Maryland’s highest court ruled Thursday that voters will have their say on changing the state constitution’s rules on congressional redistricting — but the wording must be clearer.
The Supreme Court of Maryland issued its ruling hours after hearing oral arguments on the proposed constitutional amendment.
It’s a win for Democrats, who hope Maryland can play a role in increasing the party’s share of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives by drawing a map unfriendly to the state’s lone Republican in Congress, Andy Harris.
State lawmakers voted this summer to change the constitution to make clear that congressional districts can be drawn without taking into account compactness, natural boundaries, and city and county lines. Voters would need to approve the amendment in the November election for it to take effect.
If approved, the amendment would open the door for lawmakers to change the congressional map in hopes of electing Democrats to all eight of Maryland’s seats in the U.S. House — and ensure it could survive a legal challenge.
The proposed amendment was the result of more than a year of wrangling among Maryland Democrats over how to respond to the cascade of redistricting kicked off when President Donald Trump urged Texas to draw more Republican-friendly districts.
Gov. Wes Moore and House of Delegates Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk supported drawing a new map of congressional districts, while Senate President Bill Ferguson warned that an 8-0 map might not pass legal muster.
Democrats celebrated the ruling. Peña-Melnyk and Ferguson issued a joint statement saying the state needs options to respond to the national gerrymandering back-and-forth, though they also emphasized that voters will have the final say.
“The General Assembly acted because we recognized the need for Maryland to have a clear, legal path to redistricting in the future,” Peña-Melnyk and Ferguson wrote.
Carter Elliott IV, a spokesperson for Moore’s campaign, posted a photo of the governor holding a large letter “L” and tagged Republican lawmakers who were part of the failed court cases.
The governor issued a statement hailing the ruling as “a massive victory for the people of our state and a powerful defense of our democratic process.”
Republican lawmakers, outnumbered and unable to block Democrats in the State House, had turned to the courts to challenge the constitutional amendment, filing two lawsuits that culminated in Thursday’s hearing.
During two hours of oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices peppered lawyers for both sides with questions. Much of the focus was on the wording of the question that would appear on the ballot and whether voters could understand it.
The justices, in a 5-2 ruling, told two lower courts that initially heard the cases to order state elections officials to use slightly different language on the ballot question that voters will see in November.
Sen. Stephen Hershey, an Eastern Shore Republican and plaintiff in one of the cases, said he was disappointed in the ruling but heartened that the justices agreed that the ballot language did not include a “fair and accurate” explanation to voters.
“Unfortunately, I still believe the revised language fails to fully explain the amendment’s true effect,” he said.
Members of the House of Delegates Freedom Caucus, which includes plaintiffs in the cases, said they ware “considering the next steps.” They partnered with the conservative Oversight Project to bring one of the cases.
Jared DeMarinis, the state elections administrator, said after the hearing that he was simply hoping for a quick resolution.
Ballot printing, scheduled to begin this week, was on hold awaiting the ruling. The first ballots must be mailed to voters starting Sept. 19.
With Thursday’s ruling, DeMarinis said all the deadlines will be met.
The constitutional amendment will appear on ballots as Question 3, and advocacy campaigns are already in place both for and against the question.
Joe Francaviglia, representing the Fight Back MD group that’s trying to get the ballot question passed, wrote in a statement: “We are going to organize in every corner of this state, make our case directly to Marylanders, and mobilize voters to vote YES on Question 3.”
Doug Mayer with the Protect Maryland Votes coalition that’s opposed to the constitutional change, said the court’s ruling serves only the interests of Democrats.
“Partisan politicians in Annapolis have spent 30 years trying to amass total political control of our state, and today’s baffling decision by the Maryland Supreme Court has put them one step closer to their ultimate goal,” Mayer said in a statement.
Comments
Welcome to The Banner's subscriber-only commenting community. Please review our community guidelines.