Maryland voters will decide Nov. 3 whether the Democratic-run legislature can eliminate the state’s lone Republican district, but Republican ad campaigns against the ballot question have been virtually nonexistent.
Although neither party has run TV ads, outside groups have made modest investments in the redistricting fight.
Fight Back MD, a Democratic-allied group, began its TV ad campaign Tuesday. The group told the Baltimore Banner that it will spend six figures to promote a yes vote on Question 3, the redistricting question on the ballot.
People were interested in these podcasts
Protect Maryland Votes, an anti-redistricting group that describes itself as bipartisan, has released polling on the matter, but also has been relatively quiet.
The calm surrounding Maryland’s Question 3 stands in sharp contrast with high-profile redistricting battles and heavy political ad spending in neighboring Virginia, where national political leaders regularly hold rallies and outside groups flood the airwaves to sway voters.
Three weeks from Election Day, no such battle has materialized in Maryland over the Democratic-crafted proposal to remove state constitutional requirements for congressional districts to be contiguous, compact and equally populated.
Those constitutional requirements are all that have stopped the Democratic-run legislature from redrawing District 1, the only Republican seat among Maryland’s eight congressional districts.
Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican who has represented District 1 since 2011, said he is confident Maryland voters will reject the measure.
“The argument makes itself. When they know that Question 3 is all about partisan gerrymandering, the vast majority of people in Maryland oppose it,” he told The Washington Times.
Maryland is the latest battleground in national mid-decade redistricting efforts, after states such as Florida, Tennessee and North Carolina redrew their maps to favor Republicans.
Democrats have had mixed luck fighting back. California successfully redrew its map to disadvantage Republicans, but Virginia’s high court blocked an ambitious redistricting effort.
Nicole Beus Harris, chair of the Maryland Republican Party and the congressman’s wife, suggested that Republicans were relying on old-fashioned direct outreach with voters.
“We’re doing everything that we normally do,” she said. “We’re reaching out to voters at county fairs, at Oktoberfest events, as we’re door-knocking every weekend, as we talk to people in our everyday life.”
A Maryland Republican mailer has gone out in Mr. Harris’ district telling voters to vote for Republicans and not to let Democrats “silence the Eastern Shore” — the mostly rural region he represents.
Mrs. Harris said she could not yet confirm whether Maryland Republicans would air advertisements, but noted that outside groups are advertising.
In its vote-yes ads, Fight Back MD says the question “fights back against Trump” and “helps secure a Democratic majority.”
That message is powerful in deep-blue Maryland, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a little more than 2-to-1.
Fight Back MD is chaired by Tom Matzzie, a green energy executive who also chairs the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition PAC, according to state organizational disclosures. Mr. Harris is an outspoken opponent of offshore wind projects in his district, which borders the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.
On the vote-no side, Protect Maryland Votes opted for a more bipartisan message, saying, “Partisan gerrymandering cannot silence Marylanders’ voices.”
Republican state Delegate Kathy Szeliga said her party is waiting for outside groups to start playing a bigger role.
“It’s surprising how quiet everything is,” she said. “We’re not seeing much political advertising at this point, which is interesting since mail-in ballots went out a couple weeks ago. But we anticipate that that effort is going to ramp up.”
The silence surrounding the measure also raises concerns that voters will not understand the question when they cast their votes.
Question 3 is written in dense and legalistic language.
It reads: “FOR the purpose of clarifying that certain requirements apply only to districts for the election of members of the Senate of Maryland and the House of Delegates; authorizing the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the congressional districting plan of the State; and providing that nothing in the Maryland Constitution provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.”
Unlike the other two ballot questions, Question 3 does not include an explanation of what a vote for or against the measure would do.
The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that an earlier version misled voters by giving the impression that it would not alter the Constitution. The court ordered it rewritten — a process that produced an even wordier result.
Ms. Szeliga said many constituents are confused.
“We’re seeing it firsthand from voters that are calling us. … Voters are saying, ‘What is this question? I don’t understand it,’” she said.
Democratic state Sen. Cheryl Kagan also said the question is confusing.
“Even those of us who are pretty smart can easily get confused,” she said. “Rather than get it … wrong, a lot of voters just decide to skip the ballot measures.”
Hundreds of thousands of Marylanders have skipped ballot measures in the past when the language was cryptic, she said.
Mr. Harris said the language in Question 3 fails to tell voters what they are voting on.
“It doesn’t indicate at all that this is about partisan gerrymandering. It’s a bunch of legalese written by unelected judges,” he said. “Now we’re going to have to educate people.”
Supporters generally explain Question 3 in simple, partisan terms to mobilize the state’s Democratic majority.
Steuart Pittman, the chair of Maryland’s Democratic Party, said Democrats want to “ensure Maryland would respond as Republicans rigged our elections, weakened voting rights and paved the way for the disenfranchisement of Black leadership across the country.”
Some Democrats in the legislature say the measure does not guarantee redistricting.
“If worse comes to worst, we should have the option; however, I’m not a huge fan of partisan gerrymandering,” said state Delegate C.T. Wilson, who is running for the state Senate.
Mr. Wilson said redistricting will likely be “highly unnecessary” because he thinks Democrats will gain seats in November’s midterm elections and that Republicans’ gerrymandering will not flip as many seats as expected.
“This is not the finish line,” Ms. Kagan said. “This allows us to get to the starting line and have the option of drawing new maps.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.