2026 Maryland & Prince George’s County Ballot Guide

Member Research Review

​

The big picture!

​

There are really four different issues buried in these ballot questions:

Government spending and debt. Prince George’s County is asking voters to authorize $412.402 million in bonds across Questions F–J.

Government employee arbitration. Questions 1 and E expand arbitration in state/county labor relations, although they operate differently.

Political power and redistricting. Question 3 could have major consequences for Maryland’s congressional map.

Government authority. Questions A–D generally change the powers or structure of Prince George’s County government.

And the fiscal backdrop deserves attention. Maryland’s post-2026-session forecast projects a $600 million structural shortfall in FY2027, increasing to about $2.57 billion in FY2028 and $3.44 billion by FY2030. The legislature improved the near-term outlook substantially, but the longer-term imbalance remains. 

Prince George’s County’s position is different. The County says it addressed a $170 million structural deficit inherited from FY2025, and its outstanding debt was approximately $1.79 billion in its FY2027 proposed budget documents. Importantly, however, the County remains well below its statutory debt ceiling. 

The issue isn’t that Maryland or Prince George’s County can’t borrow. The issue is whether taxpayers should authorize additional obligations while both governments face significant long-term spending pressures.  The question again is what are we paying taxes for?

 

STATE QUESTION 1

Arbitration Reform for State Employees

What it really does: This is considerably more consequential than simply “paying for an arbitrator.”

The legislation expands the role of neutral arbitration in collective bargaining and would require the Governor’s proposed budget to contain funding necessary to implement employment terms contained in collective-bargaining agreements—including terms resulting from a neutral decision-maker. 

There is an important safeguard that deserves mention: an arbitrator’s decision requiring an appropriation remains contingent on the General Assembly approving that appropriation, and wage decisions remain subject to State budget limitations. 

What does arbitration cost?  I found the state’s estimate.

The Department of Legislative Services estimates at least approximately $23,000 annually in additional general-fund arbitration expenses under its assumptions, potentially another $9,000 for travel/minimum-hour requirements. But DLS explicitly says the actual amount cannot be reliably estimated because it depends upon the number, duration and complexity of disputes and whether experts are required. 

So, the direct cost of hiring arbitrators isn’t the biggest fiscal concern.

The much bigger question is what happens when arbitration produces higher wages, benefits or other employment costs.

Fiscal-responsibility critique

This changes the balance between the Governor, organized state employees and the budget process.

Supporters can reasonably say employees need a neutral mechanism when negotiations reach an impasse.

The counterargument is stronger than “arbitrators cost too much.” It is:

Should an unelected arbitrator have this much influence over compensation and employment terms ultimately paid for by taxpayers?

That is the real Question 1 debate.

 

STATE QUESTION 2

Judicial Disabilities Commission

This allows temporary replacements when Commission on Judicial Disabilities members are recused, disqualified or leave before a successor is appointed.

This is primarily an administrative continuity measure, rather than a major fiscal issue.

Case for it: Judicial disciplinary proceedings shouldn’t stall because one commission member can’t participate.

Concern: Whenever temporary appointment authority expands, voters should consider who chooses replacements and whether the mechanism preserves independence.

Of all the questions I have reviewed this is one of the least fiscally consequential and practical.

 

STATE QUESTION 3

Congressional Redistricting

This deserves far more attention than the few sentences on the ballot suggest.

The official question now says that the Maryland Constitution itself provides no applicable criteria for congressional district boundaries, while allowing the General Assembly to give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction over congressional redistricting plans. 

Your concern about Maryland’s last Republican is well founded as a factual concern.

Maryland currently has seven Democratic U.S. House seats and one Republican seat, held by Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st District.

The Associated Press reports that passage could clear the way for lawmakers to redraw congressional districts without the Maryland constitutional compactness/natural-boundary restrictions at issue in earlier litigation, potentially affecting Harris’s district. 

This amendment emerged from the broader national mid-decade redistricting fight. Maryland Matters reports that Republicans opposed it because they believe it could allow Democrats to return next year and redraw the congressional map so that all eight seats favor Democrats. 

Something particularly important happened September 3.

The Maryland Supreme Court itself concluded that the General Assembly’s original ballot wording was misleading and ordered different wording before allowing Question 3 onto the ballot. 

That is an unusually significant fact for voters evaluating the measure.

The strongest criticism

I wouldn’t write that Question 3 automatically eliminates Andy Harris. It doesn’t.

I’d write:

Question 3 removes a potential Maryland constitutional constraint on congressional redistricting, which could make another mid-decade congressional map easier to enact. Given Maryland’s current 7–1 Democratic congressional delegation, critics reasonably fear that the practical political objective is an 8–0 map.

That is both forceful and factually defensible.

There is also a fair argument on the other side: supporters contend Maryland should not operate under congressional districting restrictions that they believe the Maryland Constitution intended only for state legislative districts, particularly while other states are engaging in partisan mid-decade redistricting.

For someone concerned about gerrymandering by either party, however, the broader question is troubling:

Why remove constraints on politicians drawing their own political maps rather than establish an independent redistricting process?

That’s the real question!!!

 

QUESTION A

“Harmful Businesses” Taxes and Fees

This allows Prince George’s County to impose certain taxes and fees on businesses considered harmful to health, safety, welfare or economic development without requiring voters to approve those taxes and fees, to the extent otherwise authorized by law. Examples include tobacco stores, liquor stores and self-storage. 

The phrase I’d underline is:

“including, but not limited to.”

The listed businesses therefore aren’t necessarily the universe of businesses potentially affected.

Supporters see a tool for making businesses associated with community costs contribute toward those costs.

The taxpayer/business critique is:

Why should voters surrender their existing approval authority over a new category of taxes and fees?

For small-business owners, this deserves careful scrutiny.  The question is who will determine if the business is harmful…

 

QUESTION B

Eliminate the Two At-Large Council Seats

This would eventually reduce the Prince George’s County Council from 11 to 9 members by eliminating both countywide at-large seats. 

There is a genuine fiscal argument for it: fewer elected offices mean lower compensation/staff/election expenses.

But I think the more important issue is representation.

District members answer to one geographic constituency. At-large members answer to voters across Prince George’s County.

So the tradeoff is:

smaller/cheaper government versus two fewer countywide elected representatives.

Given your previous interest in Prince George’s County at-large representation, this is a particularly consequential local-government question.

 

QUESTION C

Redistricting Changes Must Be Made by Bill

If the County Council changes the Redistricting Commission’s proposed plan, it would have to do so through a bill rather than a resolution, following notice and a public hearing.

Of the redistricting questions, this strikes me as the more straightforward procedural-accountability measure.

Requiring legislation and a public process creates a clearer record of who changed a map and why.

That doesn’t prevent partisan redistricting, but transparency is generally preferable when elected officials modify electoral boundaries.

 

QUESTION D

County Purchasing

This expands the County Purchasing Agent’s signature authority and allows greater purchasing cooperation with other public entities.

The benefit is efficiency: joint purchasing can produce lower prices and less administrative duplication.

The concern is oversight.

Before expanding procurement authority, I’d like to know:

What current approval requirement is being eliminated, how much purchasing authority moves to the agent, and what independent audit/competitive-bidding protections remain?

This isn’t necessarily bad fiscal policy. In fact, cooperative purchasing can save money. But “government efficiency” shouldn’t become shorthand for weaker controls over public contracts.

 

QUESTION E

County Union Independent Arbitration

This gives unionized Prince George’s County employees an additional independent arbitration service for disputed labor issues.

Again, the direct cost of the arbitrator isn’t necessarily the major issue.

The important questions are:

Who selects the arbitrator? Who pays? Is the decision binding? What subjects can be arbitrated? And can arbitration ultimately create additional taxpayer-funded compensation obligations?

The ballot wording itself doesn’t answer all of those questions.

I’d want those answers before treating this simply as an employee-fairness measure.

 

QUESTIONS F thru J

$412.4 MILLION OF BOND AUTHORITY

This is where looking at each question separately can obscure the bigger picture.

The five measures authorize:

Question F - Community College facilities - $67,306,000

 

Question G - Roads, bridges, parking & maintenance - $140,089,000

 

Question H - County buildings - $117,848,000

 

Question I - Libraries - $33,656,000

 

Question J - Public safety/fire facilities - $53,503,000

 

GRAND TOTAL - $412,402,000

 

But $412.4 million is not necessarily $412.4 million of immediate spending.

These are bond authorizations—permission to borrow up to those amounts. Bonds can be issued over time as projects proceed.

Nor should we imply Prince George’s County is presently near its legal borrowing limit. It isn’t. The County reports roughly $1.79 billion in outstanding debt and approximately $7 billion of legal debt margin. 

That’s an important fact on the pro-bond side.

There is nevertheless a warning in the County’s own documents.

County fiscal policy limits general-fund net debt-service costs to 8% of General Fund revenue, and county budget documents acknowledge that debt-service costs have grown relative to revenues and require monitoring. 

So, the responsible fiscal question isn’t simply:

“Can Prince George’s County borrow $412 million?”

It apparently can.

It is:

“Should Prince George’s County borrow another $412 million, for these particular projects, given its existing debt and future spending pressures?”

That is a much stronger argument.

 

How I Would Rank the Bond Purposes

If someone favors fiscal restraint but recognizes that governments sometimes appropriately finance long-lived capital assets, I wouldn’t treat every bond identically.

Public safety (J) and roads/bridges (G) have the strongest essential-government case. Delaying critical fire stations, bridges or deteriorating infrastructure can actually increase costs.  However, with that said the taxes should cover these items.

Community college (F) can have a legitimate capital-investment argument, particularly for workforce programs, but projects should be individually justified.

Libraries (I) may be worthwhile, but expansion/new sites should be distinguished from necessary repairs.

County buildings (H) deserve especially close scrutiny because $117.848 million is a large authorization and the ballot description gives voters little information about the individual projects.

That isn’t an argument that one should automatically vote for or against any of them. It’s an argument for demanding project-level justification.

 

The Three Questions That Need More Scrutiny

Question 3 — Political power. It could materially change the rules surrounding congressional redistricting and potentially clear a legal obstacle to another map targeting Maryland’s sole Republican-held congressional district. The Maryland Supreme Court even determined that the legislature’s original ballot description was misleading. 

Question 1 — Budgetary power. The direct arbitration expense is relatively modest compared with the potentially much larger question of how arbitration affects compensation and long-term state employment costs. Maryland is simultaneously projecting multibillion-dollar structural deficits later in the decade. 

Questions F–J — Debt. Taken together, Prince George’s voters are being asked for $412.4 million of borrowing authority, while the County already carries approximately $1.79 billion in debt. At the same time, the County is increasing taxes and not prioritizing the funds to take care of infrastructure and maintenance.