The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled on September 3 that a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting will appear on the November ballot, reversing two circuit courts that had blocked it. The amendment would supersede a 2022 circuit court ruling by Judge Lynne Battaglia that applied the Maryland Constitution’s compactness and contiguity requirements to congressional districts for the first time, standards previously understood to govern only state legislative districts. Senate President Bill Ferguson cited that ruling when he declined to have a Senate vote on a House-passed congressional map in February. The amendment (HB 2100) is intended to remove the legal obstacle from the 2022 ruling.
The General Assembly passed House Bill 2100 during the August special session, with Democratic supermajorities in both chambers approving it along party lines. Days later, Republican legislators filed two challenges, one in Annapolis and one in Cambridge. In fast-tracked rulings in late August, judges in Anne Arundel and Dorchester counties found legal deficiencies in the legislature’s process and missed statutory deadlines, and identified violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Both courts enjoined the question from the ballot, and both rulings were immediately appealed.
The Maryland high court agreed with the lower courts on the central point but disagreed on the remedy. In an eight-page order for the majority, Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader concluded that the ballot question as written by the General Assembly “is misleading and therefore violates due process requirements,” faulting in particular its reference to “applicable federal laws” as the criteria for determining congressional boundaries. But the majority held that the circuit judges were wrong to enjoin the question and instead rewrote it. The revised Question 3 tells voters the amendment would clarify that certain requirements apply only to state Senate and House of Delegates districts, authorize the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over congressional districting plans, and provide “that nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.” The majority also rejected the lower courts’ findings that the legislature missed a legal deadline and improperly combined two subjects in one question. The court majority and a dissenting judge both indicated fuller opinions would follow. The amendment will be on the November 3 ballot for voter approval.
Original Ballot Language
The proposed Constitutional Amendment clarifies that certain standards in the Maryland Constitution apply only to districts used to elect members of the General Assembly; authorizes the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the congressional districting plan of the State; and requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws.
Court Ordered Ballot Language
FOR the purpose of clarifying that certain requirements apply only to districts for the election of members of the Senate of Maryland and the House of Delegates; authorizing the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the congressional districting plan of the State; and providing that nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.
Find us on:
