By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
The General Assembly gaveled in at 10 a.m. Monday for the Aug. 3-5 special session, and by noon the joint House Government, Labor and Elections and Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment committees were hearing testimony on SB2100/HB2100 — capped, as previously reported, at 50 witnesses total. The House debated the bill for hours Monday night and recessed without a final vote; passage is now expected Tuesday instead.
The Math That Actually Matters
Because SB2100 proposes a constitutional amendment, it needs a three-fifths vote in each chamber regardless of who shows up: 85 votes in the House, 29 in the Senate. Democrats hold enough seats on paper — if all 34 Senate Democrats are present. Whether they would be was reportedly still an open question heading into Monday, according to Maryland Matters, though Ferguson himself expressed confidence Monday morning: “We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t think that we had the votes to move forward,” he told reporters. House leaders are aiming to move the bill out of their chamber and into the Senate by Tuesday, with hopes of finishing before Wednesday.
For scale: this isn’t the General Assembly’s first attempt this year. A House bill that would have actually redrawn Maryland’s congressional map passed 99-37 in early February, only to die in the Senate — the same chamber this week’s amendment now needs 29 votes to clear.
“We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t think that we had the votes to move forward.”
— Bill Ferguson
Sharper Quotes From Both Sides
Republican opposition hardened rather than softened heading into Monday. Del. Chris Tomlinson, the senior Republican on the House committee hearing the bill, called it “a brazen partisan grab that undermines public trust” in a two-page statement, adding: “This legislation is not about strengthening or protecting democracy. In fact, it is precisely the opposite. It is about dissolving constitutional guardrails so that cynical politicians can choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives.” Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready called the session a “rush job.” House Minority Leader Jason Buckel sharpened his critique of the hearing process itself, calling the 50-witness limit a sign that “any bill hearing is obviously intended to be a brief and meaningless formality.”
“This special session is not about the redrawing of maps. It’s about clarifying a legal standard that has been clouded because of a legal decision.”
— Sen. Charles Sydnor III
Ferguson made his own case directly in a video posted to social media the night before the session opened: “If we pass this constitutional amendment and the voters approve it, it means that in future times we’ll be in a position of strength with options [and] not a position of weakness” on redistricting. Sen. Charles Sydnor III offered the floor-ready version of Democratic leadership’s framing: “This special session is not about the redrawing of maps. It’s about clarifying a legal standard that has been clouded because of a legal decision. We are just attempting to make things clearer through this amendment.”
Some of Monday’s Republican commentary stayed adjacent to redistricting rather than addressing it directly. Fox45’s Gary Collins noted on social media that Pennsylvania is phasing its corporate tax rate down from 9.99% to 4.99% by 2031, compared to Maryland’s flat 8.25% rate — both figures accurate — framing it as a question of whether Maryland’s “financial future” deserves more legislative attention than redistricting has gotten this week. That’s commentary rather than reporting, and not a claim about the bill itself, but it reflects the same affordability argument Hershey, Buckel, and Pippy have made since July 20: that redistricting is displacing more pressing state business.
“This legislation is not about strengthening or protecting democracy… It is about dissolving constitutional guardrails so that cynical politicians can choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives.”
Committee Advances the Bill, Floor Fight Follows
The joint committee hearing ran nearly five hours Monday afternoon, with Republicans asking significantly more questions than Democrats, before the House gave the constitutional amendment preliminary approval, according to the Baltimore Banner’s Pamela Wood and Brenda Wintrode, who covered the session in person. That set up a floor debate that stretched past 11 p.m. Baltimore Banner politics reporter Pamela Wood had reported in real time, three hours into the debate, that Republicans had offered seven amendments and seen all seven rejected — a count that continued climbing as the night went on. By the time debate wrapped, Republicans had offered 20 amendments in total, and Democrats voted down every one. Some addressed the bill’s substance directly, proposing voter registration requirements or a redistricting commission; others were considerably further afield, including a limit on tax increases and a nonbinding ballot question asking whether the Eastern Shore should secede from Maryland.
The delay wasn’t incidental — Republicans confirmed it was deliberate, and one tactic had a specific procedural mechanism behind it. Senate Minority Leader Stephen Hershey delayed his chamber’s introduction of the bill by citing a rule requiring a bill to be time-stamped at least four hours before introduction, pushing back the Senate’s own timeline by several hours. “We’re here to make this as uncomfortable as possible for the Democrat supermajority to push through something as partisan as this issue is,” Hershey told reporters at the State House. Separately, he had told WJLA ahead of the session: “If we can send them home early without getting the results that they want, then that’s our number one goal.” House leaders now expect the bill to reach a final vote Tuesday morning before handing it to the Senate, ahead of the session’s Wednesday deadline.
“We’re here to make this as uncomfortable as possible for the Democrat supermajority to push through something as partisan as this issue is.”
— Senate Minority Leader Stephen Hershey
Ferguson offered his most specific public rationale yet for the session as debate opened, naming the states he says forced Maryland’s hand: “We saw states like Tennessee, Louisiana, and South Carolina act with haste to attempt to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts. These acts changed the calculus. And that’s why we’re here.” At the hearing itself, he framed the amendment differently — as a matter of parity rather than urgency: changing the constitution would put Maryland “on equal footing” with other states, he said, giving Maryland “certainty and clarity about the rules so we are in a position to respond.” Speaker Peña-Melnyk used similar language, saying the change would let Maryland “meet the moment” as other states redistrict.
Republicans pushed back directly on the idea that this is a response to anything happening right now. Sen. Bryan Simonaire, an Anne Arundel County Republican, noted that Democrats’ original 8-0 map effort dates to 2021, under President Biden, not the current fight over President Trump’s push for red-state redistricting: “We can hide behind the veil of Trump, but this was occurring before,” he said, calling the bill “gerrymandering on steroids.”
One Republican objection captured on video during the floor debate, circulated by the Maryland Freedom Caucus, came from Del. Ryan Nawrocki. The caucus’s accompanying commentary — that Democrats “can change the rules at will” and “enforce them on their opponents whenever it is convenient” — is characterization rather than a claim this outlet can verify, but the legal history the caucus cited alongside it checks out and is worth stating precisely: the original Szeliga v. Lamone and Parrott v. Lamone challenges asserted violations of the Declaration of Rights’ Free Elections, Equal Protection, and Freedom of Speech Clauses, and separately the Maryland Constitution’s Purity of Elections Clause — a fuller citation than this outlet’s earlier reporting has specified.
This Is Getting National Attention
Maryland’s session drew wire coverage Monday from the Associated Press, distributed to outlets nationally, framing the special session bluntly as “a first step in a partisan redistricting initiative that could help Democrats pick up an additional U.S. House seat by 2028.” The AP placed Maryland’s move inside a broader national fight: Republican-controlled legislatures have already redrawn maps in eight states — Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama — that Republicans believe could net them up to 16 additional U.S. House seats. Maryland isn’t the only Democratic-led state moving in response. New York’s legislature has passed a constitutional amendment repealing its own ban on partisan gerrymandering and easing around its independent redistricting commission, though that measure still needs a second round of legislative approval next year before reaching New York voters. Virginia lawmakers passed their own version last week, a constitutional amendment that would let legislators temporarily bypass the state’s redistricting commission to redraw its U.S. House map by October 2030.
Gov. Wes Moore addressed Maryland’s session in an interview as he became chair of the National Governors Association, framing the decision as ultimately voters’ to make rather than his own: “And if the people determine that there’s nothing to do, then there’s nothing to do. But if the people determine that we move, we move.” The remark — made on a national platform, to a national audience, at the exact moment Maryland’s session was getting underway — puts Moore’s account of the amendment’s purpose in front of a bigger audience than his July 7 or July 20 statements reached.
What Else Happened at the State House
Ready made the same claim in person Monday that this outlet flagged as unverified when it first surfaced in a partisan social media post over the weekend: “This sham special session is all about Gov. Moore’s presidential and political ambitions, it is not about what’s best for Maryland.” The claim itself remains a characterization, not an established fact — Moore has not declared a presidential candidacy — but it’s now Ready’s own on-record framing at a State House press conference, not just an anonymous account’s post, which changes how it should be weighed even though it doesn’t change whether it’s true.
“This sham special session is all about Gov. Moore’s presidential and political ambitions.”
— Sen. Justin Ready
Democratic leaders confirmed something MDBayNews had flagged as an open question in its earlier reporting on HB2101: ahead of the session, they made clear only two bills would be considered — the redistricting amendment and a second bill to fix a duplicate ballot question, matching HB2101’s actual purpose as this outlet reported it. That’s a real answer to the fairness question raised then: HB2101 wasn’t a quiet exception smuggled past the DLS restriction, it was one of two bills leadership announced publicly in advance.
Advocacy groups also used the session to make their own case, sometimes about entirely different issues. Families who rely on state-funded disability services rallied at Lawyers Mall, chanting “Save our services!” over Rachel Platten’s “Fight Song” — a protest against the DDA funding cuts MDBayNews has covered separately, timed to land while every legislator was already in the building.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox also appeared at the State House to criticize Democrats for prioritizing redistricting over affordability, asking, “Why are Gov. Wes Moore and the General Assembly spending their time changing the rules of politics, instead of solving the problems that matter most to the people of Maryland?” Asked whether he’d testify against the amendment, Cox said no — because as a candidate he might end up party to a future court challenge against it. “It’s on the table,” he said.
Harris Speaks — and Ferguson Hedges
“The gerrymandering that this constitutional amendment sets up” would “disenfranchise rural voters.”
— Rep. Andy Harris
Rep. Andy Harris gave his first extended on-record reaction to the amendment this week, confirming what MDBayNews argued in its earlier reporting on why his seat is the session’s actual target. In an interview with the AP, Harris said the “gerrymandering that this constitutional amendment sets up” would break up “areas of common interest into districts predominated by urban and suburban areas, disenfranchising rural voters,” and said a court challenge would “of course” follow if a new map ultimately moves forward. It’s worth being precise about which Freedom Caucus Harris chairs: he leads the U.S. House Freedom Caucus in Congress, a distinct body from the Maryland Freedom Caucus that Del. Matt Morgan chairs in Annapolis — the two aren’t the same organization, despite the name.
“We are taking this one step at a time.”
— Senate President Bill Ferguson
Two other new details sharpen the picture of how this amendment got here. The Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission that recommended the original 8-0 map back in January was chaired by U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, and its vote to recommend the map was 3-2 — not unanimous, a closer margin than prior coverage specified. And Ferguson, who has spoken confidently about the amendment putting Maryland in “a position of strength,” was notably more guarded when a reporter asked him directly whether an actual new map would follow if voters approve it in November: “We are taking this one step at a time.”
A Democrat Breaks With Ferguson
The most interesting quote of the day may not have come from either party’s leadership. Sen. Arthur Ellis, who stood alone earlier this year in publicly demanding a Senate floor vote on redistricting and literally walked off the Senate floor in protest when he didn’t get one, used an interview last week to make clear he hadn’t changed his view of how Ferguson handled the issue — even as he now supports the same outcome.
“A senate president cannot just tell us stop talking about something. That’s not who I am.”
— Sen. Arthur Ellis
“A senate president cannot just tell us stop talking about something,” Ellis said. “That’s not who I am, and that’s not who voters send to Annapolis to really represent them — someone just taking orders.” Ellis, who will not return to Annapolis in January after losing a Democratic primary bid for Maryland’s 5th Congressional District in June, framed his position as a matter of constitutional obligation rather than party loyalty: his job, he said, is “to obey the constitution and represent his constituents.”
Ellis’s criticism lands differently than Sen. Cheryl Kagan’s, who told Maryland Matters last week that she backed Ferguson’s approach throughout: “President Ferguson in my opinion has the right perspective and the right strategy, which was go slowly and do it correctly. I don’t expect that we will face any obstacles in the court when and if we decide to draw a new map.” Both senators support the amendment. They disagree, on the record, about whether Ferguson was right to spend most of a year blocking debate on it.
“President Ferguson… had the right perspective and the right strategy.”
— Sen. Cheryl Kagan
The Outside Pressure
Ellis was expected to join a Monday-morning rally in Annapolis organized by the Meet the Moment Maryland Coalition — a group that includes Color of Change, Seed the Vote, and other progressive organizations — pushing lawmakers to pass the amendment. Larry Stafford, executive director of Progressive Maryland, framed the moment as vindication rather than compromise: Ferguson, he said, had “woke up to the threat” posed by Republican-controlled legislatures elsewhere. “We’ve been of the consistent position that this has been in the legislature’s power the entire time,” Stafford said.
“We’ve been of the consistent position that this has been in the legislature’s power the entire time.”
— Larry Stafford
That framing — that Ferguson delayed on something he always had the power to do — is notably close to the Republican critique of the same decision, even though the two sides draw opposite conclusions about whether delaying was the right call.
What the Bill Would Still Change
None of Monday’s proceedings altered the substance MDBayNews has covered previously: SB2100 doesn’t redraw any districts itself. It removes the “compact, contiguous, and mindful of jurisdictional and geographic boundaries” standard as a constraint on congressional map-drawing specifically, would let the General Assembly grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over future redistricting challenges, and — if approved by voters in November — would apply only to maps drawn for the 2028 election at the earliest. Maryland Matters offered a concrete illustration of what loosening the standard could permit: a future map could, for example, jump the Chesapeake Bay to combine otherwise separate voter populations into a single district, something the current compactness standard forecloses.
Sources: Maryland General Assembly official website, session calendar, Aug. 3, 2026; WJLA, “What to know before Maryland’s special session begins Monday,” Aug. 1, 2026; Pamela Wood and Brenda Wintrode, The Baltimore Banner, “Maryland lawmakers move closer to changing congressional redistricting rules,” Aug. 3, 2026; Maryland Matters, “Lawmakers convene for what leaders hope is quick work on a redistricting bill,” Aug. 3, 2026; The Daily Record, “MD General Assembly special session begins Monday: What to know,” Aug. 3, 2026; Conduit Street, “Special Session Preview: Bill Language, Testimony Details, and What’s Ahead,” July 30, 2026; The Baltimore Sun, “Maryland House panel advances redistricting referendum after hours of testimony,” Aug. 3, 2026; Pamela Wood (@pwoodreporter), social media post, Aug. 3, 2026; WJLA, “Maryland special session opens with clash over redistricting, affordability,” Aug. 3, 2026; The Washington Times (AP), “Democrats begin advancing Maryland redistricting constitutional amendment,” Aug. 3, 2026; Maryland Freedom Caucus (@MFC), social media post featuring Del. Ryan Nawrocki, Aug. 3, 2026; Gary M. Collins (@GaryCollins), Fox45, social media post, Aug. 3, 2026; American Redistricting Project, case summaries for Szeliga v. Lamone and Alban v. Lamone; Associated Press (Sarah Rankin, David A. Lieb), “Maryland lawmakers considering steps toward partisan redistricting for 2028,” Aug. 3, 2026; The Epoch Times, “Maryland Democrats Move to Change How Congressional Maps Are Drawn,” Aug. 3, 2026; Maryland Matters, “Redistricting bill sails through House, faces troubled waters in the Senate,” Feb. 3, 2026; Pennsylvania Act 53 of 2022 corporate net income tax phase-down schedule.
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.