Frederick data center: MD Supreme Court explains why it blocked referendum

The Maryland Supreme Court published on Friday its reasoning for blocking a referendum that would have allowed Frederick County voters to limit the expansion of a controversial data center campus.

Blocked by the court June 30, the potential ballot question was a response to an ordinance passed in December that expanded the campus by 1,000 acres in a mostly agricultural part of the county, south of the city of Frederick.

The Maryland Supreme Court’s opinion had nothing to do with the merits of data centers, Chief Justice Matthew Fader noted. In a case on “two straightforward legal issues,” the court ruled that zoning ordinances are not subject to referendum and that even if they were, the proposed question was unclear.

“We observe at the outset that although the subject of the ordinance at issue is zoning for data centers, the subject of this lawsuit is not,” Fader wrote. “The location and construction of data centers is a matter of significant controversy and consequence at this moment. In deciding this case, this Court is not weighing in on that broader discussion, nor is it our place to do so.”

A grassroots group collected more than 21,000 signatures in an effort to prevent the expansion — from about 1,600 acres to 2,600 — of the campus anchored by Quantum Frederick, a hyperscale data center that could become one of the largest on the East Coast. The group argued the development would harm the environment and increase residents’ utility costs, mimicking Loudoun County, Virginia’s “Data Center Alley” across the Potomac River.

The local election commission approved the question to appear on the November ballot, prompting a legal challenge by several businesses and property owners.

The state’s high court affirmed a decision by the Frederick County Circuit Court, ruling that the zoning ordinance passed by the county council was not a law subject to referendum. Fader wrote that the county charter was “unambiguous” in preventing zoning ordinances from being subject to a popular vote.

But even if it was proper ballot material, Fader wrote, the proposed ballot question was not sufficient because voters wouldn’t be able to understand what they were voting on. The ballot question featured black-and-white maps with semi-legible text, making it unclear how the campus was expanding.

“In this case, the color aspects of the images are essential to understanding what they depict and, therefore, to understanding the (Critical Digital Infrastructure) Ordinance,” Fader wrote.

Three specially assigned senior justices — Glenn Harrell Jr., Irma Raker and Joseph Getty — participated in the decision. They heard the case in place of justices Jonathan Biran, Steven Gould and Shirley Watts.

Harrell concurred with the decision but did not write separately. The last paragraph of Fader’s opinion states that Harrell would have decided the case based only on the insufficiency of the petition and would not have reached the question of whether a zoning ordinance may be subject to a ballot referendum.

After losing the case, Elizabeth Bauer, lead organizer for the local Data Center Referendum Committee, said she would focus her efforts on electing data center skeptics to the county council.

But the future of data centers in the county is unclear. Shortly after the decision, County Executive Jessica Fitzwater paused new data center development at least through the end of the year, citing the community opposition.