Governor Wes Moore signed the Voting Rights Act of 2026 for Counties and Municipal Corporations (SB 255) into law on April 28, 2026, making Maryland the ninth state in the country to enact its own voting rights protections. The law directly targets local government electoral systems, prohibiting any county or municipal body from using an election method that dilutes or impairs a protected class’s ability to elect candidates of their choice. To enforce the new standard, the Maryland Attorney General is authorized to investigate and sue local jurisdictions found to be operating such systems, while individual voters also gain a private right of action. Advocates pointed to recent local redistricting disputes, including Baltimore County’s 2025 proposal to create only two majority-Black districts on a newly expanded nine-member council, despite people of color comprising nearly half the county’s population, as precisely the kind of conduct the law was designed to reach.
The law’s practical effect on county commissions, city councils, school boards, and other local governing bodies is significant. Any local jurisdiction in Maryland that relies on at-large elections, or that draws district maps in ways that concentrate or fragment minority voters, is now subject to challenge under state law, without the need to meet the more demanding federal standards that previously governed such claims. The bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Charles Sydnor III, and House sponsor Del. Greg Wims were explicit that the law is designed to address local election structures independently of congressional or state legislative redistricting. Maryland joins New York, Connecticut, Virginia, California, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado, all of which have enacted comparable state-level protections in recent years as federal enforcement has weakened.
The timing of Maryland’s new law is significant. Governor Moore signed SB 255 on April 28, 2026, one day before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which substantially weakened Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act by limiting challenges based on racial vote dilution. Maryland legislators and civil rights advocates argued the state law was designed to operate independently of federal standards and that Callais, therefore, does not undermine it. However, the full legal relationship between the Maryland law and the Callais decision has not yet been tested in court. Whether federal constitutional constraints, including the Equal Protection Clause, limit how Maryland may enforce its anti-dilution provisions at the local level remains an open question. Local governments and redistricting practitioners in Maryland should consult legal counsel before drawing any conclusions about the law’s enforceability in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Find us on:
