ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Several Republican Maryland lawmakers have filed a lawsuit seeking to block a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting from appearing on the November 2026 ballot.
The complaint was filed Wednesday, Aug. 6, in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court against the Maryland State Board of Elections and several state officials, including Gov. Wes Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, Secretary of State Susan Lee, and State Board of Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis.
The plaintiffs include Eastern Shore native and Senate Minority Leader Stephen Hershey along with several others who say they are bringing the case as Maryland residents and registered voters.
The suit centers on House Bill 2100, legislation passed during this week's special session of the Maryland General Assembly and signed by Gov. Moore. The bill would put a proposed constitutional amendment before voters in the Nov. 3 general election concerning the standards governing Maryland's congressional districts.
According to the lawsuit, the amendment would clarify that certain constitutional requirements apply to state legislative districts rather than congressional districts, allow the General Assembly to give the Supreme Court of Maryland jurisdiction to review congressional districting plans, and provide that the Maryland Constitution does not establish criteria for congressional district boundaries.
The plaintiffs argue, however, that the measure was approved too late to legally appear on this year's ballot.
Their complaint points to changes made to Maryland election law earlier this year through Senate Bill 29. According to the filing, that law requires statewide ballot questions to be certified by the Secretary of State by July 1 before a general election. SB 29 passed the Senate 44-0 and the House 135-0 before Moore approved it in May.
Because HB 2100 was not passed until Aug. 4, the plaintiffs contend the proposed amendment could not have met that July 1 deadline. They also argue the measure missed another requirement calling for information about statewide ballot questions to be submitted to the State Board of Elections by the first Monday in August.
The lawsuit also takes aim at language added to HB 2100 stating that the question should go before voters "notwithstanding any other provision of law." The plaintiffs argue that provision improperly attempts to bypass the state's existing notice and certification requirements.
According to the complaint, that language was added on the morning the special session began and argues voters were not given sufficient opportunity to weigh in on its implications. The plaintiffs further contend the provision violates requirements in the Maryland Constitution governing how laws and constitutional amendments are approved.
The lawsuit raises six counts, including alleged violations of Maryland election law, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and constitutional requirements involving proposed constitutional amendments.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to act quickly because of the approaching election. They ask that a judge declare the proposed amendment's placement on the ballot unlawful and issue an injunction preventing state officials from certifying, printing, distributing, tabulating, or canvassing votes on the question. If ballots have already been printed or votes cast by the time of a ruling, the lawsuit asks the court to prevent the results of the amendment question from being certified or canvassed.
