By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
The Supreme Court of Maryland on Tuesday ended the largest citizen petition drive in Frederick County history without a single vote being cast on it.
In a brief per curiam order issued June 30 — hours after hearing oral argument that same morning — the state’s highest court affirmed a Frederick County Circuit Court ruling that keeps the referendum on the county’s 2,615-acre data center zone off the November general election ballot. The court said its reasoning will come “in an opinion to be filed later.” It ordered the referendum committee, the losing party, to pay costs.
The timing was no accident. Ballot language for the November election was due to the State Board of Elections by Wednesday. The court heard argument Tuesday morning and disposed of the case Tuesday afternoon, opinion to follow.
What the Order Says
The order affirms Circuit Judge James A. Bonifant’s June 18 ruling on both of its grounds. First, that Frederick County Council Ordinance 26-01-001 — the ordinance establishing the Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay north of Adamstown — is “not a subject matter about which a referendum may be pursued” under the Frederick County Charter. Second, that the petition itself was deficient under Maryland Election Law § 6-206(c)(6) because it failed to provide a “full and accurate text of the law” as required by Article 3, § 308(b) of the county charter.
The first holding is the one with statewide reach. If zoning ordinances are not “laws” subject to referendum, then the referendum — one of the few direct checks Maryland residents hold over their local governments — is unavailable for the land-use decisions that most directly shape their communities. The court’s written opinion, whenever it arrives, will tell every Maryland county how far that principle extends.
Twenty-one thousand and twenty-nine signatures, undone in part by a printer cartridge.
The second holding is the one residents will remember. At the circuit level, Judge Bonifant found the fatal defect was that the committee printed the overlay zone maps in black and white. The county’s original maps used a ten-color legend; in grayscale, the judge ruled, a signer could not tell what the ordinance actually did, rendering the signatures invalid.
Twenty-one thousand and twenty-nine signatures, undone in part by a printer cartridge.
How Frederick Got Here
The record on this is not complicated, and it does not flatter the process.
In October 2025, the Frederick County Planning Commission recommended a data center overlay of roughly 1,600 acres — essentially the footprint of the existing Quantum Frederick campus at the former Eastalco aluminum smelting site. In December, the County Council overrode its own Planning Commission and approved a map covering 2,615 acres, adding roughly 1,000 acres that cut into rural and agricultural land. The expansion took effect as Ordinance 26-01-001.
Residents responded with the petition drive. Under the county charter, the Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee needed 15,611 signatures — seven percent of the county’s registered voters — collected within 59 days. Volunteers gathered 21,029 valid signatures through the winter, more than ten percent of the county’s registered voters. On April 3, the Frederick County Board of Elections certified the petition as sufficient and approved the ballot question.
Then the industry went to court. Property owners and data center operators, including Quantum Maryland, filed five separate lawsuits challenging the election board’s certification. Judge Bonifant sided with them on June 18. The committee appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Maryland, which took the case — and on Tuesday, affirmed.
They cleared every bar they were told to clear.
The sequence deserves to be stated plainly: the county’s own election board told these residents their petition was sufficient. They cleared every bar they were told to clear. The signatures were counted, validated, and certified. And the effort was extinguished afterward, in litigation brought by the parties the referendum would have inconvenienced.
Even the bench seemed troubled by the shape of it. “You want the citizens to have the ability to participate in local government,” Justice Joseph Getty said at Tuesday’s argument, observing that when hearings begin after developers have already secured land and negotiated zoning, citizen efforts are “500 steps behind.” Hours later, the court ruled against those citizens anyway.
Keith Forst of Quinn Emanuel, arguing for the developers and property owners, told the court the circuit judge was right to keep the question off the ballot — the position that prevailed.
The Reaction
Elizabeth Bauer, the referendum committee’s lead organizer, told The Daily Record the group was disappointed and disagreed with the outcome, but that the fight now shifts to electoral politics: supporting candidates who want to scale back data center development. She said the effort had opened residents’ eyes and that the committee still believes change is coming to Frederick County.
“The fight now shifts to electoral politics.” — Elizabeth Bauer
The sharpest structural critique came from the Green Party’s candidate for governor. Andy Ellis, who has worked on petition-access issues for years, called the outcome proof that Maryland’s petition process is “broken at its core.”
“No one should be able to collect 21,000 signatures after being told the petition was sufficient, only for a court to strike it down at the end of the process,” Ellis said in a statement Wednesday. “This is bad for democracy, by design. We must fix this.”
Ellis said the people of Frederick County “can still reject the rapid buildout of data centers by voting for candidates who stand in opposition,” and pledged his campaign would spend significant time in the county before November. The Ellis/Andrews campaign backs modernizing Maryland’s petition and referendum laws — including making a board of elections sufficiency determination binding, so certified petitions cannot be unwound on technicalities after the signatures are collected.
“This is bad for democracy, by design. We must fix this.” — Andy Ellis
Ellis is a long-shot candidate, and his interest in the ruling is not disinterested. But on the narrow point, he is describing something real: a process in which the government certifies a petition as sufficient, and courts then void it after the work is done, is a process no reasonable volunteer can trust. Whether the fix is his is a separate question. That it needs one is harder to argue with after Tuesday.
A process in which the government certifies a petition as sufficient, and courts then void it after the work is done, is a process no reasonable volunteer can trust.
What Comes Next
The overlay zone stands. Quantum Frederick — a hyperscale campus the county says would rank among the largest on the East Coast — proceeds, alongside the federal data centers already operating at the site.
The referendum question is dead, but the underlying fight is now fully electoral, exactly as Bauer and Ellis both describe. Every County Council seat and the county executive’s office are on the November ballot, and the December vote to expand the overlay — 5-2, over the Planning Commission’s recommendation — is now the central land-use record of this cycle in Frederick County.
The referendum question is dead, but the underlying fight is now fully electoral.
And the court’s forthcoming opinion will land in a state where the data center question is anything but settled. Harford County’s council voted unanimously last month to ban data centers outright, a move its own members concede may be legally vulnerable. Other counties are drafting overlays of their own. When the Supreme Court of Maryland finally explains why 21,029 Frederick County signatures could not produce one ballot question, every one of those counties — and every resident thinking about circulating a petition — will be reading.
MDBayNews will publish analysis of the court’s written opinion when it is filed.
Sources: This article is based on the Supreme Court of Maryland’s per curiam order issued June 30, 2026, affirming the Frederick County Circuit Court’s June 18 ruling in the consolidated challenges to Ordinance 26-01-001, with the court’s full opinion to follow. Details of the circuit court’s findings, the petition drive, signature totals, and the Board of Elections’ April 3 certification are drawn from court filings and contemporaneous reporting by The Frederick News-Post, The Daily Record, WYPR, WFMD, and Technical.ly. Accounts of the June 30 oral argument, including Justice Joseph Getty’s remarks and arguments by counsel for the developers and property owners, are drawn from The Daily Record’s coverage. Statements from Data Center Referendum Committee lead organizer Elizabeth Bauer were made to The Daily Record following the ruling. Statements from Andy Ellis are drawn from a July 1 press release issued by the Ellis/Andrews campaign. Background on the Planning Commission’s October 2025 recommendation and the County Council’s December 2025 adoption of the expanded overlay is drawn from public county records and prior reporting. Details on Harford County’s data center prohibition are drawn from contemporaneous Maryland press coverage of the council’s June vote. Quantum Frederick, Frederick County government, and counsel for the plaintiffs had not issued public statements on the ruling as of publication.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.