A conservative lawsuit filed in Anne Arundel County challenges a proposed Maryland constitutional amendment backed by Gov. Wes Moore, arguing state officials moved ahead after the statutory deadline for certifying ballot questions had passed. Plaintiffs say lawmakers inserted override language at the last minute, sidestepping certification, public notice and comment rules. The complaint asks a court to block the amendment from the November ballot and seeks expedited review because of the election calendar. This fight centers on HB 2100 and whether the timetable for constitutional change was lawfully respected.
The Oversight Project and Republican legislators are the plaintiffs, pressing the case in state court to stop the amendment from reaching voters. The Oversight Project describes itself as working “to expose and root out corruption in government, among elected officials, and in our most influential organizations to ensure power resides with the American People.” They argue the amendment was rushed through after key legal deadlines had already passed.
HB 2100 would change the Maryland Constitution so that the state’s compactness and boundary standards would no longer apply to congressional districts. Plaintiffs say the effect could be dramatic, removing judicial constraints and potentially paving the way for a fully partisan congressional lineup. At issue is whether the process used to advance the amendment met statutory certification and posting requirements.
The complaint points to the Department of Legislative Services fiscal note stating “the new statutory deadline of July 1 for certification of ballot questions” had already passed by the time lawmakers convened a special session. The fiscal note also noted election officials must publicly post the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment at least 90 days before Election Day. Plaintiffs say those timing rules are not optional and were ignored.
According to the filing, lawmakers inserted the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” into HB 2100 less than an hour before a joint committee hearing. The plaintiffs contend that language was designed to override Maryland’s certification, notice and public comment requirements after those deadlines had elapsed. That last-minute move is central to the legal claim that the amendment cannot lawfully reach voters.
Legislators who pushed the change described it on the House floor as simply “technical” in nature, even as debate in the Senate acknowledged the statutory timeline could not be met. Plaintiffs read that contrast as proof the maneuver was meant to bypass the law’s deadlines rather than to clarify minor wording. The complaint highlights both the rhetoric and the timing to make the legal case.
The filing reproduces floor remarks by Democratic state Sen. Cheryl Kagan. “There is no time to comply with the plain language of the law with our new law because July 1st is in the rearview mirror,” Kagan said, according to the complaint. “There’s no time to have the Secretary of State draft language, to have it published, to have a comment period, to have it modified. It’s just not an option.”
Maryland GOP Delegate Matt Morgan, one of the plaintiffs, criticized the process and spoke plainly about what he sees as a clear rule breach. “They have the law. They’re supposed to follow it. They didn’t,” Morgan said. “And now we’re going to take it to court and see what the judges have to say about it.”
Republican Delegate Kathy Szeliga, another plaintiff, said legislators had only hours to review the revised language while the public had no opportunity to comment. “The public got absolutely no time to look and weigh in on the amended language,” Szeliga said. Her point underscores the plaintiffs’ claim that notice and public participation were shortchanged.
Plaintiffs also contend the amendment aims to blunt the effect of a 2022 state court ruling that applied constitutional compactness rules to congressional maps. Democrats currently hold seven of Maryland’s eight U.S. House seats, and the lawsuit frames the amendment as having significant political consequences. The stakes are both legal and electoral.
Gov. Moore has defended the amendment as a response to redistricting moves in other states and argued it would keep control of representation with residents. He said it would ensure “Marylanders — and no one else — have the final say over their representation.” The governor’s office, along with the attorney general’s office and the state elections board, were named as respondents in the filing and have not been immediately available to weigh in on the court challenge.
The lawsuit asks the court to bar state officials from certifying, printing, distributing, tabulating or canvassing votes on the amendment and requests expedited review to keep the issue from slipping past the election calendar. Plaintiffs say the remedy is straightforward: enforce the statute and stop an untimely amendment from appearing on the ballot. The case will force judges to address whether process matters when a constitutional change is at stake.
Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.