# Question 3: Election Districts - General Assembly and Representatives in Congress (constitutional amendment)

**In one sentence:** This decides whether to remove Maryland constitutional rules for congressional district boundaries and let lawmakers allow map challenges to start in Maryland’s highest court. [1]

## What a FOR vote does
Limits Article III’s district standards to Maryland Senate and House of Delegates districts: connected land, compact shape, roughly equal populations, and attention to natural and local government boundaries. [1][2]

States that nothing in Maryland’s Constitution provides rules for congressional district boundaries. [1]

Lets the General Assembly give the Supreme Court of Maryland “original jurisdiction”—the power to hear a congressional-map challenge first. [1]

## What an AGAINST vote does
Leaves the Constitution unchanged, without the proposed exclusion of congressional maps from state constitutional boundary rules or the new authority over where challenges begin. [1][2]

## Strongest case FOR
- **Gov. Wes Moore’s argument:** Maryland needs a way to respond to President Trump’s push for Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps for political advantage. [4]
- **A possible argument:** Allowing challenges to begin in Maryland’s highest court could mean fewer court steps before a final state ruling; the amendment permits lawmakers to create that route. [1]

## Strongest case AGAINST
- **Del. Kathy Szeliga’s argument:** Voters who oppose partisan gerrymandering—drawing districts to help a political party—should reject the amendment. [4]
- **A possible argument:** Keeping state constitutional checks matters more than giving lawmakers greater freedom to draw congressional maps; the proposal expressly removes state constitutional boundary criteria. [1]

## If you care most about...
- **Responding to partisan map changes elsewhere** -> FOR fits, because it gives Maryland lawmakers more room to respond, as Moore advocates. [1][4]
- **Keeping state constitutional checks** -> AGAINST fits, because it rejects the clause excluding congressional boundaries from those rules. [1]
- **A direct route to the highest state court** -> FOR fits, because lawmakers could authorize challenges to begin there. [1]
- **Limiting partisan mapmaking** -> AGAINST fits, because removing these rules would make it easier for the party in power to draw favorable districts. [4]

## Who supports and who opposes
**Supports:** Fight Back Maryland and Sen. Clarence Lam support passage; Gov. Wes Moore also campaigns for it. [3][4]

**Opposes:** Protect Maryland Votes opposes passage; Del. Kathy Szeliga also campaigns against it. [3][4]

## What we could not verify
Exact future district boundaries, which communities would move, and whether court cases would finish faster: **Not found in sources checked**.

## Confidence
**Medium.** Official text establishes the legal changes, and reporting documents both sides’ positions; future maps and practical effects remain uncertain. [1][3][4]

## Sources
1. [1] Ballot Questions for the November 3, 2026 Election — Maryland State Board of Elections — https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/ballot_questions.html
2. [2] Constitution of Maryland, Article III — Maryland State Archives — https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html
3. [3] Democrats, unions, advocates push for support on Question 3 on redistricting — Maryland Matters — https://marylandmatters.org/2026/09/25/democrats-unions-advocates-push-for-support-on-question-3-on-redistricting/
4. [4] On a quiet first day of early voting, officials make a lot of noise about Question 3 — Maryland Matters — https://marylandmatters.org/2026/10/23/on-a-quiet-first-day-of-early-voting-officials-make-a-lot-of-noise-about-question-3/