Supreme Court of Maryland Orders Rewrite of Question 3 Ballot Language, Freedom Caucus Says Fight Not Over

The Maryland Freedom Caucus said Thursday it is considering its next steps after the Supreme Court of Maryland ruled that part of the language proposed for Question 3 on the November ballot is misleading, but declined to remove the proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot.

Related: the ruling can be read here. 

Question 3 is a proposed amendment to the Maryland Constitution concerning congressional redistricting. It is scheduled to appear on Maryland’s statewide ballot during the November 2026 general election.

The proposal stems from Chapter 881, legislation passed by the Maryland General Assembly during a special session held August 3 through August 5.

The proposed constitutional amendment would clarify that certain requirements concerning legislative districts apply specifically to districts used to elect members of the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates. It would also authorize the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction to review the state’s congressional districting plan and provide that nothing in the Maryland Constitution establishes applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.

The ballot language originally approved for Question 3 stated that the proposed amendment would clarify which constitutional standards apply to General Assembly districts, authorize the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to review congressional districting plans and require the criteria for congressional district boundaries to be determined by applicable federal laws.

That wording became a central issue in legal challenges filed in Anne Arundel and Dorchester counties.

Ten registered Maryland voters challenged Question 3 in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, while five registered voters filed a similar challenge in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County.

Both circuit courts granted summary judgment to the voters and blocked the State Board of Elections from including the proposed amendment on the ballot, although the injunctions were stayed while the cases were appealed.

The lower courts cited several grounds for their decisions, including the timing of the legislation, whether Question 3 violated the Maryland Constitution’s single-subject requirement and whether the ballot language was misleading.

The Supreme Court of Maryland heard arguments in the cases September 3 and reached a mixed decision.

The state’s highest court found that the lower courts erred in blocking Question 3 based on the timing requirements contained in state election law and on the argument that the proposal violated the Maryland Constitution’s single-subject requirement.

However, the Supreme Court agreed, at least in part, that the ballot language itself was misleading and violated due process requirements.

Specifically, the Court found that language stating the amendment “requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws” was misleading and was not included in the purpose paragraph of Chapter 881.

Rather than removing Question 3 from the November ballot, the Supreme Court ordered the State Board of Elections to replace the existing wording with language taken from the purpose paragraph of the legislation.

Under the replacement language ordered by the Court, Question 3 will explain that the amendment clarifies that certain requirements apply only to districts used to elect members of the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates, authorizes the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the state’s congressional districting plan and provides that nothing in the Maryland Constitution establishes applicable criteria for congressional district boundaries.

The Supreme Court affirmed portions of the decisions from the Anne Arundel and Dorchester circuit courts, reversed other portions and sent the cases back to those courts with instructions to enter orders consistent with its ruling by September 4.

Following the decision, the Maryland Freedom Caucus issued a statement saying it was disappointed with the outcome despite the Court agreeing that the original ballot language was misleading.

“We are disappointed in today's ruling, and we don't agree with the remedy offered by the court,” the caucus said. “While the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed that the Maryland Freedom Caucus and our co-plaintiffs were correct that the ballot question written by Annapolis Democrats was misleading, they corrected the Democrats’ homework instead of striking it completely.”

The characterization of the ballot question as having been written by “Annapolis Democrats” was made by the Maryland Freedom Caucus in its statement.

“But this fight isn't over,” the caucus said, adding that it and its legal team at the Oversight Project are considering their next steps.

The Maryland Freedom Caucus also thanked Mike Howell, Senator Stephen Hershey and Senator Justin Ready, whom it identified as co-plaintiffs, along with the Oversight Project legal team for their work on the case.

The Supreme Court indicated that a more detailed opinion explaining its reasoning will be filed at a later date.

Following the decision, the Maryland Freedom Caucus issued a statement saying it was disappointed with the outcome despite the Court agreeing that the original ballot language was misleading.

“We are disappointed in today's ruling, and we don't agree with the remedy offered by the court,” the caucus said. “While the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed that the Maryland Freedom Caucus and our co-plaintiffs were correct that the ballot question written by Annapolis Democrats was misleading, they corrected the Democrats’ homework instead of striking it completely.”

The characterization of the ballot question as having been written by “Annapolis Democrats” was made by the Maryland Freedom Caucus in its statement.

“But this fight isn't over,” the caucus said, adding that it and its legal team at the Oversight Project are considering their next steps.

The Maryland Freedom Caucus also thanked Mike Howell, Senator Stephen Hershey and Senator Justin Ready, whom it identified as co-plaintiffs, along with the Oversight Project legal team for their work on the case.

Maryland Democratic Party Chairman Steuart Pittman, meanwhile, praised the Supreme Court’s decision to keep Question 3 before voters, saying the ultimate decision will now rest with Marylanders.

“Today, the Supreme Court of Maryland sent a clear message to the state: the power is in the hands of the people, and now they will decide the future of their home,” Mr. Pittman said.

Mr. Pittman credited Governor Wes Moore, Senate President Bill Ferguson, House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk and Democrats across Maryland with advancing the legislation and said the party views Question 3 as an opportunity to promote what he described as fair and competitive elections.

His statement also placed the ballot question within a broader partisan dispute over congressional elections and voting rights. Mr. Pittman accused President Donald Trump and Republicans of seeking to “rig” elections, weaken voting rights and contribute to the disenfranchisement of Black political leadership across the country.

Those claims were made by Mr. Pittman and the Maryland Democratic Party in their statement responding to the ruling.

Mr. Pittman said Maryland Democrats plan to make support for Question 3 part of their coordinated campaign ahead of the November election.

“This year, we are going to run the strongest coordinated campaign Maryland has ever seen to reelect Democrats up and down the ballot and urge all Marylanders to vote YES on Question 3 in November,” Mr. Pittman said.

The competing statements underscore the political divide surrounding Question 3 ahead of the November vote. While the Maryland Freedom Caucus continues to object to the measure and the Court’s decision to rewrite rather than remove the ballot question, Maryland Democratic leaders are preparing to campaign for its passage.

The Supreme Court indicated that a more detailed opinion explaining its reasoning will be filed at a later date.