Summary#
HB 2102 would propose changes to the Maryland Constitution and, if voters approve them, add a new subtitle to the Election Law. It would replace the current Governor-and-General-Assembly process for drawing legislative districts with an elected redistricting convention that also draws congressional districts. Its stated goal is to create a process independent of legislative influence and reasonably representative of the State’s geography.
- Each legislative district would still have one senator, but its three House of Delegates seats would have to be three separate, single-member districts.
- A 188-member convention would be elected by voters. Seats would be apportioned among counties by population, with at least three seats per county; convention members would be elected at large in their county.
- The convention would have to hold an open, transparent process, including at least one public hearing in each county before considering any plan. It would draw both legislative and congressional plans.
- The General Assembly could challenge a certified plan’s legality by majority vote in each house. If it does not challenge the plan, it becomes law 31 days after certification. If it does, the Supreme Court of Maryland must rule within 30 days; a rejected plan must be redrawn.
- The Supreme Court could also review a plan on a registered voter’s petition and approve, change, or replace it. If the convention fails to approve a plan, the Court would establish districts.
- The measure is at first reading, not law. The proposed constitutional changes would go to voters in November 2026; the Election Law provisions would take effect only if voters ratify the amendment.
What it means for you#
- Maryland voters: You would elect convention members. The State Board of Elections would set the election date. The bill requires candidates to meet residency, age, and party-registration rules and bars several categories of officeholders, political workers, contractors, lobbyists, and others from running.
- Residents and voters: You would have an opportunity to comment at public hearings. Meetings would be open, subject to public-records and open-meetings laws, and livestreamed.
- People seeking legislative or congressional office: District boundaries would be drawn by the convention rather than through the current Governor-and-General-Assembly plan process. Convention members could not serve in Congress or the General Assembly during the first term under the plan they certified.
- State government: The Attorney General’s Office and Department of Legislative Services would jointly staff the convention. The convention would represent the State in relevant court cases and seek to intervene in federal cases reviewing a plan if it is not already a party.
- Everyone else: The bill does not directly change taxes, voter eligibility, or public services.
Money#
No cost estimate is provided in the bill material.
- The two existing state offices would have to staff the convention, but the bill gives no staffing level or cost.
- Convention members would receive no compensation, but would be entitled to travel-expense reimbursement under State rules and as provided in the State budget.
- The bill does not set a total budget or say how other convention expenses would be paid.
What is unclear#
- The bill refers to redistricting standards in the Maryland Constitution and federal and state law, but the supplied material does not give enough detail to assess how those standards would guide map choices.
- It does not explain the convention election’s full rules, including ballot and candidate procedures beyond the qualifications listed.
- It sets a 188-member convention and a three-seat minimum for each county, but does not explain how seat allocation would work if the population formula and minimums conflict.
- It does not set a deadline for a registered voter’s court challenge after a plan becomes law.
- The bill does not explain how the convention would choose among competing map proposals or how public comments must affect its decisions.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to reduce the General Assembly’s direct role in drawing its own legislative districts and congressional districts.
- An elected convention with county-based seats could give voters a direct role in choosing who draws the maps.
- Required public hearings, livestreams, and written explanations of the plans could make the process more open to public scrutiny.
- Court review could provide a way to challenge plans that violate legal standards.
Case against#
- The General Assembly’s role would be limited to challenging a plan’s legality, rather than adopting or rejecting the map itself. That is a major shift in who controls redistricting.
- The bill does not explain how the convention would weigh competing maps or public input, leaving important decisions to later rules or the convention’s own process.
- Candidate restrictions, including party-registration requirements and bans on several types of political ties, could limit who is eligible to serve.
- The bill assigns staffing and travel-reimbursement duties but provides no cost estimate or budget amount.
- The Supreme Court could change or replace a convention plan after a voter challenge, giving the Court a substantial role in drawing districts.