The Maryland Supreme Court ruled on September 3, 2026, regarding a legal challenge to a proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the November 2026 general election ballot. The case, known as State Board of Elections v. Wheatley (Docket No. 22pc/26), involved disputes over the wording of the ballot question and the timing of its introduction. This ruling affects registered voters in Maryland, as it determines whether they will have the opportunity to vote on the amendment.
The case arose after the Maryland General Assembly enacted Chapter 881, which aimed to clarify the requirements for congressional districting in the state. The amendment proposed that specific standards apply only to districts for the election of members of the Senate and House of Delegates. It also sought to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction to review congressional districting plans. However, ten registered voters from Anne Arundel County and five from Dorchester County challenged the amendment's placement on the ballot, claiming it was misleading and legally deficient.
In both counties, the circuit courts ruled in favor of the voters, stating that the language of the ballot question was misleading and that the General Assembly did not enact the law within the required timeframe. The courts issued injunctions preventing the State Board of Elections from including the amendment on the ballot. The State Board of Elections and other officials appealed the decisions to the Maryland Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court addressed the appeals during a special session. In its ruling, the court found that the circuit courts had erred in some of their conclusions. The court stated, "the circuit courts erred, at least in part, in awarding summary judgment to the plaintiffs and in enjoining the State Board of Elections from placing Question 3 on the November 2026 general election ballot due to the inability of executive branch officials to comply completely with the requirements of Title VII of the Election Law Article." The court also noted that the ballot language was misleading but provided a remedy.
Specifically, the court ordered that the original text of the ballot question be replaced with the purpose paragraph of Chapter 881. This paragraph clarifies the intent of the amendment without including the controversial language regarding federal laws. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring voters understand what they are voting on. The ruling was issued by Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader and concurred by the majority of the court.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Maryland voters. By allowing the amendment to remain on the ballot with revised language, the court ensures that voters will have the chance to decide on the proposed changes to congressional districting. This ruling also sets a precedent for how ballot language is crafted and reviewed in future elections, emphasizing the need for clarity and transparency.
Looking ahead, the ruling can be appealed, but the immediate focus will be on the upcoming general election in November 2026, where voters will have the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed amendment. The outcome could reshape the landscape of congressional districting in Maryland, depending on how voters respond to the revised question.