Anne Arundel County judge finds legislature bound by its own certification deadlines and faults the ballot question’s clarifying language
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
ANNAPOLIS — An Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge ruled Wednesday that Maryland lawmakers unlawfully placed a congressional redistricting amendment on the November ballot, ordering the State Board of Elections enjoined from including the measure while staying that order so the state can appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland.
Judge Robert J. Thompson granted summary judgment to the Republican plaintiffs in Howell v. Maryland State Board of Elections, Case No. C-02-CV-26-001986, and denied the state’s competing motion, according to the signed order and accompanying memorandum opinion. The order, dated Aug. 26, directs that Question 3 be kept off the Nov. 3 ballot, but stays that injunction pending the state’s appeal, meaning the question will remain on the ballot as printed unless the Supreme Court of Maryland says otherwise.
Thompson wrote that lawmakers “did not follow the very laws it enacted,” and on that basis alone found HB 2100’s enactment legally deficient.
“Lawmakers ‘did not follow the very laws it enacted.’”
Two grounds, one of them independently sufficient
Thompson’s opinion rests on two grounds. He indicated the first would be sufficient on its own to decide the case.
- Missed deadlines. The General Assembly passed Senate Bill 29 earlier this year, setting a July 1 deadline for certifying statewide ballot questions and requiring a public notice period. House Bill 2100, the redistricting amendment, was not introduced until Aug. 3, after both the certification and notice windows had closed. The court found the legislature bound by its own statute.
- The ballot question itself, in the alternative. Thompson wrote that even if lawmakers were correct that the General Assembly can exempt itself from deadlines it imposes on everyone else, the ballot question is independently deficient for two reasons. First, the question, as posted by the State Board of Elections, describes the amendment as clarifying that Maryland’s compactness standards apply only to legislative districts. Thompson found that word choice misleading, pointing to the court’s 2022 ruling in Szeliga v. Lamone, which he wrote held that the same compactness and boundary requirements applied to both legislative and congressional districts. He found no evidence in the record that a narrower reading was ever the common understanding. Second, Thompson found the question improperly combines two subjects, the congressional districting standard itself and a separate provision granting the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over congressional map disputes. The Maryland Constitution requires a referred question to address a single issue. Thompson wrote that original jurisdiction for the state’s high court might be a good idea on the merits, but that bundling it with the compactness question combined two separate matters into one vote.
“The court found the legislature bound by its own statute.”
Why it happened this way
The underlying fight traces back to a 2022 Anne Arundel County Circuit Court ruling in Szeliga v. Lamone, in which Senior Judge Lynne A. Battaglia struck down a Democratic-drawn congressional map, applying the state constitution’s legislative-district compactness standard to congressional districts for the first time. Both sides initially appealed that ruling, then dropped their appeals after the General Assembly adopted a revised map in April 2022. The Battaglia ruling was never reviewed by an appellate court and set no binding statewide precedent, but it shaped the map Maryland ultimately adopted, which favors Democrats in seven of the state’s eight congressional districts rather than all eight.
HB 2100 asked voters to amend the constitution so that standard would apply only to General Assembly districts going forward, clearing a path for Democrats to redraw the map as soon as 2028 and potentially eliminate the seat held by Rep. Andy Harris, R-1st, the state’s only Republican member of Congress. Lawmakers passed the amendment 96-38 in the House and 32-13 in the Senate during an August special session, and Gov. Wes Moore signed it Aug. 5.
“HB 2100 could clear a path for Democrats to redraw Maryland’s congressional map as soon as 2028.”
- Plaintiffs: All seven members of the Maryland Freedom Caucus, Senate Minority Leader Stephen S. Hershey Jr., R-Upper Shore, Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready, and Oversight Project President Mike Howell, represented in part by attorney Jeffrey B. Clark.
- Defendants: The Maryland State Board of Elections, Gov. Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, State Election Administrator Jared DeMarinis and Secretary of State Susan Lee, represented by Assistant Attorney General Daniel Kobrin.
- A second, separate case: Republican lawmakers in Dorchester County filed a related but distinct lawsuit raising overlapping claims. That case remains on its own track in Dorchester County Circuit Court and has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.
- The clock: State election officials face an Aug. 31 deadline to certify roughly 1,200 ballot variations statewide, with printing set to begin Sept. 3.
Reaction
Republicans who brought the case had voiced cautious optimism after Tuesday’s hearing, before Thompson issued his written ruling.
“This was always rules for thee, but not for we,” Del. Ryan Nawrocki, R-Baltimore County, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement following the ruling.
At Tuesday’s hearing, before the written ruling came down, Thompson had signaled skepticism from the bench, telling a packed courtroom the legislature could not simply set aside laws it found inconvenient once it held a supermajority. Del. Kris Fair, D-Frederick, a House leader in the effort to pass the amendment, told reporters that day he was unsure which way the ruling would go.
“I’m not sure which way it’s going to go,” Fair said Tuesday, ahead of the ruling.
MDBayNews has not obtained comment from the Governor’s office, the Attorney General’s office or the State Board of Elections on Wednesday’s ruling.
“This was always rules for thee, but not for we.”
What it likely means for the Dorchester County case
Thompson’s ruling does not bind the Dorchester County Circuit Court, where a separate but related lawsuit is still pending. Trial courts in Maryland do not set precedent for one another, and the Dorchester case has its own plaintiffs, its own judge and no hearing date yet.
That said, the two cases overlap heavily on the law. The Dorchester complaint, filed by state Sens. Mary Beth Carozza, Johnny Mautz and Chris West, state Del. Christopher Adams and Dorchester County Republican Central Committee member Lindsay Mydra Wheatley, raises the same core claims Thompson just ruled on: that lawmakers missed the SB 29 deadlines, that the ballot summary language is misleading, and that the question improperly combines separate subjects. A circuit judge in Dorchester County is not required to follow Thompson’s reasoning, but a same-level colleague reaching the same conclusion on nearly identical facts gives the Dorchester plaintiffs a persuasive precedent to cite, and it raises the practical cost for the state of winning a different outcome in a second courtroom.
More significant procedurally is where the case is actually headed next. Because Thompson’s ruling is going to the Supreme Court of Maryland on an expedited direct appeal, and because that court’s decision will address the same SB 29 deadline question and the same ballot-language and single-subject arguments Dorchester plaintiffs are making, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Howell could effectively resolve the legal questions common to both cases well before Dorchester ever reaches a hearing. The state previously asked to have the Dorchester case consolidated into the Anne Arundel case; a Dorchester judge rejected that request on Aug. 21. Now that Anne Arundel has produced a ruling and an expedited appeal, the state may renew a similar argument, either asking the Supreme Court to fold in the Dorchester claims or asking the Dorchester court to hold its case pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Neither has been reported, and this is MDBayNews’s own read of how the litigation is likely to unfold rather than a documented next step.
“Question 3 remains on the ballot as printed unless and until Maryland’s highest court rules otherwise.”
What’s next
The case now moves to the Supreme Court of Maryland on an expedited basis, with the injunction against Question 3 stayed in the meantime. Thompson wrote that he stayed the injunction specifically to preserve the state’s ability to present a ballot ahead of the Aug. 31 certification deadline, meaning the amendment remains on the ballot as printed unless and until the state’s highest court rules otherwise.
Sources: This story is based on the signed order and memorandum opinion issued Aug. 26, 2026, by Judge Robert J. Thompson in Howell v. Maryland State Board of Elections, Case No. C-02-CV-26-001986, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, along with the corresponding docket entry. Del. Ryan Nawrocki’s quote is drawn from a statement published by the Maryland Freedom Caucus following the ruling. Background on Tuesday’s hearing is drawn from reporting by Bryan P. Sears of Maryland Matters, republished by WTOP and Yahoo News, and from CBS Baltimore/WJZ. Background on the underlying legislation and prior litigation is drawn from earlier reporting by Maryland Matters, The Daily Record, Fox Baltimore/WBFF and Fox News Digital, and from contemporaneous 2022 coverage of Szeliga v. Lamone by Maryland Matters, the Maryland Law Review and All About Redistricting. The analysis of implications for the pending Dorchester County lawsuit is MDBayNews’s own assessment based on the public record in both cases, not a reported prediction from either party.
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.