Republicans win in Dorchester challenge to redistricting ballot question

by Bryan P. Sears, Maryland Matters
August 28, 2026

The Maryland General Assembly violated the state constitution and the Declaration of Rights and failed to follow election laws when it passed a proposed redistricting amendment to the state constitution, a Circuit Court judge in Cambridge ruled Friday.

The 12-page decision by Judge S. James Sarbanes hands Republicans a second victory this week in parallel court challenges to House Bill 2100, which would change the way the state draws congressional districts. In his ruling, Sarbanes found concerns similar to those cited by the judge in an Anne Arundel County case Wednesday, but also agreed with plaintiffs on the Eastern Shore that the passage of the bill after a key deadline and a “misleading” ballot question fail to pass legal muster.

“The practical effect of HB 2100 is to remove all Maryland Constitutional standards and protections from congressional districting plans,” Sarbanes wrote. “That is not clear from the ballot question.”

Sarbanes issued an injunction prohibiting the ballot from being presented to voters in November. He then stayed his order pending an appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court, which is already scheduled for next week for the Anne Arundel case.

He rejected the argument made by Assistant Attorney General Daniel Kobrin that the language was sufficient and that voters have to read portions of the Maryland Constitution to understand what standards are to be used for congressional districts.

“It should not be this confusing for a voter,” Sarbanes wrote.

“Even if the court was satisfied that the terminology used was not misleading, the complexity of the terminology, along with the General Assembly’s failure to abide by time constraints to provide public notice, to provide time for public comment, and significantly to provide a brief statement explaining the practical effect of each voting choice — which could have helped clarify the effect of the question — cumulatively undermine the Court’s confidence that the ballot question and the procedure employed by the General Assembly adequately apprised voters of the amendment and its function,” he wrote.

Maryland Republicans take round one in redistricting challenge

“The Court finds that the ballot language and the General Assembly’s failure to abide by the Election Law Article has resulted in voters not being provided with adequate notice of the purpose and effect of the ballot question so they can make an informed vote,” Sarbanes wrote.

Sarbanes also found two other deficiencies in the bill and ballot question.

First, the General Assembly failed to abide by recently passed and enacted laws that set specific timelines for ballot questions. During the hearing, Sarbanes questioned assertions that the law did not apply to the legislature.

“Defendants do not cite to any authority for its position but instead state that it is implicit that the General Assembly’s constitutional authority … cannot be limited by law,” Sarbanes wrote.

“The Court is not convinced that the laws are a limitation of its constitutional authority,” he added.

The judge also ruled that the “three elements of the proposed amendment” violate the single subject limitation of the state constitution.

Plaintiffs in the Dorchester case included Lindsay Wheatley, a member of the Dorchester County Republican Central Committee; Del. Chris Adams (R-Middle Shore); and Republican Sens. Mary Beth Carozza (Lower Shore), Johnny Mautz (Middle Shore) and Chris West (Baltimore and Carroll). In a joint statement, they called Friday’s ruling “a complete win for Maryland voters and the rule of law.”

“The court ruled in our favor on every claim, finding that the General Assembly violated Marylanders’ due process and its own laws enacted just this year that are designed to ensure the public is well-informed when voting on changes to the Maryland Constitution,” the statement said. “More importantly, the court found that the General Assembly’s amendment was misleading and hid from Marylanders that a ‘yes’ vote meant surrendering their constitutional protections against partisan gerrymandering. The court further held that the amendment packed three unrelated changes into one question in violation of the Maryland Constitution’s single-subject requirement.”

West, in an interview, said he was impressed with the thoroughness of the decision from a judge who took over the case a day before the hearing.

“He had less than 24 hours to to synthesize everything and to put together an opinion that made sense, and have a cogent ruling,” West said. “And as I read, I thought it was a magnificent piece of work to be achieved, to be accomplished in less than 24 hours.”

Sarbanes’ decision comes a day after lawyers representing the Eastern Shore Republicans and the Maryland State Board of Elections presented their cases. It also came two days after a judge in Anne Arundel County rejected the ballot question in a separate challenge by Republicans.

Democrats, who hold supermajorities in the House and Senate, pushed the proposed amendment through during a two-day special session in early August. Supporters said the change was needed to address a ruling in 2022 on the state’s newly drawn congressional districts.

In that case, Judge Lynne Battaglia said congressional districts must be compact and contiguous and mindful of geographical features such as the Chesapeake Bay. It was a novel ruling, as that standard was thought to only apply to state legislative districts.

While not a precedent, the Battaglia decision derailed Gov. Wes Moore’s desire to join the frenzy of red and blue states engaging in hyperartisan midcycle congressional redistricting. Democrats target in Maryland is the elimination of the only one of the state’s eight congressional districts held by a Republican, Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st District, which includes the Eastern Shore.

Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Howard and Anne Arundel), an early supporter of midcycle redistricting, expressed disappointment in the courts’ rejection of a bill “overwhelmingly passed” by the General Assembly.

“Because they couldn’t get their way in the General Assembly, the GOP is now trying to subvert the process by going through the courts and preventing the voters from having their say,” Lam said in a statement. “The voters should be able to decide whether they support or oppose this clarifying amendment on the merits of the case, not to have their voices silenced by the courts before they are even given an option to weigh in.”

The Sarbanes decision gives Republicans who opposed the amendment a win in two courtrooms nearly 60 miles apart by judges appointed by both a Republican and a Democratic governor.

“I think that will be taken into account by the justices on the Maryland Supreme Court as they begin to do their work on this case,” West said. “This wasn’t just one judge off in the hinterlands somewhere. This was two separate judges, each of whom acted totally independently and came to the exact same conclusion about this particular piece, this particular constitutional amendment.”

Earlier this week, a group backing the passage of the ballot measure criticized the Anne Arundel decision as politically motivated and handed down by a judge appointed by Republican former Gov. Larry Hogan.

On Friday, the group reiterated its belief that the decisions in the two cases were “temporary” and would be overturned on appeal.

“The MAGA operatives pursuing these cases have prioritized lawfare over democracy,” said Joe Francaviglia, political director of Fight Back MD. “Their strategy is to file multiple lawsuits, shop for a favorable courtroom, and try to run out the clock before ballots are printed. This is a campaign to prevent voters from weighing in, because they know we will win at the ballot box.”

The state’s high court has set a hearing for the first appeal for Thursday morning, the same day the Maryland State Board of Elections is supposed to begin printing the roughly 1,200 ballot variations that will be sent to voters around the state.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: info@marylandmatters.org.