Vote No on Question 3: Politicians Should Have More Limits, Not Fewer

When politicians draw the maps that help determine their own political power, the answer should be more accountability, not less.

Maryland voters need to pay close attention to Question 3.

The language sounds technical. Constitutional provisions. Congressional districting plans. Original jurisdiction. Judicial criteria.  Yet it is all designed to confuse Maryland voters.

But underneath all of that legal language is a much simpler question:

How much freedom should politicians have when they draw congressional districts?

My answer is simple.

Not more.

Question 3 would amend the Maryland Constitution to make clear that certain constitutional districting requirements apply only to Maryland Senate and House of Delegates districts. Even more significantly, the amendment says that nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the limits of congressional districts.

Read that again.

We are being asked to add language to our Constitution saying that the Maryland Constitution provides no applicable criteria for congressional district boundaries.

Why would voters willingly surrender a potential constitutional check on the politicians drawing those maps?

Politicians Do Not Need Fewer Rules

This should not be complicated.

If lawmakers are going to draw congressional districts, they should operate under clear rules.

Districts should make geographic sense.

Communities should matter. County and municipal boundaries should matter. Compactness should matter.  Voters should come before political calculations.  Instead, Question 3 moves Maryland in the opposite direction.  Supporters call it a clarification. Fine. But voters should look beyond the label and examine what it actually clarifies.  The amendment would expressly separate congressional redistricting from constitutional standards that apply to General Assembly districts.  That may be legally cleaner for Annapolis.  It is not necessarily better for Maryland voters.

Maryland Already Knows What Gerrymandering Looks Like

Marylanders do not need a lecture on creatively drawn congressional districts.

We have watched maps twist across counties, divide communities, and connect areas that sometimes appear to have little in common other than their usefulness in constructing a politically advantageous district.

That is precisely why safeguards matter.  When government has enormous power, constitutional limits matter most.  The people drawing the map should not also be looking for ways to reduce the number of rules governing how they draw it.

Question 3 effectively asks Marylanders to trust the political process more while placing fewer potential state constitutional restrictions on congressional boundaries.

That is backward.  When have we ever been able to trust a politician’s word?  Remember, Wes Moore campaigned on being a new kind of Democrat.  Look what we have 4 years later: the same old Maryland Democrat.  Tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend Democrat.  Now they want us to trust them to draw the Congressional maps mid-season?

Keep Every Reasonable Check We Have

Congressional districts would still have to comply with federal law. That is important.  But “federal law still applies” is not an argument for voluntarily giving up potential protections under Maryland law.  If state constitutional protections can provide another layer of accountability, Maryland voters have little reason to surrender them.

This is especially important because political control changes. A completely different majority may eventually use the rules written today.  We have seen what Democrats have done in the past when they had power. They eliminated MD CD6 and lumped it into Montgomery County.   To get rid of Connie Morella, they put her district into PG County, then promptly took  it out of PG County when Chris Van Hollen beat her.   Joe Izusu is more trustworthy than Maryland Democrats.

Constitutional safeguards should be based on principle, not politics of the day. Good rules restrain whoever holds power and protect voters regardless of party.  The writers of the Maryland Constitution were wise enough to put that provision in for this exact reason!

The Bottom Line

Question 3 asks voters to change Maryland’s Constitution in a way that could narrow the state-level standards available in congressional redistricting disputes.  This is a simple Vote NO ON QUESTION 6!

That is an important step, and voters should demand a convincing reason before approving it.  The better principle is simple: lawmakers drawing congressional maps should operate within clear, enforceable limits.

Maryland needs fair districts, respect for communities, and meaningful safeguards against political abuse.  Maryland should have at the very least, 3 Republican Districts and 5 Democratic districts.  However, Democrats can’t be honest.  This is why CD 6 a traditionally Western Maryland district, is lumped in with DC suburbs in Montgomery County.

Vote against Question 3.

When politicians draw maps, the Constitution should help draw the limits of their power.

Dwight Patel is a Senior Contributor to Direct Line News, covering national security, cybersecurity policy, and federal governance, and is 1st Vice Chairman of the Maryland Republican Party

About The Author