By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
Maryland’s Senate voted 32-13 Tuesday to pass the congressional redistricting constitutional amendment, clearing the last legislative hurdle before it goes to voters on the November ballot — a tally independently confirmed by Fox 5 DC alongside the House’s 96-38 vote earlier the same day. The vote came down almost exactly along party lines, with every Republican present voting no and two Democrats absent, according to Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready, who was on the floor for the vote: “The constitutional amendment passed 32-13 along party lines with two Democratic members absent.”
“The constitutional amendment passed 32-13 along party lines with two Democratic members absent.”
How the Senate Got There
The Senate moved to a final vote faster than Republicans wanted. Earlier Tuesday, the chamber voted to formally limit floor debate on the amendment to two hours total — a procedural mechanism that capped how long the minority could hold the floor before a vote was forced. WMAR-2’s Jeff Morgan, covering the floor in real time, reported Republicans would only be able to delay the bill roughly one additional hour once the limit took effect, with Democrats making clear they wanted the bill finished the same day. Sen. Nancy King (D-Montgomery) was involved in the floor proceedings around the motion, according to footage from the session.
That timeline matches what MDBayNews has reported separately about the vote-count drama earlier Tuesday afternoon: the Senate briefly fell one Democrat short of the 32 members needed for the procedural motion to bring the bill to a final vote, with Senate President Bill Ferguson ringing the chamber’s summoning bells until the missing member arrived. Once the chamber had its members, debate was capped, and the final vote followed.
Republicans’ Response Goes Beyond November
“We were shut down as we fought to debate it and/or try to amend it to protect from gerrymandering.”
Ready’s reaction combined three distinct threads Republicans have kept somewhat separate until now. On process: “We were shut down as we fought to debate it and/or try to amend it to protect from gerrymandering.” On the ballot fight ahead: “We also need to prepare to campaign against this attack on our Maryland constitutional protections this Fall.” And, new to this outlet’s coverage, a specific legal threat: “I believe legal action is the next step.” Ready did not specify what legal theory or venue Republicans might pursue, and MDBayNews has not independently confirmed any filing. Sen. Bryan Simonaire’s rejected floor amendment Tuesday and Rep. Andy Harris’s statement earlier this week that a court challenge would “of course” follow a future map are the closest prior indications of that strategy — but Ready’s comment is the first to frame legal action as a response to the amendment’s passage itself, not just to a future map that doesn’t exist yet.
“We also need to prepare to campaign against this attack on our Maryland constitutional protections this Fall.”
That campaign against the amendment isn’t limited to floor speeches. WYPR reported that Simonaire has been publicly encouraging Marylanders to vote no on the amendment in November, ahead of its passage — making him both the sponsor of a rejected floor amendment and the most visible face of organized opposition to the referendum itself.
“I believe legal action is the next step.”
What “Legal Action” Would Actually Mean
Ready wasn’t the only Republican raising the prospect of a lawsuit this week, and the more detailed version of the argument came from the floor itself, where it went essentially unrebutted by the amendment’s own author. Sen. Mary Beth Carozza argued during debate that stripping the Maryland Supreme Court of any textual standard to measure a future congressional map against would functionally close off state court entirely: “You have a case where the Supreme Court, if they don’t have the criteria review, they would dismiss these cases. So, in essence, you’re taking away a citizen’s right to challenge a partisan gerrymandered map.”
Ferguson’s response, per WYPR, conceded more than it disputed: the outlet reported he said Marylanders could still try to bring a claim in state court, but that they would likely be advised to refile in federal court instead — an acknowledgment, in substance if not exact wording, that the state-court path this amendment forecloses was, until now, the one that actually worked. WYPR’s account paraphrases rather than directly quotes Ferguson on this point, so the phrasing above reflects the outlet’s characterization of his remarks rather than his precise words. Judge Battaglia’s 2022 ruling striking down the original 8-0 map was decided under exactly that state-court path.
“You’re taking away a citizen’s right to challenge a partisan gerrymandered map.”
Federal court remains genuinely open, but weaker than it was for past fights over Maryland maps. Maryland Republicans have used federal court twice before against Democratic-drawn congressional maps, in two separate redistricting cycles. After the map drawn following the 2010 census, a Prince George’s County political action committee, the Fannie Lou Hamer PAC, worked with the state GOP to file a Voting Rights Act claim in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt alleging the map diluted the minority vote. A decade later, after the map drawn following the 2020 census — the same map Judge Battaglia ultimately struck down in state court in 2022 — then-Gov. Larry Hogan separately asked the Biden administration’s Justice Department, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, to add Maryland to a federal Voting Rights Act lawsuit it had already filed against Texas. Both routes still exist in theory. Both are harder to win now.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais this spring — the same ruling Ferguson cites as his own reason for pursuing this amendment — narrowed what counts as a valid Voting Rights Act Section 2 claim, making minority-vote-dilution suits a less reliable tool for whichever side tries to use them next. And partisan gerrymandering claims, the theory that actually won in 2022, aren’t available in federal court at all: the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that federal judges have no role in policing how partisan a map is, which is precisely the state-law gap this amendment is designed to open.
One procedural protection does survive regardless of venue. A past Maryland case, Shapiro v. McManus, reached the U.S. Supreme Court specifically over whether Maryland redistricting challenges are entitled to review by a three-judge federal panel rather than dismissal by a single judge — a right that would still apply to any future federal filing.
None of this is likely to matter immediately. SB2100/HB2100 doesn’t draw a map; MDBayNews has reported previously that any actual redraw would require separate legislation no earlier than the 2027 session. Whatever Ready means by “legal action is the next step,” it can’t yet be a challenge to a map that doesn’t exist — it more plausibly points to a future challenge to the referendum process itself, or simply signals where this fight goes once, or if, a real map follows.
The National Pressure Campaign Behind the Reversal
Prior coverage fills in more of the pressure Ferguson faced before reversing his opposition to redistricting legislation this year. Beyond Gov. Wes Moore, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) also pushed Maryland’s Senate president to act — a national Democratic figure with a direct stake in which states draw favorable maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.
“…the original map was exactly the kind of partisan gerrymander Republicans have accused this amendment of enabling again.”
Ferguson, speaking at Monday’s committee hearing, was candid about the 2022 ruling that started this fight: he noted a state judge tossed the Democrats’ original map for violating the state constitution “improperly favor[ing] Democrats” — an unusually direct acknowledgment from Ferguson himself that the original map was exactly the kind of partisan gerrymander Republicans have accused this amendment of enabling again.
Sources: Sen. Justin Ready (@JustinReady), social media post, Aug. 4, 2026; Jeff Morgan (@JeffMorganTV), WMAR-2 News, social media post, Aug. 4, 2026; Fox 5 DC, “Maryland redistricting: voters to decide on new congressional map,” Aug. 4, 2026; WMDT, “Maryland Passes Congressional Redistricting Bill,” Aug. 4, 2026; NBC News, “Democrats put redistricting amendment on Maryland’s midterm ballot,” Aug. 4, 2026; WYPR, “Maryland House gives initial approval to redistricting constitutional change after marathon debate,” Aug. 4, 2026 (including exchange between Sen. Mary Beth Carozza and Senate President Bill Ferguson); WYPR, “Maryland lawmakers reveal proposed redistricting constitutional amendment, special session plan,” July 29, 2026; The Hill, “Maryland House passes redistricting referendum,” Aug. 4, 2026; Associated Press, “Maryland lawmakers get closer to asking voters to clear the way for redistricting helping Democrats,” Aug. 4, 2026; The Epoch Times, “Maryland Democrats Move to Change How Congressional Maps Are Drawn,” Aug. 3, 2026; CBS News/AP, “PAC Working On Lawsuit To Md. Redistricting Map,” 2011; Fox News, “GOP governor calls on Biden DOJ to add his state’s Democratic legislature gerrymander to Texas suit,” 2021; Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019); Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39 (2015).
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.