• Maryland redistricting fight heads to court
• Lawsuit challenges timing of ballot certification
• GOP lawmakers say deadlines were ignored
• Measure could reshape congressional map outcomes
• State officials face pressure before the election calendar tightens
EXCLUSIVE: A new legal challenge in Maryland is trying to stop a redistricting proposal backed by Gov. Wes Moore from reaching voters in November. The fight centers on whether state leaders pushed the measure forward after the deadline for certifying ballot questions had already expired, turning a procedural dispute into a major political brawl.
The complaint was filed Thursday night in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court by the conservative Oversight Project, alongside Republican lawmakers. It argues that HB 2100 cannot legally appear on the ballot because Maryland’s July 1 cutoff for certifying statewide questions had passed long before the special session that approved the proposal.
At the heart of the case is a claim that state leaders tried to move fast enough to outrun the calendar. The plaintiffs say the amendment was rushed through after key notice and review requirements were already out of reach, which makes the whole process suspect from the start.
The proposal would change the Maryland Constitution so the state’s compactness and boundary standards would no longer apply to congressional districts. That kind of move matters a lot, since redistricting rules can decide whether a map is fair or tilted hard in one party’s favor.
The filing points to a fiscal note from the Department of Legislative Services that says the new July 1 deadline had already passed. It also notes that election officials are supposed to post the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment at least 90 days before Election Day, giving voters a real chance to see what is on the line.
According to the complaint, lawmakers added the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” to HB 2100 less than an hour before the joint committee hearing began. The plaintiffs say that wording was meant to bulldoze through the deadline problem and sidestep the usual requirements for certification, notice, and public comment.
That timing has become a big part of the argument. The lawsuit says Democratic sponsors brushed the plan off as merely “technical,” even though the deadlines were already gone and the legal path looked blocked.
During debate, Democratic state Sen. Cheryl Kagan reportedly made the point bluntly: “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,” Kagan 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.”
Republican Delegate Matt Morgan, one of the plaintiffs, said the amended language was dropped in at 11:08 a.m. for a noon committee hearing. He argued that the state had rules to follow and simply chose not to follow them, which is why the issue is now headed for judicial review.
Another plaintiff, Republican Delegate Kathy Szeliga, said lawmakers had only hours to digest the revised wording while the public had no meaningful chance to weigh in. She called the process a naked partisan power grab, and that kind of accusation has only added heat to an already explosive redistricting showdown.
The case also ties into a bigger fight over congressional control. The complaint says the amendment is aimed at undoing the effect of a 2022 state court ruling that applied those constitutional standards to congressional redistricting, at a time when Democrats already hold seven of Maryland’s eight House seats.
Moore has defended the measure as a response to Republican-led redistricting moves in other states, saying it would ensure “Marylanders — and no one else — have the final say over their representation.” That line is likely to keep echoing as the court weighs whether the state crossed the line on timing and procedure.
The lawsuit asks the court to stop officials from certifying, printing, distributing, tabulating, or canvassing votes on the amendment. With the election calendar moving fast, the legal clock is now running right alongside the political one.
