ANNAPOLIS, Md., Aug. 7 (DC Times Online) — A Washington-based conservative group and Maryland Republican lawmakers are asking a state court to keep a proposed constitutional amendment off the November ballot, arguing that lawmakers advanced it after a deadline for certifying statewide ballot questions had passed.
The lawsuit, filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, challenges House Bill 2100, which Gov. Wes Moore signed after the General Assembly’s August special session. The measure would ask voters to change Maryland’s constitutional standards for drawing legislative and congressional districts.
The case puts the amendment’s place on the November ballot in question as election officials prepare for the general election. The court has not been reported to have ruled on the request.
What is the lawsuit challenging?
The plaintiffs include the Oversight Project and members of the Maryland Freedom Caucus, as well as Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey and Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready. The defendants are the Maryland State Board of Elections, Secretary of State Susan Lee, Attorney General Anthony Brown and Moore.
The complaint asks the court to declare that the amendment was unlawfully placed on the ballot. It also seeks an order barring state officials from certifying, printing, distributing, counting or canvassing votes on the measure.
The complaint says Maryland’s law set July 1 as the deadline for certifying statewide ballot questions for the general election. It also cites a Maryland Department of Legislative Services fiscal note that says election officials must publicly post the complete text of a proposed constitutional amendment at least 90 days before Election Day.
The plaintiffs argue that HB 2100 was advanced during the General Assembly’s Aug. 3-5 special session, after the July 1 deadline. They also allege that lawmakers added the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” less than an hour before a joint committee hearing. According to the complaint, the language was intended to override requirements involving certification, public notice and public comment.
The state defendants’ response was not included in the supplied court coverage.
What would HB 2100 change?
Maryland’s Constitution currently includes standards such as compactness, contiguity and limits on dividing county lines when districts are drawn. In general terms, compactness refers to keeping a district reasonably concentrated rather than spread across disconnected areas. Contiguity means that all parts of a district are connected.
HB 2100 would narrow those standards so that they apply only to districts for the Maryland General Assembly, according to the measure’s text as described in the litigation. The change would remove those specific constitutional requirements from the rules governing congressional districts.
That could give lawmakers more flexibility when drawing congressional boundaries. But the lawsuit challenges the process used to place the question before voters, rather than asking the court to decide how a future congressional map would look.
The complaint alleges that the amendment could affect the balance of Maryland’s congressional delegation. Any such political result remains an allegation, not an established outcome.
How did the dispute reach court?
Earlier in 2026, Maryland enacted Senate Bill 29, which established new deadlines for statewide ballot questions, including the July 1 certification date and a 15-day public-comment period, according to the legislative materials cited in the complaint.
The General Assembly approved HB 2100 during its August special session. The governor signed it Aug. 5, according to state legislative and government records cited in reporting on the case.
Republican lawmakers had said they planned to challenge the measure after the Aug. 4 vote. The complaint was then filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The court docket, rather than the supplied reports, would establish the precise filing time and case details.
The amendment is intended for voter consideration in November, but its appearance on the ballot now depends on the court challenge and any later orders from the court. The supplied materials do not include the full enacted bill, the official ballot language or a ruling on the case.
