EASTON, MARYLAND — Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Robert J. Thompson on Aug. 26 blocked Maryland’s congressional redistricting amendment — statewide Question 3 — from the Nov. 3 ballot, then stayed his own injunction so the state could appeal. The Attorney General appealed the same day. Two days later, on Aug. 28, Dorchester County Circuit Judge S. James Sarbanes reached a similar result in a separate suit, finding the measure violated notice and public-comment timing and left voters without enough information for an informed vote. The Maryland Supreme Court hears argument Sept. 3 — before ballots print.

Updated Aug. 28, 2026: Judge Sarbanes’s signed opinion and order issued that day in the Dorchester suit.

Question 3 began as House Bill 2100, passed in a two-day special session in early August and signed by Gov. Wes Moore. It is a congressional redistricting measure, not a rewrite of General Assembly districts. Thompson found the enactment “legally deficient” because lawmakers missed a July 1 certification deadline they had written into state law earlier this year. He also found the ballot language “intentionally misleading” for telling voters the amendment merely “clarifies” that constitutional standards apply only to legislative (General Assembly) districts — wording that downplays the congressional map change. He wrote that the court had “no choice but to enjoin” the State Board of Elections from putting Question 3 on the ballot. The stay means Thompson’s injunction does not remove the question until the Supreme Court says so.

The Anne Arundel case is Howell v. Maryland State Board of Elections, brought by the Maryland Freedom Caucus, the Oversight Project and Senate Republican leadership. The Dorchester suit is a separate record and includes Sen. Johnny Mautz of District 37; Sarbanes’s holdings on notice and informed voting are his, not Thompson’s.

Talbot’s stake is concrete. The 1st Congressional District is the Eastern Shore’s district. Cook rates it R+8. Rep. Andy Harris carried it with 59.41 percent in 2024. It is the seat most analysts expect a mid-decade redraw would dismantle. During floor debate, Republicans argued the change would nearly eliminate the chance of a U.S. House member living on this side of the Bay. For Talbot County, the question is not which party holds the seat. It is whether there is a seat drawn around this side of the Bay — and whether the Talbot County Board of Elections will be directed to print Question 3 on local ballots once the high court rules.

On the same ballot, Harris faces Democrat Dan Schwartz — a Talbot County resident — and unaffiliated write-in candidate Edward Shlikas.

Early voting is scheduled to begin Oct. 22. Between now and then the practical question for Talbot readers is simple: will Question 3 be on the ballot? As of the circuit rulings, nobody can answer that until the Supreme Court acts.