Redrawing the Rules: Maryland’s Question 3 Puts Constitutional Clarity and Partisan Mapmaking Under the Same Spotlight

By: Mayra Coyoy

Edited by: Nicole Vanegas

Word Count: 667

Estimated Read Time: 5 minutes 8 seconds

Young Hispanic woman displaying her I Voted sticker in a co-working space (Grand River, Getty Images)

As Maryland voters cast their ballots by mail, during early voting, or at the polls on November 3, 2026, they will be asked to weigh in on Question 3, a proposed constitutional amendment on congressional redistricting. Early voting will run from October 22 through October 29, while voters must request mail-in ballots by October 27, 2026, and return them by November 3, 2026, via mail or an official drop box by 8:00 pm.

At first glance, Question 3 may sound like a clarification of a technicality in Maryland law. However, behind that clarification lies a larger debate over who should have the power to draw congressional districts and how much freedom lawmakers should have when doing so. 

Question 3 would amend Sections 4 and 63 in Article III of the Maryland Constitution to clarify that certain requirements for drawing districts apply only to districts for the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates, rather than to congressional districts. It would also state that the Maryland Constitution does not provide applicable criteria for congressional district boundaries and would allow the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over challenges to the congressional maps.

Simply put, Maryland voters are not being asked whether the state should immediately redraw its congressional map. Rather, they are being asked what role the Maryland Constitution should have in determining the standards used when those maps are drawn in the future.

A constitution that clearly explains what rules apply to congressional redistricting has value. Voters, legislators, and courts should understand what is and is not permitted when drawing congressional boundaries. However, clarity alone does not resolve one of redistricting's most controversial aspects: partisan gerrymandering. 

The Gerry-mander Political cartoon, showing Massachusetts after rearranging districts approved by former Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry (Bettmann, Getty Images)

When politicians control the process of drawing the districts in which their own parties will compete, an obvious question arises: Are those maps created primarily to represent communities, or to increase a party’s chances of winning seats?

The concern is not exclusive to either major political party. Republican-led states and Democratic-led states have both faced accusations and legal challenges involving maps designed to benefit the majority. The broader issue is not simply whether Democrats or Republicans are drawing the lines, but whether either party should be allowed to manipulate congressional boundaries to reduce its opponents' political influence.

This concern appears to resonate with many Marylanders. In December 2025, a UMBC poll found that 81 percent of respondents said it was a major problem when “congressional districts are purposefully drawn to favor one party over another, is that … for American democracy.” In the same survey, 63 percent said they would prefer a nonpartisan independent commission to draw Maryland’s district lines, versus 12 percent who preferred elected officials to do so.

October 3, 2017; Activists demonstrate outside the Supreme Court as the court hears a case challenging the practice of partisan gerrymandering. (Olivier Douliery, Getty Images)

Consequently, question 3 is more than legal wording. Supporters argue that Maryland needs more flexibility in its congressional redistricting strategies. Opponents argue that eliminating the state constitutional standard could give Maryland lawmakers greater freedom to construct congressional maps for partisan advantage. 

Even the language voters will see on their ballots has become part of the controversy. The Supreme Court of Maryland ordered new wording for Question 3 in September, and polling released later that month suggested that many voters still found the proposal difficult to understand.

The debate should not be reduced to whether Maryland should give Democrats or Republicans an advantage. A more nuanced question remains: what rules should ensure that congressional districts fairly represent Maryland voters, regardless of which political party controls the state government? Clarifying Maryland’s Constitution may answer one legal question. It does not, by itself, answer the larger democratic question of who should be trusted to draw the lines.