Maryland’s highest court ruled Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, that Question 3 — a Democratic-backed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting — stays on the November ballot, reversing circuit court orders that had blocked it. The Supreme Court of Maryland also found the original ballot wording misleading and a due-process problem, and ordered that language replaced before voters see it, according to FOX Baltimore, WBAL, and FOX 5 DC.

Hours after oral arguments, the justices partially reversed Anne Arundel and Dorchester County circuit court judgments that had pulled the measure off the ballot. They rejected challengers’ claims that election-deadline failures and Maryland’s single-subject rule required striking Question 3 entirely. On ballot text, though, the majority agreed with the lower courts: the summary voters would have read was misleading “at least in part” and violated due process.

The disputed clause said the amendment “requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws.” The court said that line was not in the purpose paragraph lawmakers adopted and was misleading. Rather than kill the question, the majority ordered the ballot language swapped for that purpose paragraph — a remedy justices floated during Thursday’s hearing.

Under the rewritten Question 3, voters will be told the amendment would clarify that certain requirements apply only to Maryland Senate and House of Delegates districts; authorize the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over congressional redistricting plans; and provide that “nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.”

Both circuit courts must enter conforming orders no later than Friday, Sept. 4. The State Board of Elections must then replace the existing Question 3 language. State election administrator Jared DeMarinis told WBAL the justices allowed the amendment on the ballot with different wording as ballot-printing deadlines loomed; the board had already certified ballots with Question 3 earlier in the week.

Democrats pushed the amendment through a special session in August under Gov. Wes Moore. House Bill 2100 aims to separate standards for congressional maps from those for state legislative districts. If voters approve it, lawmakers would have a clearer legal path to redraw Maryland’s congressional map — including a possible effort targeting the state’s only Republican-held House seat on the Eastern Shore. Passage does not automatically draw a new map; the General Assembly would still have to pass one.

Justice Steven Gould dissented, joined by Senior Justice Glenn Harrell. Gould argued the court lacked authority to rewrite ballot language and that fixing a misleading question was not the judiciary’s job. “The General Assembly claimed the prerogative to draft the question; it should bear the consequences of drafting a misleading one,” he wrote. “It’s not our job to rewrite the question for the General Assembly.” He also said the replacement text still fails to tell voters that a yes vote would eliminate the Maryland Declaration of Rights as a source of criteria for congressional maps. A fuller majority opinion is expected later.

Moore called the ruling a “massive victory for the people of our state and a powerful defense of our democratic process,” saying the decision “keeps the power where it belongs: with the voters” and that he would campaign for a yes vote. Senate President Bill Ferguson and House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk said Marylanders “will have their say.” Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey, a plaintiff in the Anne Arundel challenge, said the court “sidestepped the central legal question by rewriting the ballot language itself.” The Maryland Freedom Caucus said the court “corrected the Democrats’ homework instead of striking it completely” and is considering next steps with the Oversight Project.

Ballot clarity is not a partisan luxury. When the legislature writes a summary that courts call misleading, voters are being asked to amend a constitution without a straight account of what changes. When a high court rewrites that summary instead of sending it back or striking it, the judiciary is also taking a turn at designing the question. Question 3 now heads to November with clearer text and the same core fight: how much room Annapolis gets to redraw congressional lines under federal law alone.

Sources