Congressional redistricting lawsuit arguments begin in Anne Arundel

ANNAPOLIS — Arguments began Tuesday in the first of multiple lawsuits waged against a ballot question to clarify procedures for congressional redistricting. 

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert J. Thompson declined to issue a ruling Tuesday but said before the hearing adjourned that he has concerns that all of the state’s lawmaking authority lies with the Maryland General Assembly, which is attempting to sidestep its own recent law.

Earlier this month, the legislature convened for a two-day special session, during which it passed a bill to put a referendum before voters during November’s general election. If enacted, the legislation would exempt the General Assembly from drawing “geographically contiguous” and “compact” congressional districts as ordered in a judge’s 2022 ruling.

In short order, a lawsuit attempting to stop the ballot question was filed on behalf of Mike Howell, president of the conservative nonprofit Oversight Project, and several Republican lawmakers.

They are suing Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, Secretary of State Susan Lee, Maryland Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis, Attorney General Anthony Brown and the Maryland State Board of Elections. A second, similar lawsuit was filed in Dorchester County.

“Once this is allowed to go to the voters … the toothpaste can’t go back in the tube,” said Jeffrey B. Clark Sr., one of several attorneys for the Republican plaintiffs in the case. “As we learned in kindergarten … ‘haste makes waste,’ and the General Assembly made a lot of waste.”

Clark argued before Thompson that the General Assembly overstepped its bounds and ignored its own recently enacted election law when it approved and Moore signed the legislation.

Much of the arguments Tuesday morning centered on Article 14 of the Maryland Constitution, which dictates that the General Assembly needs to pass a proposed change to the constitution on a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate. Then, a question must be put before voters during the next general election.

Clark argued that Article 14 doesn’t clear a path for the legislature to sidestep existing election law to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, pointing to a constitutional amendment approved during the 2026 legislative session that requires that all referendums be written in plain language, prepared and certified by government entities by July 1, and open for a 15-day public comment period.

The redistricting legislation, which Clark called “a hurry-up job,” exempts that deadline to allow the question to be on the ballot during the general election.

The defendants can’t recover the fact that they didn’t really “swing into action” until after July 1, Clark said. They can’t ask the court to “ignore express statutory provisions.”

Thompson agreed that the lawmakers working around its own recently enacted legislation “seems backwards.”

Assistant Attorney General Daniel M. Kobrin rebutted that the General Assembly wields the authority of the Maryland Constitution and has the power to delegate that authority through laws when it so chooses. He said election laws like the one passed during the regular 2026 legislative session are implementations of delegated authority.

However, said Kobrin, “General Assemblies cannot bind future General Assemblies” through the passage of laws because statutes cannot supersede the constitution.

But Clark said that “voters were deprived of the ability to even look at the question.”

Kobrin rebutted that the language of the referendum was published on the General Assembly website on July 29, the state constitution gives the governor the authority to mandate the language of the question be published in newspapers four weeks before Election Day, and specimen ballots are to be sent to voters three weeks before the general election.

Ballot questions are to be published on the State Board of Elections website 90 days prior to the general election. The referendum in question was late in its publication by two days.

Clark also argued that the ballot question’s language, which was written by the legislature, is likely to confuse voters. The question is set to read:

“The proposed Constitutional Amendment clarifies that certain standards in the Maryland Constitution apply only to districts used to elect members of the General Assembly; authorizes the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the congressional districting plan of the State; and requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws.”

To Clark, the language doesn’t indicate what standards are to be clarified, adding that the word “clarifies” is “bright-sounding language.”

“I don’t think anything like a ‘college try’” was given to voters to understand the ballot question, he said.

Kobrin argued that the language of the question makes it clear that only federal law will apply to the drawing of Maryland’s congressional districts. He also said that voters are able to appease themselves of what the language means and are likely to learn from “the immense amount of news coverage” the ballot question and subsequent trial have received to date.

“We have to believe that,” Kobrin said.

Tuesday afternoon, Del. Kris Fair, a Frederick County Democrat who led much of the debate on the bill during the special session, said he’s “not sure which way” the ruling is “going to go” but questioned the motives of his Republican counterparts who brought the suit.

“Why are the Republicans this scared of the voters of the state of Maryland?” Fair asked. “Why are they that nervous to bring this issue forward and allow the voters of the state of Maryland to tell us instead of lecturing them?”

Addressing the press outside the courthouse, Howell asked, “Do I look afraid to you?”

“We’re not afraid,” he said. “When you have the facts on your side — the law on your side – it’s a good day.”

Thompson is expected to issue a ruling Wednesday.

This story has been updated.