Constitutional districting amendment heads to voters

Summary#

SB 2100 is a proposed amendment to the Maryland Constitution, not a new statute that redraws districts. It would limit the Constitution’s existing districting standards to General Assembly districts and say that the Constitution provides no criteria for congressional district boundaries; its stated goal is to clarify which rules apply. If approved by voters, it would also let the General Assembly give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction (power to hear a case first) over a congressional districting plan.

  • Maryland’s requirements that districts be adjoining, compact, and of substantially equal population, with due regard for natural and political-subdivision boundaries, would expressly apply to State Senate and House of Delegates districts.
  • The General Assembly could—but would not have to—give the state Supreme Court first-instance authority to review the state’s congressional districting plan.
  • The amendment would say that no part of the Maryland Constitution, including its Declaration of Rights, provides criteria for congressional district boundaries. The bill’s preamble says federal law and any Maryland statute expressly governing congressional districts would still apply.
  • The bill does not itself set new congressional districting criteria, create a review process, or redraw any districts. It says it is not intended to create new grounds to challenge the 2022 plan; that statement is not a new review procedure or an express bar on challenges.
  • The proposal is scheduled for a statewide vote in November 2026. It is not law unless voters approve it.

What it means for you#

  • Maryland voters: You would vote for or against the constitutional amendment in November 2026.
  • People affected by General Assembly districts: The listed state-constitutional standards would remain, now expressly limited to districts for the State Senate and House of Delegates.
  • People affected by congressional districts: If adopted, the Maryland Constitution would no longer supply criteria for those district boundaries. The bill’s preamble says federal law and any Maryland statute expressly governing them remain relevant.
  • The General Assembly and state Supreme Court: The legislature could grant the Court authority to hear a challenge to a congressional plan first. The amendment itself does not grant that authority or require the legislature to do so.
  • The public: The bill does not itself change district lines, guarantee an election outcome, or establish a new demographic target or proportional-representation requirement.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill gives no estimate for election costs, court costs, or any other public spending.
  • It does not set a fee, fine, tax, or payment.

What is unclear#

  • The amendment does not list the federal or statutory criteria that would govern congressional district boundaries.
  • It does not say whether, when, or under what rules the General Assembly would grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction.
  • It does not set a process, deadline, or appeal route for review of a congressional plan.
  • The bill’s preamble says the change is not intended to provide new grounds to challenge the 2022 plan, but the text does not explain how courts would apply that statement.
  • No cost estimate or information about implementation is provided.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to clarify that Maryland’s constitutional standards for state legislative districts do not also govern congressional districts.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that expressly separating the two types of districts could reduce uncertainty about which state-constitutional rules apply.
  • The preamble identifies preserving cohesive communities of interest as a legitimate consideration in congressional districting. The amendment itself does not require that consideration.

Case against#

  • One concern is that removing Maryland constitutional criteria for congressional boundaries could leave fewer state-level standards to assess a plan against.
  • The amendment does not say what specific federal or statutory criteria would apply, or how a court would review a plan.
  • Review by the state Supreme Court would depend on a later decision by the General Assembly to grant it original jurisdiction. The amendment does not ensure that review will be available.