Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is urging voters to support Question 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that would change how the state draws congressional districts. His campaign is also challenging an advertisement from a political group that opposes the measure while expressing support for Moore’s reelection.
Moore joined Democratic leaders in Bowie on Monday to rally support for the amendment. Former President Barack Obama also appeared in a new campaign advertisement encouraging Maryland voters to vote in favor of Question 3.
The debate comes as Maryland’s early voting period continues through Thursday, Oct. 29, ahead of Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
“Question 3 is not about a seat. Question 3 is about our democracy. Question 3 is about our freedoms,” Moore said during the rally.
The proposed amendment has drawn competing arguments over congressional redistricting, political representation and the standards used to determine district boundaries.
What Maryland’s Question 3 Would Change
Question 3 would amend the Maryland Constitution to clarify that certain districting requirements apply to state legislative districts rather than congressional districts. It would also address the authority of the General Assembly to establish a process for judicial review of the state’s congressional districting plan.
The change would give Maryland lawmakers greater flexibility when drawing congressional district boundaries. It would not, by itself, enact a new congressional map.
Supporters say the amendment would allow Maryland to respond to redistricting efforts in Republican-led states. They argue that changes elsewhere could affect the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives and that Maryland should have greater flexibility in determining its own congressional boundaries.
Opponents, however, argue that changing the state’s redistricting standards in response to actions elsewhere could deepen partisan divisions. They say Maryland should maintain consistent standards rather than adopt a different approach because of political developments in other states.
“If it’s wrong for another state to do it, then it’s wrong for us to do it,” said Dan Cox, the Republican candidate for Maryland governor.
The disagreement reflects a broader national debate over mid-decade redistricting and whether states should redraw congressional maps between the regularly scheduled census-based redistricting cycles.
Moore Campaign Challenges Question 3 Opposition Ad
The political debate has also led to a dispute between Moore’s campaign and Truth for Maryland, a political group running advertisements opposing Question 3.
Last week, attorneys representing Moore’s campaign sent the group a cease-and-desist letter. The attorneys accused Truth for Maryland of using Moore’s image and campaign branding in a way that could confuse voters about his position on the amendment.
The advertisement promotes support for Moore’s reelection while encouraging voters to reject Question 3. Moore supports the amendment, creating a contrast between the governor’s position and the message in the group’s advertisement.
According to reporting by Maryland Matters, Moore’s attorneys argued that the advertisement’s fonts and colors closely resemble those used by his campaign. They said the presentation could lead viewers to believe Moore was involved in or supported the advertisement’s opposition to Question 3.
The letter demanded that Truth for Maryland remove the advertisement and stop using the governor’s likeness and campaign branding.
Truth for Maryland rejected the demands and criticized the letter as threatening, saying it would continue its efforts.
The dispute has raised questions about political advertising, campaign identity and how voters interpret messages produced by outside political groups.
Election Officials Asked to Review Complaint
Moore’s attorneys also referred the matter to the Maryland State Board of Elections, alleging potential violations of state election laws.
As of the reporting cited by WJZ, the station had not received confirmation of any enforcement action by the board.
The referral does not, by itself, establish that the group violated election law. Any determination would depend on the relevant legal standards and the findings of the appropriate authorities.
Meanwhile, Moore continues to make the case for Question 3 as voters consider the proposed constitutional change.
“We need to make sure that people understand not just what’s at stake but that we are now prepared in this moment to make sure that we are fighting back,” Moore said.
With early voting underway and Election Day approaching, Question 3 remains a central issue in Maryland’s debate over congressional redistricting. Voters will decide whether to approve the proposed constitutional amendment, while the dispute over the opposing advertisement remains a separate matter involving Moore’s campaign, Truth for Maryland and state election officials.
