In the long contest between democratic process and political expedience, Maryland finds itself at a crossroads: a redistricting amendment, rushed through a special session after its own legal deadlines had passed, now faces a court challenge that asks whether the rules governing how laws are made matter as much as the laws themselves. The Oversight Project and Republican legislators argue that inserting override language minutes before a committee hearing cannot substitute for the notice, comment, and certification requirements the state's own statutes demand. At stake is not merely one ballot
Conservative group sues to block Maryland redistricting amendment from November ballot
There is no time to comply with the plain language of the law
Mark
Why does the timing of this language insertion matter so much? It's just a few words added to a bill.
Mimi
Because those words—"notwithstanding any other provision of law"—were designed to erase the legal requirements that were already supposed to apply. Once you miss the July 1 deadline, you're supposed to wait until the next election cycle. That's the law. The phrase was meant to say: ignore that law, do this anyway. And it happened in secret, in an hour, before anyone could object.
Mark
But the Democrats would say they had a good reason—they wanted to respond to Republican gerrymandering in other states.
Mimi
That may be true. But the lawsuit isn't about whether the amendment is good policy. It's about whether the people who passed it followed the rules they're supposed to follow. You can think the amendment is wise and still think the process was broken.
Mark
What does an 8-0 delegation actually mean in practice?
Mimi
It means all eight of Maryland's congressional representatives would be Democrats. Right now it's seven. That's a significant shift in power, and it would happen because the districts could be drawn without the constraint of having to be reasonably compact or sensible in shape. You can pack a lot more partisan advantage into oddly shaped districts.
Mark
Is there any chance the court sides with the state?
Mimi
Possibly. Courts sometimes defer to legislatures on procedural matters, especially if the legislature says it had good reason to act. But the language Senator Kagan used—acknowledging that there was no time to follow the law—is pretty damaging. It's hard to argue you followed the rules when your own lawmakers said you couldn't.
Mark
What happens if the court blocks it?
Mimi
The amendment doesn't appear on the ballot in November. Voters never get to decide. That's why the Republicans are asking for expedited review—they want a decision before the election, not after.
O Pulso
- Maryland Democrats inserted a sweeping 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' clause into HB 2100 less than an hour before a committee hearing, effectively erasing certification and public-comment deadlines that had already expired.
- A Democratic state senator openly acknowledged on the Senate floor that there was simply no time left to comply with the plain language of the law — yet the amendment advanced anyway.
- Critics warn the measure would strip constitutional compactness standards from congressional redistricting, potentially delivering all eight of Maryland's U.S. House seats to Democrats.
- The Oversight Project filed suit Thursday night in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, asking a judge to block the amendment from appearing on the November ballot and requesting expedited review.
- The court must now resolve a narrow but consequential question before Election Day: can procedural violations at the legislative stage invalidate a ballot measure before voters ever cast a single vote on it.
In the long contest between democratic process and political expedience, Maryland finds itself at a crossroads: a redistricting amendment, rushed through a special session after its own legal deadlines had passed, now faces a court challenge that asks whether the rules governing how laws are made matter as much as the laws themselves. The Oversight Project and Republican legislators argue that inserting override language minutes before a committee hearing cannot substitute for the notice, comment, and certification requirements the state's own statutes demand. At stake is not merely one ballot measure, but the principle that procedural guardrails exist precisely to prevent the majority from rewriting the rules of the game in the final hour.
A conservative watchdog group filed suit Thursday night in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court seeking to keep a Maryland redistricting amendment off the November ballot, arguing that Democratic lawmakers bypassed their own procedural rules to push the measure through a special session.
The amendment would remove the compactness and boundary standards currently written into the Maryland Constitution for congressional redistricting. Opponents warn it could produce an entirely Democratic congressional delegation — eight seats rather than the current seven. Governor Wes Moore has defended the measure as a necessary counterweight to Republican redistricting efforts in other states.
The lawsuit focuses on a procedural sequence that plaintiffs call an end-run around the law. Maryland's July 1 deadline for certifying statewide ballot questions had already passed when the amendment was approved. Election officials were also required to post the full text of any proposed constitutional amendment at least 90 days before Election Day and allow for public comment — neither of which occurred. With less than an hour before a joint committee hearing, Democratic lawmakers inserted the phrase 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' into HB 2100, language the plaintiffs say was designed specifically to override the requirements that had already lapsed.
Democratic state Senator Cheryl Kagan acknowledged the problem directly during Senate floor debate, conceding there was no time left to comply with the law's plain requirements. House Democrats later described the amendment as merely technical — a characterization that Republican Delegate Matt Morgan, one of the plaintiffs, flatly rejected. Fellow plaintiff Delegate Kathy Szeliga noted that legislators themselves had only hours to review the revised language while the public had none.
The lawsuit asks the court to block state officials from certifying, printing, or tabulating any votes on the amendment and requests expedited review. Governor Moore's office, the Maryland Attorney General, and the State Board of Elections had not responded to requests for comment at the time of filing. The court now faces a question with implications well beyond Maryland: whether violations of legislative procedure can invalidate a ballot measure before voters ever see it.
A conservative watchdog group filed suit Thursday night in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court to keep a redistricting amendment off Maryland's November ballot, claiming state officials sidestepped their own procedural rules to rush the measure through. The Oversight Project, joined by Republican lawmakers, argues that HB 2100 never should have advanced because Maryland's July 1 deadline for certifying statewide ballot questions had already expired when Democratic legislators approved it in a special session.
The amendment would alter the Maryland Constitution to strip away the compactness and boundary standards that currently govern how congressional districts are drawn. If voters approve it, critics say the state could end up with an entirely Democratic congressional delegation—eight seats instead of the current seven. Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, has championed the measure as a necessary response to aggressive Republican redistricting in other states, framing it as a way to ensure Marylanders control their own representation.
But the lawsuit zeroes in on what it calls a procedural end-run. According to a fiscal note from the Department of Legislative Services, the July 1 deadline for certifying ballot questions was firm law. Election officials were also required to post the full text of any proposed constitutional amendment at least 90 days before Election Day and allow for public comment. None of that happened. Instead, Democratic lawmakers inserted the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law" into HB 2100 less than an hour before a joint committee hearing was scheduled to begin at noon. The plaintiffs argue this language was designed specifically to override the certification, notice, and public-comment requirements that had already lapsed.
During Senate floor debate, Democratic state Senator Cheryl Kagan acknowledged the bind. "There is no time to comply with the plain language of the law with our new law because July 1st is in the rearview mirror," she said, according to the complaint. "There's no time to have the Secretary of State draft language, to have it published, to have a comment period, to have it modified. It's just not an option." Yet the amendment moved forward anyway. House Democrats later characterized it as merely "technical"—a framing that Republican Delegate Matt Morgan, one of the plaintiffs, called a smokescreen. "They have the law. They're supposed to follow it. They didn't," Morgan told Fox News Digital. "And now we're going to take it to court and see what the judges have to say about it."
Republican Delegate Kathy Szeliga, also a plaintiff, emphasized the compressed timeline. Legislators had only hours to review the revised language while the public had zero opportunity to weigh in. "The public got absolutely no time to look and weigh in on the amended language," she said. "So it just reeks of a naked political, partisan power grab on the Democrats' behalf."
The amendment itself traces back to a 2022 state court ruling that those constitutional standards did apply to congressional redistricting. Democrats currently hold seven of Maryland's eight U.S. House seats. The lawsuit asks the court to prevent state officials from certifying, printing, or tabulating any votes on the amendment and requests expedited review given the November election timeline. Governor Moore's office, the Maryland Attorney General, and the State Board of Elections have not yet responded to requests for comment. The court now faces a narrow but consequential question: whether procedural violations at the legislative stage can invalidate a ballot measure before voters ever see it.
Citações Notáveis
There is no time to comply with the plain language of the law with our new law because July 1st is in the rearview mirror.— Democratic state Senator Cheryl Kagan, during Senate floor debate
They have the law. They're supposed to follow it. They didn't. And now we're going to take it to court and see what the judges have to say about it.— Republican Delegate Matt Morgan, plaintiff in the lawsuit
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em Fox News ↗
Politics & Governance