Dorchester County judge finds ballot language misleading, faults lack of voter notice; ruling stayed pending appeal
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
CAMBRIDGE — A Dorchester County Circuit Court judge ruled Friday that Maryland’s proposed congressional redistricting amendment fails to give voters adequate notice and uses misleading ballot language, becoming the second circuit judge within 48 hours to find the measure unlawful.
Judge S. James Sarbanes issued a signed opinion and order in Wheatley v. Maryland State Board of Elections, Case No. C-09-CV-26-000285, following an Aug. 27 hearing on cross motions for summary judgment. As in Wednesday’s Anne Arundel County ruling, Sarbanes stayed his own order pending the state’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland, meaning Question 3 remains on the ballot as printed for now.
Sarbanes found that HB 2100’s practical effect is to strip all state constitutional standards and protections from congressional map-drawing, a change he wrote was not clear from the ballot question as written.
A contradiction in the bill’s own preamble
“The bill’s own preamble says Szeliga held the standards apply to congressional districts — then describes the amendment as clarifying that they never did.”
Sarbanes’s opinion zeroes in on a detail not featured in Thompson’s Anne Arundel ruling: language in HB 2100’s own preamble that the court found contradicted itself.
The bill’s preamble states that a 2022 ruling in Szeliga v. Lamone “held that Article III, § 4 districting standards apply to congressional districts.” A separate section of the same preamble then describes the amendment as merely clarifying existing law, stating that the same constitutional provision has always governed only General Assembly districts, not congressional ones.
Sarbanes found those two statements could not both be true. “This statement is in direct conflict with the prior statement,” he wrote, adding that no case or long-term understanding supports the reading lawmakers used to justify the ballot’s use of the word “clarifies.” The only case on point, Szeliga, held the opposite.
The court also found the ballot question’s use of the phrase “certain standards” misleading and confusing to voters, and held that the ballot language, combined with the General Assembly’s handling of the Election Law Article’s notice requirements, failed to give voters adequate notice as required by the Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights.
“The fight is no longer just over how Maryland draws congressional maps. It is over what voters were actually told they were being asked to remove.”
What’s different from the Anne Arundel case
“Two lawsuits took different legal routes. Within 48 hours, two judges arrived at the same destination.”
The Dorchester lawsuit, filed Aug. 18 on behalf of five Eastern Shore and Baltimore-area Republicans, leaned more heavily than the Anne Arundel case on the theory that HB 2100 does not merely reinterpret compactness rules but strips congressional map-drawing of constitutional limits altogether. Attorneys Strider Dickson and Victoria Brohawn represented the plaintiffs; Assistant Attorney General Daniel Kobrin represented the state.
- Plaintiffs: Lindsay Wheatley, a member of the Dorchester County Republican Central Committee, along with Del. Chris Adams and Sens. Mary Beth Carozza, Johnny Mautz and Chris West.
- The judge: Sarbanes was appointed to the Dorchester County bench in 2014 by then-Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, and is a nephew of the late U.S. Sen. Paul Sarbanes, also a Democrat.
- The Maryland Republican Party’s characterization: In a statement following the ruling, the party said the court found Democratic leaders failed to provide adequate public notice, used misleading ballot language, failed to follow legal requirements for placing the amendment on the ballot, and violated the state constitution’s single-subject requirement. MDBayNews has independently confirmed the first two findings directly from the opinion; the latter two were not visible in the opinion excerpts reviewed for this story.
“Question 3 remains on the ballot for now — but two Maryland circuit courts have now ruled against the amendment behind it.”
Reaction
Republicans framed the back-to-back rulings as validation of their legal strategy. Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready pointed to the two separate courts reaching the same conclusion.
“Maryland Democrats overstepped, didn’t follow the law and timelines,” Ready said in a statement following Friday’s ruling.
Some Republicans took a more combative tone. Del. Lauren Arikan, R-Harford, needled Gov. Moore directly over the back-to-back losses, telling him in a social media post that she “would not want to be him today.”
Democrats criticized the ruling. Sen. Clarence Lam, D-Anne Arundel and Howard, called it a setback for the General Assembly’s own process, following a similar response he gave after Wednesday’s Anne Arundel ruling, when he called that decision wrong and said he expected it to be overturned on appeal.
“This is a disappointing decision that runs counter to the will of the General Assembly,” Lam said in a statement.
Lam argued Republicans were using the courts to head off a fight they expected to lose at the ballot box, and said he expects the Supreme Court of Maryland to reverse the circuit court rulings when it hears the case next week.
Where things stand
Both circuit court rulings now point toward the Supreme Court of Maryland, which has an appeal hearing scheduled for Sept. 3 in the Anne Arundel case. Question 3 remains on the ballot as printed for now, with the Aug. 31 certification deadline and Sept. 3 printing timeline unchanged by either circuit court ruling.
“The circuit-court phase has produced two losses for the state. The decisive fight now moves to the Supreme Court of Maryland.”
MDBayNews has not obtained comment from the Governor’s office, the Attorney General’s office, or the State Board of Elections on Friday’s ruling.
Sources: This story is based on the signed opinion and order issued Aug. 28, 2026, by Judge S. James Sarbanes in Wheatley v. Maryland State Board of Elections, Case No. C-09-CV-26-000285, Circuit Court for Dorchester County, portions of which were reviewed directly. Sen. Clarence Lam’s Aug. 28 statement, his earlier Aug. 27 statement responding to the Anne Arundel ruling, Sen. Justin Ready’s statement, Del. Lauren Arikan’s social media post, and the Maryland Republican Party’s characterization of the ruling were published on X. Background on the Aug. 27 hearing is drawn from reporting by Bryan P. Sears of Maryland Matters and from the Star Democrat’s preview of the case. Background on the original Dorchester complaint is drawn from Maryland Matters’ Aug. 18 report on the lawsuit’s filing and from Mikenzie Frost’s reporting for Fox45/WBFF Baltimore.
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.