ANNAPOLIS, Md., Aug. 7 (DC Times Online) — The Oversight Project and Maryland Republican lawmakers are asking an Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge to stop a Maryland constitutional amendment from appearing on the November ballot, arguing that lawmakers advanced it after a deadline for certifying statewide ballot questions had passed.
The challenge puts the measure’s future before the courts as Maryland election officials prepare for the November election. The case also raises questions about how quickly lawmakers can change election rules and place constitutional amendments before voters.
What does HB 2100 do?
HB 2100 would ask Maryland voters to amend the state Constitution’s rules for drawing legislative and congressional districts.
Under the measure, standards involving compactness, contiguity and county lines would apply only to districts for the Maryland General Assembly. The amendment would narrow the constitutional standards that apply to congressional districts.
The General Assembly approved the measure during a special session in early August. Gov. Wes Moore later signed it, allowing the question to move toward the November ballot.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by voters before it can take effect. The lawsuit seeks to prevent that vote from occurring.
Why are plaintiffs challenging the measure?
The complaint argues that Maryland officials moved HB 2100 forward after July 1, a statutory deadline for certifying statewide ballot questions for the general election.
The plaintiffs point to Maryland Senate Bill 29, enacted earlier in 2026, as establishing the July 1 deadline and other procedures for statewide ballot questions. They also cite a fiscal note from the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, which reportedly says election officials must publicly post the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment at least 90 days before Election Day.
The complaint alleges that lawmakers added the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” to HB 2100 less than an hour before a joint committee hearing. Plaintiffs argue that the language was intended to override requirements involving certification, public notice and public comment.
Those are allegations in the lawsuit. The supplied materials do not include a response from Gov. Moore, the State Board of Elections or the other state officials named as defendants.
Who filed the case?
The plaintiffs include the Oversight Project, described in the complaint and news reports as a Washington-based conservative watchdog group, along with Maryland Republican lawmakers.
The Republican plaintiffs identified in the case include Maryland Freedom Caucus members Matt Morgan, Kathy Szeliga, Ryan Nawrocki, Lauren Arikan, Mark Fisher, Brian Chisholm and Robin Grammer. Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey and Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready are also listed among the plaintiffs.
The defendants are the Maryland State Board of Elections, Secretary of State Susan Lee, Attorney General Anthony Brown and Gov. Wes Moore.
The case is filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The complaint asks the court to declare that the amendment was unlawfully placed on the ballot. It also asks the court to bar state officials from certifying, printing, distributing, tabulating or canvassing votes on the measure.
What happens next?
The court’s decision will determine whether Maryland election officials can continue preparing the question for the November election. The complaint asks for expedited action, but the supplied materials do not identify a ruling or a hearing date.
Earlier reports said Maryland ballots were scheduled to be printed Sept. 3. That deadline makes the timing of any court review important, although the materials provided do not establish whether the printing schedule has changed.
The exact filing time, case number and full list of parties should be confirmed through the court docket. The supplied materials also do not include the complete enacted text of HB 2100, the official ballot language, Senate Bill 29 or the Department of Legislative Services fiscal note.
At issue is not whether voters support the amendment, but whether the measure followed Maryland’s procedures for reaching the ballot. The lawsuit will require the court to examine the relationship between the General Assembly’s power to refer constitutional amendments and the state’s deadlines for election administration.
