The Maryland Supreme Court ruled on Thursday evening, September 3, 2026, to allow a redistricting referendum to appear on the November ballot. The decision overturned two lower court rulings that had blocked the measure, but the high court ordered that the ballot language be rewritten for clarity. The justices agreed with circuit court findings that the original wording was misleading and violated due process requirements.
The case centered on House Bill 2100, a constitutional amendment passed by the Maryland General Assembly during a special session in August. The measure seeks to create separate standards for drawing congressional and state legislative districts. Under current rules, a 2022 court decision established that certain redistricting parameters apply to both. The proposed amendment would clarify that these strict criteria—such as requirements for districts to be compact and follow natural boundaries—apply only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones.
In its majority opinion, the court noted the measure passed with support from more than three-fifths of both houses of the General Assembly. However, the court replaced the original text with a "purpose paragraph" to better explain that the amendment would remove state constitutional criteria for congressional boundaries and grant the Maryland Supreme Court original jurisdiction to review those plans. Justice Stephen Gould, joined by Justice Glenn Harrell, dissented, arguing the court should not rewrite the question and that the new language remains misleading regarding the removal of certain rights.
For Maryland residents, a "yes" vote on the referendum would change the legal standards for how their representatives are grouped into districts. Republican leaders, including Maryland GOP Chair Nicole Beus Harris, argued the measure is designed to eliminate the state’s sole Republican-held seat on the Eastern Shore. If passed, the amendment would allow the General Assembly to draw congressional maps that cross the Chesapeake Bay or ignore other natural boundaries currently required by the state constitution. Democrats who control the legislature stated the measure ensures fair representation and protects the redistricting process from political interference.
The decision sets a precedent for how the state’s highest court reviews ballot initiatives passed during special legislative sessions. It also resolves a conflict between the legislature and lower courts regarding whether executive branch deadlines were met. Following this ruling, the case has been remanded to circuit courts with instructions to resolve all remaining motions by Friday, September 4, 2026, allowing the state to proceed with ballot printing for the upcoming general election.