Summary#

HB 2100, Election Districts – General Assembly and Representatives in Congress, proposes amendments to the Maryland Constitution. It would limit existing state constitutional districting standards to General Assembly districts, say the Maryland Constitution provides no criteria for congressional district boundaries, and let the General Assembly give the Supreme Court of Maryland authority to hear challenges to a congressional plan first. The bill’s stated goal is to clarify how state and congressional districting are treated; voters must approve the amendments at the November 2026 general election before they take effect.

• The standards that districts be adjoining, compact, and of substantially equal population, with due regard for natural boundaries and political-subdivision boundaries, would expressly apply to Senate and House of Delegates districts.
• The amendment would say no part of the Maryland Constitution, including its Declaration of Rights, provides criteria for congressional district boundaries.
• The General Assembly may give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction (authority to hear a case first) to review the state’s congressional districting plan. The amendment would not require the General Assembly to do so.
• The bill does not draw a map or set new boundary criteria. Its preamble says congressional districting remains subject to the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and any Maryland statute that expressly governs congressional districts.

What it means for you#

• Maryland voters: You will vote for or against the constitutional amendments in November 2026. They do not take effect unless approved.
• People affected by congressional districts: If approved, the Maryland Constitution would no longer supply boundary criteria for those districts. The bill does not itself change district boundaries or guarantee any election result.
• People affected by General Assembly districts: The stated standards for those districts would remain, clarified to apply to Senate and House of Delegates districts.
• The General Assembly and the state’s highest court: The General Assembly would have the option to give the Supreme Court of Maryland first-instance review authority over the congressional plan. The bill does not itself grant that authority.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the available material.

• The bill requires the proposed amendments to be put to voters in November 2026, but does not state the cost of administering the vote.
• It does not specify new funding, fees, fines, or staffing.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not say whether or when the General Assembly would give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction.
• It does not set out specific congressional-boundary criteria. Its preamble refers to federal law and any Maryland statute expressly governing congressional districts, but does not explain how those rules would apply together.
• The text does not explain how the amendments would affect the reasoning in the cases it cites or future court challenges.
• The bill does not state when the amendments would take effect if voters approve them; it refers to the constitutional amendment process.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to make clear that Maryland’s constitutional standards for state legislative districts do not apply to congressional districts.
• A possible argument for the bill is that this would reduce uncertainty about which state constitutional rules govern congressional maps, while federal law and any applicable state statutes would still apply.
• The option to give the state’s highest court first-instance review could provide a way to have congressional-plan disputes heard there, if the General Assembly chooses to grant that authority.

Case against#

• One concern is that removing state constitutional criteria for congressional boundaries could leave fewer state-level limits on how those boundaries are drawn.
• The amendment supplies no replacement criteria in the Maryland Constitution, and the bill does not spell out how applicable statutes would fill that gap.
• The proposed court-review power is optional: the General Assembly would not have to grant it. The bill therefore does not ensure that the Supreme Court of Maryland will review a congressional plan.