If Question 3 passes, it would write “no standards” into the Constitution.
The state constitution already tells mapmakers what a legislative district must look like. Each district must consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and have substantially equal population. Due regard must be given to natural boundaries and to the boundaries of counties and municipalities. Those are plain rules. They exist so district lines serve a public purpose and can be judged by voters, not only by the politicians who draw them.
Question 3 would amend the Maryland Constitution to say those requirements apply only to Senate and House of Delegates districts. It would authorize the General Assembly to give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over a congressional map. It would also state that nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan. That is the official ballot language, rewritten by order of the Supreme Court of Maryland after the court found an earlier description misleading.
A vote “For Question 3” does not draw a new map. It removes a constraint on the next one. This means that in the 2027 Legislative Session, Democrats will redraw congressional districts, disregarding the original intent of the writers of the Maryland State Constitution. The proposed text would limit the adjoining territory, compactness, equal population, and local boundary rules to General Assembly districts. It would then add a new provision stating that nothing in Article III, or elsewhere in the Constitution, including the Declaration of Rights, provides criteria for a congressional plan. Supporters call that a clarification. For voters, the practical effect is simpler. The state constitution would expressly disclaim standards for the lines that decide who represents Maryland in Congress. Maryland voters must vote against Question 3.
Federal law would still require equal population. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders that, as nearly as practicable, one person’s vote in a congressional election must be worth as much as another’s. Population equality does not require a compact district. It does not require respect for a county line. It does not stop a map from splitting a town or stretching a district across the state to reach a preferred set of voters. Those are the kinds of limits Article III, Section 4 already states for legislative districts. Maryland’s high court has treated that section as setting four criteria: substantially equal population, adjoining territory, compactness, and due regard for natural and political boundaries. Question 3 would tell congressional mapmakers that the state constitution has no comparable list.
The court provision does not fill that gap. Letting the General Assembly grant original jurisdiction decides which court may hear a challenge. It does not decide what the challenge can be about. A review with no state criteria is a procedural fight, not a test of whether the map is compact, contiguous, or respectful of local communities.
Marylanders have a direct interest in this vote. These lines last a decade. They decide which communities share a representative and which ones are divided. If adjoining territory, compactness, substantial population equality, and respect for county and municipal boundaries are sound rules for Annapolis, there is no good reason to write into the Constitution that Congress is exempt. A vote against Question 3 leaves the constitution as it is and keeps that debate with future lawmakers and voters. A vote for it etches the absence of standards into the document itself.
Vote against Question 3.
Endnotes
1. Maryland Constitution, Article III, Section 4. “Each legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population. Due regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.” Maryland State Archives. https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html
2. Maryland Constitution, Article III, Section 3, tying legislative districts to the election of members of the Senate and the House of Delegates. https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html
3. Official Question 3 ballot language, as required by the September 3, 2026 order of the Supreme Court of Maryland. Maryland State Board of Elections. https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/ballot_questions.html
4. Proposed constitutional text. The amendment would confine the Section 4 standards to Senate and House of Delegates districts and add Section 62. Section 62(A) would allow the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over the congressional districting plan. Section 62(B) would state that nothing in Article III or elsewhere in the Constitution, including the Declaration of Rights, provides applicable criteria for congressional boundaries. https://ballotpedia.org/Maryland_Question_3,_Provide_That_Nothing_in_State_Constitution_Establishes_Criteria_for_Congressional_Redistricting_Amendment_(2026)
5. Purpose paragraph of Chapter 881 of the 2026 Laws of Maryland, adopted by the Supreme Court of Maryland as the ballot description after it rejected earlier wording as misleading. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/2026-09-03-Order-1.pdf
6. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/1/
7. In re 2022 Legislative Districting of the State, 481 Md. 507 (2022), describing the four Article III, Section 4 criteria for state legislative districts.
https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2022/21mo-21.html
Aaron Ackerman is a contributor at Direct Line News, where he writes on governance, accountability, and Maryland politics.
Direct Line News is a Maryland-based free-access publication committed to the Republican reform tradition.
About The Author
