Full Breakdown
Maryland GOP Lawsuit Seeks to Block Redistricting Amendment from Ballot
8/7/2026, 9:48:39 PM
Core Event – Lawsuit Over Ballot Access
A group of Republican legislators and the conservative Oversight Project filed a lawsuit in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court to stop a constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting (House Bill 2100) from appearing on the November ballot.
Background & Context – Special Session and 2022 Court Ruling
During a special session called by Governor Wes Moore, the Democratic-controlled General Assembly approved the amendment, which would separate the constitutional standards applied to state legislative districts from those governing congressional districts. The change is meant to address a 2022 state-court decision that struck down a partisan congressional map. Democrats say the amendment clarifies the legal framework; Republicans argue it opens the door to partisan gerrymandering.
Key Figures & Groups
- Matt Morgan – Delegate, Maryland Freedom Caucus (R) – lead plaintiff.
- Kathy Szeliga – Delegate, Freedom Caucus (R) – plaintiff.
- Steve Hershey – Senate Minority Leader (R) – plaintiff.
- Oversight Project – Conservative watchdog – co-plaintiff.
Timeline
- July 1 – statutory deadline for certification of statewide ballot questions (missed).
- Early August – special session; HB 2100 passed with “notwithstanding” language.
- Thursday night – lawsuit filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court.
- November – election in which voters would decide the amendment if it remains on the ballot.
Data & Statistics
- Democrats hold seven of Maryland’s eight U.S. House seats; the sole Republican seat is held by Rep. Andy Harris.
- The amendment would shift future congressional map reviews to federal constitutional standards, leaving the 2026 midterms unchanged; any new map would affect the 2028 cycle.
Official Statements & Responses
Governor Wes Moore called the amendment a response to “political redlining” and said “inaction is not an option.” Senate President Bill Ferguson described the measure as “giving Marylanders a voice” and asserted the legislature followed required steps.
Criticism & Opposition
Republican plaintiffs argue the process violated state law, was rushed, and used the “notwithstanding” clause to sidestep deadlines. They contend the amendment could enable extreme partisan gerrymandering and threaten the last Republican congressional seat.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on whether the amendment’s language clearly explains a “yes” vote. Plaintiffs say it is misleading; Senate President Ferguson calls it “clear.” No court ruling has yet addressed the legality of the “notwithstanding” clause, and the exact ballot wording remains undisclosed.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Annapolis Democrats spent taxpayer dollars on a special session for one reason: to rewrite the Maryland Constitution and eliminate the last remaining Republican congressional seat,” — Delegate Matt Morgan
- “The public got absolutely no time to look and weigh in on the amended language," Szeliga told Fox News Digital.” — Delegate Kathy Szeliga
What's Next
The plaintiffs have requested an expedited three-judge panel hearing. If the court blocks the amendment, it will be removed from the November ballot; if the suit fails, the amendment will be presented to voters, and both sides have begun voter-education efforts.
