By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
Full text of Thursday’s order shows the Supreme Court remanded both cases rather than ruling directly; the dissent’s first argument, that the court had no business drafting ballot language at all, was not previously reported
ANNAPOLIS — Maryland’s redistricting ballot fight is not finished. Thursday’s Supreme Court of Maryland ruling did not resolve Question 3’s fate on its own. It sent both cases back to the circuit courts that first heard them, with instructions to enter conforming orders by Friday, Sept. 4, and at least one set of plaintiffs has already filed an emergency motion asking for a hearing on how that should happen.
MDBayNews has now obtained the complete per curiam order and dissent directly from the Maryland Judiciary, rather than relying on secondary accounts of Thursday’s ruling. Several details in the full text were not previously reported.
The Supreme Court remanded, it did not rule directly
The order affirms in part and reverses in part both circuit courts’ judgments, then remands the cases rather than instructing the State Board of Elections itself. The relevant language: the Supreme Court “remanded these cases to those courts with instructions to, by no later than September 4, 2026, enter orders resolving the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment consistent with this per curiam order,” and specifies that those circuit court orders, not the Supreme Court’s order, “shall order the State Board of Elections” to substitute the new ballot language.
That distinction is why the case is still moving. In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the Howell plaintiffs filed a “Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Hearing on Remand Remedies” seeking a hearing before that court on how it should carry out the Supreme Court’s instructions. MDBayNews has not obtained the full text of the motion and does not know what specific relief it requests beyond a hearing.
“The Supreme Court remanded both cases rather than instructing the State Board of Elections itself.”
What the order actually holds
The full order lays out three numbered holdings, resolving each theory the circuit courts had relied on:
- First, the Court held the circuit courts erred in finding that the General Assembly’s missed statutory deadlines justified keeping Question 3 off the ballot, reasoning that the injunction was improper given “the inability of executive branch officials to comply completely” with the relevant election-law deadlines.
- Second, the Court held the circuit courts erred in finding a single-subject violation, rejecting Judge Thompson’s holding on that point without extensive elaboration in the order itself, though the Court said a fuller opinion would follow.
- Third, the Court agreed with both circuit courts that the ballot language was misleading, identifying the operative defect specifically: the clause stating the amendment “requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws” is misleading because that requirement “is not set forth in the purpose paragraph of Chapter 881” and therefore “violates due process rights.”
The Court located its authority for the substitution remedy in § 12-204(c) of the Election Law Article, which allows a court that finds an act or omission affecting an election to “order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances,” reserving outright postponement of an election for cases where no other remedy suffices.
The dissent’s first argument: should the court be writing ballot language at all
Coverage of Thursday’s ruling, including MDBayNews’s own, focused on the second half of Justice Steven B. Gould’s dissent, joined by Senior Justice Glenn T. Harrell: that the rewritten ballot question still fails to tell voters the amendment would eliminate Declaration of Rights protections for congressional redistricting. The dissent’s first argument received less attention.
“It’s not our job to rewrite the question for the General Assembly.”
Gould wrote that he was “skeptical that § 12-204 of the Election Law Article authorizes us to draft ballot language” at all, and said that even if that authority exists, exercising it here was hard to justify given that the majority itself had found the General Assembly had drafted and sought to submit a misleading question to voters. In his view, the General Assembly claimed the prerogative to draft the question and should bear the consequences of having drafted a misleading one.
“It’s not our job to rewrite the question for the General Assembly,” Gould wrote.
Under Gould and Harrell’s view, the appropriate remedy was to affirm both circuit courts in full and leave Question 3 off the ballot entirely, not to have the judiciary supply substitute language.
“Under Gould and Harrell’s view, the appropriate remedy was to leave Question 3 off the ballot entirely.”
New reaction: the state’s chief legal officer and a sitting U.S. senator
Attorney General Anthony Brown, whose office defended the amendment, praised the ruling, according to reporting Friday. Brown said defending the constitutionality and legal sufficiency of measures the General Assembly enacts is part of his responsibility as the state’s chief legal officer.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., weighed in Friday morning, framing the fight in national terms.
“Republicans started this redistricting fight and pushed to gut the VRA,” Van Hollen said in a statement, adding that with Question 3 confirmed for the November ballot, “it’s our turn to fight back.”
Some Republican reaction to Thursday’s ruling was considerably sharper than what MDBayNews reported Thursday. Oversight Project President Mike Howell, whose organization represents the Anne Arundel plaintiffs, posted an extended statement Friday describing the fight in apocalyptic terms and predicting further political consequences for Gov. Moore. MDBayNews is not quoting that statement at length; its content goes well beyond characterizing the legal dispute and into general political commentary not directly tied to the litigation.
What happens next
“Both circuit courts must enter remand orders by the end of Friday, Sept. 4.”
Both circuit courts must enter remand orders by the end of Friday, Sept. 4. Once entered, those orders will formally direct the State Board of Elections to substitute the court-ordered language, clearing the way for ballot printing to proceed. The Anne Arundel County emergency motion suggests at least one round of additional argument will happen first. MDBayNews will report on the circuit courts’ remand orders once they are entered, and will follow up if the emergency motion produces any change to the remedy the Supreme Court specified.
Sources: This story is based on the complete per curiam order and dissenting opinion in Maryland State Board of Elections v. Howell and Maryland State Board of Elections v. Wheatley, Nos. 21 and 22, September Term 2026, obtained directly from the Maryland Judiciary at mdcourts.gov. The existence and case caption of the Anne Arundel County emergency motion are drawn from a social media post displaying a portion of that filing; MDBayNews has not obtained or reviewed the complete motion. Attorney General Brown’s statement is drawn from reporting published Sept. 4, 2026. Sen. Van Hollen’s statement and Mike Howell’s statement were posted to X on Sept. 4, 2026. Background on the underlying circuit court rulings and Thursday’s ruling is drawn from MDBayNews’s own prior coverage.
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.