ballot question by stating that it merely clarifies the Constitution's redistricting standards. Thompson also ruled that the amendment violates a single-issue requirement in the Maryland Constitution. The violation stems from a provision that would give the state Supreme Court original jurisdiction in lawsuits over congressional redistricting.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican lawmakers, the Maryland Freedom Caucus, and the Oversight Project. Plaintiffs in the case include Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey, Minority Whip Justin Ready, Delegate Brian Chisholm, Delegate Kathy Szeliga, Delegate Ryan Nawrocki, and Oversight Project President Mike Howell. Jeffrey B. Clark, a former Trump White House official and vice president of litigation for the Oversight Project, served as lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued that the General Assembly failed to follow election procedures established under Senate Bill 29 when it approved the measure during a special session. They contended that Democrats ignored a state law passed during the regular session that established a July 1 deadline for ballot questions to be presented to voters with public comment.

"All Marylanders' due process rights were violated in this process. The Legislature can't make rules for thee and not apply to me," Nawrocki said.

Oversight Project President Mike Howell commented on the judicial proceedings leading up to the decision. "I think we got a really good hearing from the judge. He asked a lot of good questions. The more questions he asked, the more he wrestled with that pig that came out of the General Assembly the more it oinked," Howell said.

Assistant House Minority Whip Brian Chisholm expressed concerns about the legislative majority's approach to statutory requirements. "I think there was a concern about parliamentary supremacy in Maryland, where you have a supermajority that was created through gerrymandering that feels it's OK to exempt rules that they set," Chisholm said.

St. Mary's County Delegate Matt Morgan said a chamber that holds a supermajority is still a chamber bound by the law. He noted that the court made clear that three-fifths of the vote does not buy an exemption from the rules the Legislature wrote itself. Szeliga said the Maryland Freedom Caucus is honored to have worked alongside the attorneys from the Oversight Project. She stated that a supermajority does not put lawmakers above the laws they pass or above the Maryland and U.S. Constitutions.

Oversight Project Strategic Counsel Marshall Yates called the decision a major step in the battle against Maryland’s lawless attempt at redistricting. Maryland House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk responded by stating that the General Assembly remains confident in its authority. "We remain confident in the authority of the General Assembly and believe Maryland voters should have the final say," Peña-Melnyk said.

During hearings prior to the ruling, Thompson expressed concern about the legislature ignoring its own statutes. "There are a couple things that trouble me about this case. In particular, when all of this lawmaking authority, at least statutory lawmaking authority, rests in one branch of the government, and that branch of the government wants to do something that its own laws that it enacted don't allow or don't make easy to do, you can just say, 'Well, you know, we won't follow those laws,'" he said. He noted that the legislature has the ability to repeal laws, amend laws, and carve out exceptions in laws.

Thompson disclosed in open court that he had an association with plaintiffs Delegate Brian Chisholm and Delegate Kathy Szeliga. He had spoken with both after former Governor Larry Hogan appointed him to the bench in 2018. "I don't believe it creates a conflict," he said regarding the disclosure.

The proposed constitutional amendment would nullify a 2022 ruling by Judge Lynne Battaglia that struck down a proposed 2021 congressional map. The amendment would declare that a constitutional requirement for districts to be compact and take into account natural boundaries applies only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones. It would allow Democratic state lawmakers to draw congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, reshaping a district east of the bay held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris. Democrats currently control seven of Maryland's eight congressional seats.

Democratic Governor Wes Moore called lawmakers into a special session in August 2026. Election officials face an August 31 deadline to finalize ballot language for the November 3 election. They must certify roughly 1,200 ballot variations for the election.

Maryland State Election Administrator Jared DeMarinis said his job is to create the ballot and make sure that the voters have choices. "We just want some clarity … so that we can meet all the certification deadlines and make sure that the mail-in ballots go out in a timely fashion. In the end, voters have to be informed and vote," DeMarinis said. A separate lawsuit challenging the amendment is pending in Dorchester County.

Why It Matters

The ruling impacts the upcoming November 3, 2026 general election and the ongoing legal battles over congressional district boundaries in Maryland. By blocking the amendment, the court prevents changes that would alter how congressional districts are drawn, specifically regarding compactness and natural boundaries. The decision reinforces procedural deadlines established by the state legislature for ballot measures, asserting that the General Assembly must follow its own laws even when holding a supermajority.

Election officials operate under tight deadlines, with an August 31 date to finalize ballot language and certify approximately 1,200 ballot variations. The injunction creates uncertainty for these administrative tasks, though the stay allows for appellate review. The case shows tensions between legislative authority and constitutional constraints, with plaintiffs arguing that due process rights were violated when the legislature bypassed standard procedures during a special session called by Governor Wes Moore.

Timeline

On August 25, 2026, Judge Robert Thompson said, "There are a couple things that trouble me about this case. In particular, when all of this lawmaking authority, at least statutory lawmaking authority, rests in one branch of the government, and that branch of the government wants to do something that its own laws that it enacted don't allow or don't make easy to do, you can just say, 'Well, you know, we won't follow those laws.' That doesn't seem right to me because I know that the legislature, that branch of government that has that authority, also has the ability to repeal laws, amend laws, carve out exceptions in laws. Also on August 25, 2026, Judge Thompson said, I don't believe it creates a conflict. Maryland State Election Administrator Jared DeMarinis said on August 25, 2026, My job is to create the ballot and make sure that the voters have choices, and that's what I'm going to do. The Legislature can't make rules for thee and not apply to me. Maryland State Election Administrator Jared DeMarinis said on August 25, 2026, We just want some clarity … so that we can meet all the certification deadlines and make sure that the mail-in ballots go out in a timely fashion. In the end, voters have to be informed and vote. He asked a lot of good questions. The more questions he asked, the more he wrestled with that pig that came out of the General Assembly the more it oinked."

What's New

Additional reporting includes Judge Robert Thompson writing, 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." Baltimore County Delegate Kathy Szeliga said, "The Maryland Freedom Caucus is honored to have worked alongside the attorneys from the Oversight Project, who laid out these defects point by point in court. A supermajority doesn't put you above the laws you pass, or above the Maryland and U.S. Constitutions." Judge Robert Thompson said, "There are a couple things that trouble me about this case. In particular, when all of this lawmaking authority, at least statutory lawmaking authority, rests in one branch of the government, and that branch of the government wants to do something that its own laws that it enacted don't allow or don't make easy to do, you can just say, 'Well, you know, we won't follow those laws.' That doesn't seem right to me because I know that the legislature, that branch of government that has that authority, also has the ability to repeal laws, amend laws, carve out exceptions in laws." Judge Robert Thompson said, "I don't believe it creates a conflict." Maryland State Election Administrator Jared DeMarinis said, "My job is to create the ballot and make sure that the voters have choices, and that's what I'm going to do." Baltimore County Delegate Ryan Nawrocki said, "All Marylanders' due process rights were violated in this process. The Legislature can't make rules for thee and not apply to me." Baltimore County Delegate Ryan Nawrocki said, "This was always rules for thee, but not for we. Annapolis Democrats wrote the deadlines, expected everyone else to follow them, and then ignored their own law the moment it was inconvenient. Today, the court said that doesn't fly.""