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

**In one sentence:** This question decides whether the Maryland Constitution's rules for drawing district lines will stop applying to the state's eight congressional districts, and whether map challenges will start in the state's top court.

## What a FOR vote does

A FOR vote changes Article III of the Maryland Constitution. Three changes happen. First, the rules that today govern legislative districts will apply only to the state Senate and House of Delegates, not to congressional districts [3]. Second, the state Supreme Court could hear challenges to a congressional map first, as a new kind of power, instead of the challenge starting in a lower court [2][3]. Third, it states that the Maryland Constitution sets no standards for drawing congressional district lines. If voters approve it, the change would not affect any congressional race before 2028 [3].

## What an AGAINST vote does

An AGAINST vote keeps today's law. The 2022 state court ruling holds, so the standards that apply to state legislative districts — each district must be adjoining, roughly the same size in population, compact, and follow natural and local boundaries where possible — continue to apply to congressional districts too [1][2]. And map challenges would keep starting in the lower courts [2].

## Strongest case FOR

- The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gerrymandering along party lines is legal. Supporters point to the 2019 case Rucho v. Common Cause, and argue that if other states redraw their maps to help one party, Maryland should be allowed to respond [3].
- The question would let the state's top court settle map fights faster, because challenges would start in the Supreme Court of Maryland instead of a lower court [2][3].

## Strongest case AGAINST

- Voters choose their representatives, but the amendment would let politicians draw lines that favor one party. The Maryland Matters guide notes the current map sends seven Democrats and one Republican to Congress, and that the change "would be to allow the drawing of a map that could potentially benefit one party" [3].
- The amendment removes the current standards but does not replace them, so a map "would not be held to any standards" [3].
- A Justice on the Supreme Court of Maryland dissented and warned that the removed standards include rights from the Declaration of Rights, and that the new text "remains misleading" to voters [4].

## If you care most about...

- **Keeping checks on maps** -> AGAINST fits, because the current population, shape, and boundary rules would stay in place [1][3].
- **Standing up against partisan maps in other states** -> FOR fits, because it would let Maryland redraw in response [3].
- **Fast map decisions** -> FOR fits, because challenges would start in the state's top court [2][3].
- **No standards at all for maps** -> AGAINST fits, because the amendment removes the current standards and adds no new ones [3].

## Who supports and who opposes

Not found in sources checked.

## What we could not verify

- Which groups or officials support or oppose the amendment (source [1] is a truncated navigation page; I could not confirm named backers or opponents).
- The exact effective date of the change.

## Confidence

Medium. The core mechanics are well supported by the official State Board of Elections page and a Maryland Matters guide, but I could not verify named supporters or opponents from the packet, so that section is left open.

## Sources

[1] HB 2100, 2026 - Maryland General Assembly (mgaleg.maryland.gov)
[2] Ballot questions for the November 3, 2026 election - Maryland State Board of Elections (elections.maryland.gov)
[3] Question 3 voter guide - Maryland Matters (marylandmatters.org)
[4] Maryland Supreme Court redistricting ruling - Maryland Matters (marylandmatters.org)