# Question 3: Election Districts - General Assembly and Representatives in Congress (constitutional amendment)
**In one sentence:** Decides whether the state's constitutional district rules would stop applying to congressional districts, and whether the state's top court could hear congressional map cases first.
## What a FOR vote does
- Rules that districts be adjoining, compact, of equal population, and mindful of natural and political boundaries would apply only to state Senate and House of Delegates districts. [1][2]
- The state Constitution would say nothing in it sets criteria for congressional district lines. [1][2]
- The General Assembly could give the Supreme Court of Maryland "original jurisdiction" - the power to hear a case first, without it starting in a lower court - to review the congressional map. [1]
- It would not change the 2026 map; new district lines could not be drawn until 2028 at the earliest. [2]
## What an AGAINST vote does
- The Constitution would not change. Courts could keep applying the state's district rules to congressional districts as they have, and map challenges would keep starting in circuit courts. [2]
## Strongest case FOR
- Gov. Wes Moore says voting "Yes" is Maryland's "best opportunity to push back against Trump's policies" and to keep power with Marylanders. [3]
- Fight Back MD, a pro-amendment group, released a poll saying support for the amendment rises when voters are read a positive statement about it. [4]
- A possible argument: Supporters say removing state rules stops a state requirement from being used to block a map the voters' own legislature chooses.
## Strongest case AGAINST
- The Maryland Republican Party says a "yes" vote would give Democrats power to redraw districts "through unrestrained partisan gerrymandering," mixing conservative Western Maryland into far-left districts. [5]
- U.S. Rep. Andy Harris (R-1) says the amendment is "disenfranchising my Republican voters" by drawing maps based on how people register and vote. [2]
- U.S. Rep. Dan Schwartz (D-1), Harris's opponent, opposes the amendment, breaking with his party. [6]
- A possible argument: Without state standards, whichever party controls the General Assembly could draw lines with no constitutional guardrails.
## If you care most about...
- **Preventing extreme partisan maps** -> AGAINST fits, because opponents say the vote removes the state limits that have checked redistricting. [5][6]
- **Countering other states' redistricting** -> FOR fits, because supporters frame it as a response to Republican redrawing of maps in other states. [3][4]
- **Courts judging maps by clear rules** -> AGAINST fits, because opponents say the vote strips the standards courts use to review maps. [5][6]
- **State control over its own rules** -> FOR fits, because it makes clear the state Constitution sets no criteria for congressional lines. [1][2]
## Who supports and who opposes
- FOR: Fight Back MD, the Maryland Democratic Party, Gov. Wes Moore. [3][4][5]
- AGAINST: Maryland GOP's Save Our Voice campaign, Protect Maryland Votes, Truth for Maryland, the Maryland Forward Party; Rep. Andy Harris (R-1) and Rep. Dan Schwartz (D-1). [2][5][6][7]
- Not found in sources checked: opposition statements from the Maryland Family Institute, Maryland Right to Life PAC, or the ZIP Apportionment Initiative.
## What we could not verify
- Not found in sources checked: whether the "nothing in the Constitution" clause explicitly includes the Declaration of Rights (it appears in the state's official summary, but I could not verify it on the official ballot page); and the enrolled bill text itself.
## Confidence
Medium - the ballot text, scope, and timing come from the state board and Ballotpedia, but I verified sources only through search-result excerpts; a human should spot-check links [3]-[7] before publish.
## Sources
[1] Ballot questions for the November 3, 2026 election - Maryland State Board of Elections - https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/ballot_questions.html
[2] Maryland Question 3, Provide That Nothing in State Constitution Establishes Criteria for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2026) - Ballotpedia - https://ballotpedia.org/Maryland_Question_3,_Provide_That_Nothing_in_State_Constitution_Establishes_Criteria_for_Congressional_Redistricting_Amendment_(2026)
[3] Gov. Wes Moore And First Lady Dawn Moore Vote 'Yes' On Question 3 To Stop Donald Trump - Wes Moore for Maryland - https://wesmoore.com/gov-wes-moore-and-first-lady-dawn-moore-vote-yes-on-question-3-to-stop-donald-trump/
[4] Poll: Wording of redistricting amendment difficult for voters to understand - Maryland Matters - https://marylandmatters.org/2026/09/24/poll-wording-of-redistricting-amendment-difficult-for-voters-to-understand/
[5] MDGOP Launches "Save Our Voice" Campaign to Defeat Democrats' Gerrymandering Amendment - Maryland GOP - https://mdgop.org/2026/08/17/mdgop-launches-save-our-voice-campaign-to-defeat-democrats-gerrymandering-amendment/
[6] Dan Schwartz stands by opposition to Question 3 despite mailer's 'Yes on 3' message - FOX45 Baltimore - https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/dan-schwartz-stands-by-opposition-to-question-3-despite-mailers-yes-on-3-message
[7] Maryland Question 3 (position statements for and against) - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Maryland_Question_3

Changes made:
- Removed claims I could not re-verify this session: "including the Declaration of Rights" (moved to "could not verify"), "not affect congressional races until 2028" (replaced with the sourced "no new maps until 2028"), Joe Francaviglia, Carozza, West, Tillery, Bouchat, and the unsourced right-wing orgs.
- Replaced with claims I did verify: the MDGOP's "unrestrained partisan gerrymandering"/Western Maryland statement (mdgop.org), Harris's "disenfranchising" quote (Ballotpedia), the Dan Schwartz opposition (FOX45), the Maryland Forward Party statement (Wikipedia, as a non-campaign source), the "Save Our Voice" launch (mdgop.org), and the Fight Back MD poll (Maryland Matters).
- Kept the exact heading text you specified and stayed under 550 words.