Democrats in two states just learned you can’t break the rules to rewrite them — and courts are handing them constitutional defeats both sides of the Potomac.
An Anne Arundel County judge ruled Maryland lawmakers illegally placed a redistricting amendment on the November ballot. Judge Robert Thompson found Democrats missed the July 1 statutory deadline, used misleading ballot language, and violated Maryland’s single-subject rule for constitutional amendments.
The ruling echoes a nearly identical Virginia Supreme Court smackdown from May, when that court vacated a Democrat-backed redistricting referendum for violating constitutional procedures.
Maryland Democrats called a special session in August — more than a month after the July 1 deadline — and rammed through an amendment stripping redistricting standards like compactness and natural boundaries from congressional maps.
The political endgame is transparent: Democrats already control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats. Removing constitutional guardrails would make it easier to redraw the lone Republican district out of existence in a future mid-decade redistricting.
“You don’t get to break the rules to rewrite the rules.”
Judge Thompson didn’t stop at the blown deadline. He found the ballot language misleading because voters were told the amendment merely “clarifies” Maryland’s Constitution — when it actually removes safeguards and expands court jurisdiction.
He also ruled the amendment violated Maryland’s constitutional requirement that each amendment address only one subject. Combining redistricting changes with Maryland Supreme Court jurisdiction alterations crossed that line.
The parallels with Virginia are exact. Virginia Democrats took their first vote on a redistricting amendment after early voting had almost ended — when more than 1.3 million Virginians had already cast ballots. Those voters couldn’t hold legislators accountable for a vote that hadn’t happened yet.
Virginia’s Constitution requires amendments to pass the General Assembly twice, with a House of Delegates election occurring between the votes. That intervening election gives voters a chance to hold representatives accountable before they take the final step.
Democrats ignored the timeline. Then they pushed the measure to voters with ballot language calling it a plan to “restore fairness” — political advocacy masquerading as neutral description.
The Virginia Supreme Court vacated the referendum in May, ruling the General Assembly violated the state Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to disturb that result.
Maryland Democrats apparently missed the warning. Now they’re facing the same constitutional roadblock — with the Maryland Supreme Court set to make the final call after Judge Thompson’s order was stayed pending appeal.
Both cases expose the same pattern: lawmakers treating constitutional procedures like obstacles to maneuver around rather than binding rules.
Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who defended the state’s redistricting plans following the 2010 Census, framed the core principle at stake: constitutional limits exist precisely because political majorities can’t always be trusted to restrain themselves.
Redistricting is political by nature — legislators fight over maps, parties chase partisan advantage, and courts referee. But one rule applies regardless of which party holds the votes: follow the Constitution.
A legislative majority is not a constitutional blank check. Politicians seeking to change redistricting rules don’t get to ignore deadlines, sidestep procedures, combine unrelated amendments, or sell voters advocacy dressed as neutral language.
Maryland’s Supreme Court will decide whether Judge Thompson got the law right. But the lesson from both Virginia and Maryland is already clear: winning the votes doesn’t give you permission to break the process.
The charges remain allegations. The case has not been proven in court.
