Skip to content
The Talbot PatriotEaston, MarylandMD

State & Region

Question 3 Stays on Nov. Ballot; High Court Orders Purpose-Paragraph Text

Maryland Supreme Court keeps the congressional redistricting amendment on the November ballot and orders purpose-paragraph language for voters.

Maryland State House dome and plaza under clear sky
AI-generated illustration; not a photograph of Maryland State House dome and plaza under clear sky.

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND — Maryland’s Supreme Court kept statewide Question 3 on the November 2026 ballot and ordered new ballot text. The per curiam order in Nos. 21 and 22, September Term 2026, was argued and filed Sept. 3, 2026. Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader signed it. Justice Biran did not participate.

What the majority did. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Anne Arundel and Dorchester circuit judgments that had enjoined the question. It held the circuit courts erred, at least in part, on Title VII Election Law timing and on the single-subject claim. It agreed the ballot language was misleading in one clause — the line that said the amendment “requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws” — and that the clause violates due process.

The remedy is not to pull the question. Under Election Law § 12-204(c), the Court ordered the State Board of Elections to replace that ballot text with the purpose paragraph of Chapter 881 of the 2026 Laws of Maryland. The replacement language, as ordered. The purpose paragraph submitted to voters is to read: “FOR the purpose of clarifying that certain requirements apply only to districts for the election of members of the Senate of Maryland and the House of Delegates; authorizing the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the congressional districting plan of the State; and providing that nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.”

Deadline on the remand. The circuit courts were ordered to enter conforming summary-judgment orders by no later than Sept. 4, 2026. Costs in each case are split evenly. The mandate issues forthwith.

Who dissented. Justice Gould, joined by Senior Justice Harrell, would have affirmed both circuit injunctions. The dissent says it is skeptical that § 12-204 authorizes the Court to rewrite ballot language and argues the majority’s substituted text still fails to tell voters that Declaration of Rights guarantees would no longer supply criteria for a congressional plan.

Why Talbot readers care. The Talbot County Board of Elections is listed among the defendant-appellants in the order caption. Question 3 is the congressional redistricting constitutional amendment tied to Chapter 881 — the Shore’s 1st District map is the local stake, not a Baltimore headline.

Source: Maryland Judiciary

Drawn from public records; drafted with AI and edited by Peter Gorman before publication.

Correction? Contact the editor.Our AI use

about 150 words

If the button fails, email talbotpatriot [at] proton.me with the same fields.

Signed comments are held for review, then published. Obvious spam is rejected before it reaches the editor. Letters and comments.

No published comments yet.