The cases involve a referendum on Missouri’s congressional map enacted during a 2025 special legislative session and a proposed constitutional amendment backed by Respect Missouri Voters. Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled against both proposals on Aug. 19, finding that they were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits. The Sept. 2 proceeding is a scheduled argument, not a final decision.

Why the timeline matters

Missouri courts must act by Sept. 8 for either proposal to be added to the Nov. 3, 2026, general-election ballot. That creates a compressed schedule for the Supreme Court to hear the appeals, issue decisions and leave time for any election-administration steps required afterward.

For voters, the immediate question is not whether either measure would pass. It is whether either question will qualify for a place on the ballot at all.

The Supreme Court accepted the congressional-redistricting referendum for direct appeal. It also ordered the Respect Missouri Voters appeal transferred from the Western District Court of Appeals. The court cited the “general interest or importance” of both cases in taking them up, according to reporting by KCUR and the Missouri Independent.

Redistricting referendum follows August primary

The redistricting case concerns the congressional map enacted during Missouri’s 2025 special session. The map was used in the state’s August 2026 primary election.

The referendum would give voters a chance to approve or reject that map. Judge Green ruled Aug. 19 that the referendum could not proceed to the November ballot, siding with Secretary of State Denny Hoskins and other parties defending the map.

Associated Press reporting said the new districts changed the boundaries of the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District and neighboring districts. Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin won the Republican primary in the reshaped 5th District, while Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver was unopposed for his party’s nomination.

Because the new districts were used in the primary, a ruling allowing the referendum could create follow-up questions about the districts used in the general election and the steps required from election officials. A Supreme Court ruling would not, by itself, explain every administrative consequence or automatically change district boundaries immediately.

Initiative amendment would raise the bar for legislative changes

The second case concerns a proposed constitutional amendment from Respect Missouri Voters. If certified for the ballot, it is expected to be identified as Amendment 6.

The proposal would make it harder for lawmakers to change or repeal laws and constitutional amendments approved through the initiative process. It would require an 80% legislative vote for changes to voter-approved initiatives and would require statewide voter ratification. The proposal also addresses legislative actions involving signature requirements, petition-circulation time and other initiative rights.

Hoskins argued that the proposal violated the Missouri Constitution because it covered multiple subjects and improperly restricted the representative form of government. Respect Missouri Voters argued that its provisions share the single purpose of protecting and strengthening citizen lawmaking.

Judge Green ruled against the proposal on Aug. 19, finding that it imposed unconstitutional restrictions on future lawmakers and combined multiple subjects. The group appealed, and the Supreme Court’s transfer order places that appeal before the state’s highest court alongside the redistricting case.

What Missouri residents should watch

The Sept. 2 arguments will address whether Judge Green’s rulings should stand. The Sept. 8 deadline is the date by which the court must have acted for either measure to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Voters should distinguish three separate dates: Judge Green’s Aug. 19 decisions blocking both measures, the Supreme Court’s scheduled arguments on Sept. 2 and the Sept. 8 deadline for court action. None of those dates guarantees that either question will be placed before voters.

The redistricting appeal could determine whether Missourians get a public vote on the congressional map used in the August primary. The initiative-powers appeal could determine whether voters get to decide on new limits affecting the Legislature’s ability to alter voter-approved laws and constitutional amendments.

The Supreme Court’s rulings will determine whether either proposal can proceed to the Nov. 3 ballot. Any resulting changes to districts or election procedures would also depend on the content of the decisions and subsequent action by election officials.

Sources

• KCUR/Missouri Independent: Missouri Supreme Court to take up redistricting referendum and 'Respect Missouri Voters' cases
• Associated Press: Missouri court allows new Trump-backed US House districts in November election
• Cole County Circuit Court judgment in redistricting referendum case

The Dorchester County case follows an August 26 ruling in Anne Arundel County that ordered Question 3 kept off the ballot. The effect of that order was paused to allow an appeal, leaving the measure’s status unsettled as election officials approach the August 31 deadline to certify general-election ballots.

Anne Arundel ruling is paused during appeal

Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Robert Thompson ruled that Question 3 could not appear on the general-election ballot. The Associated Press reported that Thompson found lawmakers had violated a statutory deadline for ballot measures.

Thompson also ruled against challenges alleging that the ballot wording was misleading and that the amendment improperly combined multiple subjects. Those are findings in the trial-court ruling and remain subject to appellate review; they are not a final statewide resolution.

The judge paused the effect of the order while the state appeals. The state filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland, according to AP.

Dorchester case adds a second ruling

A separate lawsuit was argued Thursday, August 27, in Dorchester County Circuit Court. WBAL reported that the plaintiffs include lawmakers from Maryland’s 1st Congressional District, including Del. Chris Adams, and a member of the Dorchester County Republican Central Committee.

Judge S. James Sarbanes indicated that he could issue a decision Friday. As of Friday morning, the supplied reporting confirmed that a decision was expected but did not establish that a written ruling or appeal had been filed. The procedural effect will depend on the court’s order and any subsequent appellate action.

What Question 3 would change

The State Board of Elections lists Question 3 as a proposed constitutional amendment titled “Election Districts.” Its official summary says the measure would clarify that certain compactness and natural-boundary standards in the Maryland Constitution apply only to districts used to elect members of the General Assembly.

The amendment also would authorize the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the state’s congressional districting plan. It would provide that the criteria for congressional-district boundaries are determined by applicable federal law.

Chapter 881, the General Assembly’s enabling law, says the amendment is to be submitted to Maryland voters at the November 2026 general election. It would not itself redraw Maryland’s congressional districts or immediately replace the current map.

Supporters and opponents have disputed the amendment’s potential political consequences, including whether it could facilitate a future effort to redraw districts. Those claims concern possible effects and motivations; they are not an adjudicated conclusion about the measure’s purpose.

The election calendar is tightening

Maryland’s official 2026 election calendar sets Monday, August 31, as the deadline for the State Board of Elections to prepare and certify the content and arrangement of general-election ballots, including ballot questions, and publish the certified ballots on its website.

The calendar separately sets Wednesday, September 2, as the deadline for a registered voter to seek judicial review of ballot content or arrangement or to seek correction of another ballot error. It says the State Board may begin printing ballots Thursday, September 3.

The November 3 general election remains the scheduled election date.

The Supreme Court of Maryland’s website says the court will hear in-person oral arguments beginning at 9 a.m. Thursday, September 3. The public page confirms the session date, but the case-specific listing and any expedited order should be checked against the court docket before treating that session as the next decisive step in the Anne Arundel appeal.

What Maryland voters should watch

Three procedural questions remain central: whether the Dorchester court will issue an order affecting Question 3, whether either trial-court ruling will be appealed or modified, and what the Supreme Court and election officials do before ballot materials are finalized.

Voters should rely on the State Board of Elections’ certified ballot postings and subsequent court or election-board notices for the final status. The immediate milestones are the expected Dorchester ruling on August 28, ballot certification on August 31, the September 2 judicial-review deadline and the possible start of ballot printing on September 3.

Sources

• Maryland State Board of Elections — Updated 2026 Election Calendar
• Associated Press — Maryland court rules redistricting measure cannot go on November ballot
• WBAL — Decision expected Friday in second redistricting lawsuit
• Maryland Courts — Supreme Court of Maryland

Judge Robert Thompson ruled August 26 that lawmakers failed to meet a July 1 deadline for certifying statewide ballot-question content. He also found that the wording of Question 3 was intentionally misleading and that the proposal improperly combined multiple subjects in one constitutional amendment.

The order directs the Maryland State Board of Elections to keep Question 3 off the general-election ballot. Because the ruling has been stayed pending appeal, however, the amendment has not been permanently removed and could still appear if the state prevails.

Maryland Supreme Court faces the next decision

Maryland has filed an appeal, sending the dispute toward the Supreme Court of Maryland. The timing is significant: the State Board of Elections is scheduled to certify the content and arrangement of the general-election ballot on August 31, including ballot questions.

The court’s decision could determine whether Maryland voters see Question 3 when ballots are finalized. The immediate dispute is procedural and constitutional. It is not a ruling on whether voters would approve the amendment’s redistricting policy.

State officials and legislative supporters say Maryland voters should decide the amendment. The challengers, including Republican lawmakers and the conservative Oversight Project, argue that the legislature must follow statutory deadlines, ballot-language requirements and constitutional limits before asking voters to amend the state constitution.

What Question 3 would change

The Maryland State Board of Elections’ official text says the proposed amendment would clarify that certain standards in the Maryland Constitution apply only to districts used to elect members of the General Assembly. It would also require the criteria for congressional-district boundaries to be determined by applicable federal law and authorize the General Assembly to grant the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction to review the state’s congressional districting plan.

The legislature referred the amendment to voters, and Gov. Wes Moore signed the legislation on August 5. The proposal has not been approved by voters. It would not immediately redraw Maryland’s congressional districts or change the 2026 midterm elections.

If approved, the amendment’s potential effect would begin with congressional maps used for elections starting in 2028. The change could make it legally easier to draw congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, a possibility that has drawn attention because it could affect the district represented by Republican Rep. Andy Harris. The political outcome of any future map would remain uncertain.

Why ballot language is central to the case

Judge Thompson treated the ballot wording as a separate problem from the deadline dispute. He ruled that the summary’s description that the amendment merely “clarifies” Maryland’s redistricting standards was intentionally misleading. He also found that combining redistricting standards with a provision concerning the Supreme Court of Maryland’s original jurisdiction violated the state’s single-subject requirement.

Those findings are being challenged on appeal. They illustrate how voter-facing language and election-administration deadlines can become decisive parts of redistricting litigation: a court may prevent a proposal from reaching the ballot without deciding whether voters would ultimately support the policy itself.

For Maryland voters, the practical takeaway is that Question 3’s appearance on the November 3 ballot remains unsettled. The July 1 certification deadline is central to the lawsuit, while August 31 is the state’s deadline to certify the general-election ballot. The broader election-law question is whether procedural and constitutional challenges can determine when voters do—or do not—get to decide redistricting policy.

Sources

• Associated Press report on the August 26 ruling
• Maryland State Board of Elections ballot-question page
• CBS Baltimore report on the ruling and appeal

The results show how the new lines changed the contests around Memphis. They do not resolve the federal lawsuit challenging the map or, by themselves, establish what effect the districts will have on Black voting power.

New lines, new November contest

Pearson won the Democratic nomination in the new 9th District, while Taylor won the Republican nomination. The district retains the 9th number but has a substantially different electorate from the former Memphis-based seat. It stretches about 200 miles east from Memphis across rural areas before reaching north toward the Nashville suburbs, according to the Associated Press.

AP estimated that 71% of voters in the new 9th District are new to the district. The November race will therefore test whether a Democrat can remain competitive after Memphis-area voters were distributed across a larger electorate that now leans Republican.

Ogles’ defeat was a separate consequence of the redesign. Former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher defeated the Trump-endorsed incumbent in the Republican primary for the new 5th District. The district now stretches from Ogles’ base in central Tennessee toward the northwest corner of the state before running south along the Mississippi River to Memphis. AP estimated that 82% of its voters are new to Ogles’ district.

The result reflects a changed electorate and a contested Republican primary. It should not be presented as a direct legal consequence of the federal court’s ruling or as proof that the map alone changed Tennessee’s statewide political balance.

How Memphis was divided

The former 9th District was a compact Memphis-based seat with a 61.1% Black voting-age population, according to the federal court record. It had historically elected Democratic candidates by margins of 40 percentage points or more.

The map enacted in May divided Memphis and Shelby County among three congressional districts and split the former majority-Black 9th into three majority-White districts, the court record says. The new 9th District should not be confused with the former seat: the number remains, but the boundaries and electorate changed substantially. Longtime Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen announced that he would not seek reelection after the boundaries changed.

Tennessee lawmakers approved the plan during an extraordinary session held from May 5 through May 7. The House passed the map bill 64-25, with three members present and not voting, and the Senate passed it 25-5. The legislation took effect May 7 and was recorded as Public Chapter 3 on June 3, according to the Tennessee General Assembly.

What the court allowed — and did not decide

On July 23, a three-judge federal panel declined to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the map before the primary. That allowed Tennessee to use the new districts for the August election and, for now, the November 3 general election.

The ruling was not a final approval of the map or a final decision on the constitutional claims. In Sherman v. Hargett, the plaintiffs allege that the boundaries were racially discriminatory and retaliatory and weakened Black voting power. State officials and Republican lawmakers have argued that the map was driven by partisan political goals. The legal standards for partisan gerrymandering and racial discrimination are different, and the panel’s preliminary ruling did not end the case.

The panel found that the plaintiffs had not met the standard for preliminary relief at that stage, including showing a substantial likelihood of prevailing on their claims. The underlying lawsuit remains unresolved, so later court action could affect the map or its future use.

What happens next

The next major electoral test is the November 3 general election, when Pearson and Taylor will compete in the new 9th District. The result will provide additional evidence about how the redesigned electorate functions, but it will not substitute for a final ruling on the lawsuit.

Memphis-area voters who need to confirm their current district, ballot information or other election details can use Tennessee’s GoVoteTN voter information portal. The portal’s district information is supplied through local county election commissions.

Sources

• Associated Press primary-results report
• Sherman v. Hargett federal court order
• Tennessee General Assembly bill history
• Tennessee GoVoteTN voter portal

Hoskins announced the decision on Aug. 4, the same day Missouri held its primary election under the new congressional districts. He said the referendum was unconstitutional because congressional redistricting is not subject to referendum under Missouri law.

People Not Politicians, the group behind the petition, said it would challenge the rejection in court. That is an announced legal challenge, not a court ruling. The supplied record does not establish that any court has ordered the referendum onto the November ballot, blocked the map or ruled on Hoskins’ Aug. 4 decision.

What Hoskins rejected

The Missouri Secretary of State identifies the measure as Referendum Petition 2026-R004. The petition seeks to put the congressional map created by House Bill 1 before voters.

Hoskins’ position is that Missouri’s referendum process cannot be used to challenge congressional redistricting. His office cited a constitutional argument and treated that issue as a basis for rejection even though local election officials had reported enough valid signatures to clear the numerical threshold claimed by organizers.

The Secretary of State’s office posted a preliminary signature-verification record for 2026-R004 dated Aug. 6. People Not Politicians submitted more than 300,000 signatures. The Associated Press reported that local election officials approved well more than the roughly 111,000 signatures needed under Missouri’s requirement for signatures from at least 5% of registered voters in six of the state’s eight congressional districts.

The Secretary of State’s petition-status page lists 2026-R004 as approved to circulate, while the separate verification page labels the signature information as preliminary. Neither record by itself establishes that the referendum was certified for the November ballot after Hoskins’ constitutional rejection.

Those facts make the dispute about more than the raw signature count. The central legal questions include whether Hoskins had authority to reject the petition on constitutional grounds and whether a court could require the referendum to be placed on the November ballot. The petition should not be described as certified or ballot-qualified while those questions remain unresolved.

Why the August primary matters

The timing creates a difficult election-administration problem. Missouri’s new map was already used for the Aug. 4 primary, including the selection of congressional candidates running in the new districts.

Before the primary, the Secretary of State’s office said House Bill 1’s congressional map remained in effect after the Missouri Supreme Court’s May 12 ruling and directed local election authorities to continue preparations under that map.

The Supreme Court ruling addressed whether Missouri could adopt a new congressional map between decennial censuses. In its March 24 opinion upholding House Bill 1, the court said the Missouri Constitution did not expressly prohibit more frequent congressional redistricting. That ruling did not decide Hoskins’ later Aug. 4 rejection of Referendum Petition 2026-R004.

The result is an unresolved question with direct consequences for the November election: Could a court order the referendum onto the ballot after the primary was conducted under the new districts? A future order could also require election officials to address candidate districts, ballot preparation and other administrative steps. The supplied records do not establish how a court would handle those issues.

What happens next

People Not Politicians is expected to challenge Hoskins’ decision. The next significant developments will be a court filing, any request for expedited proceedings or emergency relief, and an order explaining whether the state must place the referendum on the November ballot.

Unless a court or state election authority directs otherwise, the House Bill 1 map remains the operative map for current election administration. The referendum is not shown in the supplied official records as placed on the November ballot. Missouri voters should rely on official election-authority updates for district assignments and congressional ballot information while the dispute continues.

The fight now sits at the intersection of constitutional law, direct democracy and election administration. The August primary has already taken place under the new map, while the legal question over whether voters must still be given a chance to reject it remains open.

Sources

• Associated Press: Missouri election chief rejects bid to hold public vote on Trump-backed congressional districts
• Missouri Secretary of State: House Bill 1 Map Guidance
• Missouri Supreme Court: Luther v. Hoskins

The opening is expected to affect school capacity, attendance assignments, transportation, staffing and traffic patterns for Stafford families and the broader community. The available records do not yet confirm the final attendance boundaries or transportation changes.

A new high school for a growing county

Stafford County Public Schools lists Hartwood High as a facility of more than 290,000 square feet. The division says the project is intended to reduce overcrowding while supporting community development and quality-of-life opportunities.

That capacity is a planned maximum, not a statement that enrollment has reached or will reach 2,150 students. The records also do not establish that the project will eliminate overcrowding countywide.

Hartwood High is part of Stafford County’s capital-improvement program. The Stafford County School Board’s approved fiscal year 2027–2036 capital-improvement plan includes the project, linking the school to the county’s longer-term investment in facilities and capacity.

August timeline remains partly preliminary

A school-division document dated Nov. 7, 2025, lists Aug. 5, 2026, for ribbon-cutting and school-tour activities. The document is labeled a draft, so that date describes a tentative timeline rather than proof that the ceremony took place.

The available records also do not confirm whether the building opened on Aug. 5 or whether all systems and staffing were fully operational by Aug. 7. Stafford families should therefore distinguish the announced August opening from confirmation of a completed ceremony or full operational status.

School funding context

As the new campus moves toward opening, the school division is also working through its broader operating and capital priorities. Potomac Local reported that the School Board voted 4-2 on June 30, 2026, to request additional state funding for fiscal year 2027.

That report said the request reflected an $8.8 million increase in state aid and a proposed $1.325 million reduction in the local funding request. Those figures provide financial context for Stafford schools, but they are not a reported final construction cost for Hartwood High.

For students, parents and residents, the next key details are the final opening status, attendance assignments and transportation arrangements. Those items were not verified in the available records.

The Maryland General Assembly approved the measure during a special session that ran from August 3 through August 5, 2026. The proposal would change the constitutional standards governing congressional redistricting. It would not, by itself, create or enact a new congressional map.

That distinction is central to what Maryland voters will decide. The November question is about whether to change the constitutional rules for redistricting, not whether to immediately assign residents to different congressional districts.

How the measure moved through the legislature

The Maryland House approved the redistricting measure by a 96–38 vote on August 4, according to the Associated Press. The Senate gave the proposal final approval on August 5, the final day of the special session.

Gov. Wes Moore supported placing the measure before voters. The Maryland State Board of Elections lists the proposed constitutional amendment among the ballot questions for the November 3, 2026, general election.

The Maryland State Archives’ official session record identifies the three-day special session as running from August 3 to August 5. The legislative action therefore moved from introduction and House passage to Senate approval within that scheduled session.

What approval by voters would—and would not—do

Maryland currently has eight congressional districts. If voters approve the amendment, lawmakers could gain authority to revisit those district lines before the 2028 election cycle.

Approval would not automatically redraw any of the eight districts. The amendment changes constitutional authority; any future map would require additional legislative action. The proposed change also could face court challenges, and its precise legal effect would depend on the final enrolled text and any litigation that follows.

Until those additional steps occur, the amendment itself does not change Maryland’s congressional boundaries. The immediate development is the decision to place a proposed constitutional change before voters, not the adoption of a completed redistricting plan.

Why the ballot question matters

The measure gives Maryland voters a direct decision over whether the state constitution should be changed before any potential future mid-decade congressional map is drawn. That could matter for the state’s congressional representation in later elections, although the proposal does not guarantee a particular partisan result.

The action follows a 2022 Maryland court ruling that lawmakers characterized as limiting their ability to redraw congressional districts. The approved reporting does not provide the court opinion or additional details about the ruling, so its relevance here is limited to that characterization.

Maryland’s proposal also places the state within a broader national fight over partisan redistricting. A later change to the state’s map could affect how Maryland’s congressional representation is organized in subsequent elections, but the ballot measure alone does not determine what any future map would look like or which party would benefit.

What happens next

The next scheduled step is the November 3 general election. The State Board of Elections has published the ballot-question listing, the official election date, the proposed ballot language and information about public comment.

Voters’ decision will determine whether the constitutional standards change. If the amendment passes, lawmakers would still need to take further action before any revised congressional map could be adopted. The resulting process could also involve legal challenges.

If voters reject the amendment, the proposed constitutional change would not take effect. The packet does not identify any separate redistricting plan or another scheduled mapmaking action, so the ballot question is the next known decision point in this process.

For Maryland residents, the practical issue on the November ballot is therefore the state’s authority and standards for possible future congressional redistricting. The vote will not itself redraw district boundaries, but it could establish the legal pathway for lawmakers to consider doing so before 2028.

The House voted 96-38 and the Senate voted 32-13 on August 4 to send the amendment to voters. The vote came during a special session scheduled for August 3-5, convened to address the constitutional standards governing Maryland’s congressional districts.

What lawmakers approved

The amendment would clarify that constitutional requirements for Maryland legislative districts do not apply to the state’s congressional districts.

State legislative districts elect members of the Maryland General Assembly. Congressional districts elect members of the U.S. House. The amendment would not itself establish new boundaries, remove a current representative or change the configuration of Maryland’s eight congressional districts.

Nothing changes for the 2026 election

Maryland’s existing congressional districts remain in place for the 2026 election. Voters will not receive a new congressional map as a direct result of the August 4 vote.

The next question is whether voters will approve the constitutional amendment. The measure is expected to be considered in the November 3, 2026, general election, but the Maryland State Board of Elections’ ballot-questions page reviewed August 5 did not yet list the congressional redistricting question. Final ballot placement and wording remain subject to election-administration processing and certification.

Why the special session was called

Gov. Wes Moore’s July 17 proclamation called the General Assembly into special session beginning August 3. The proclamation said the session was being convened to amend the state constitution and clarify that requirements governing state legislative districts do not apply to Maryland’s congressional districts.

Moore and Democratic lawmakers described the effort as a response to redistricting initiatives associated with President Donald Trump and Republicans in other states. They argued that Maryland should be able to respond if congressional maps are changed during the decade rather than only after the next federal census, according to The Associated Press.

Republican lawmakers criticized the proposal as a partisan power grab and questioned whether the accelerated process gave voters enough time to consider a constitutional amendment. Delegate Kevin Hornberger said during House debate that the state should not pursue an “ultra-partisan” approach simply because it could, AP reported. One Democratic lawmaker also raised concerns that a future map could combine rural communities with suburban areas in ways that affect representation and federal resources.

What a yes vote could lead to

If voters approve the amendment, the General Assembly could later consider a congressional map for the 2028 election cycle. That would be a separate legislative action requiring lawmakers to draw and approve actual district boundaries.

The potential reach is statewide. A future map could affect all eight Maryland U.S. House districts, not only the state’s current Republican-held seat. Democrats currently hold seven of the eight seats, according to AP.

Approval of the amendment would not guarantee a particular map or political outcome. It would instead clarify the constitutional distinction lawmakers are relying on before any later mapmaking process.

What happens next

The amendment must move through Maryland’s election-administration process before voters can decide it. Residents should look for certified ballot language from the State Board of Elections, including whether the question is formally placed on the November 3 ballot and how the proposed constitutional change is described.

For now, the practical takeaway is straightforward: Maryland congressional voters will use the existing districts in 2026. The longer-term question is whether voters approve the amendment this fall and, if they do, whether lawmakers pursue a new map for 2028.

Sources

• Associated Press: Maryland lawmakers advance redistricting amendment
• Maryland Register: Executive Order 01.01.2026.14
• Maryland State Archives: 2026 General Assembly sessions
• Maryland State Board of Elections: Ballot questions for the November 3, 2026 election

The polls are scheduled to be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Voters must use their assigned Election Day polling place; an early-voting location should not be assumed to remain available for Election Day voting.

Check your registration and polling place

Before leaving home, use Nashville’s official election tools to confirm that your registration information is current and identify your assigned Election Day polling location. The city’s polling-place finder says it has been updated to reflect changes from the decennial redistricting process, which can affect a voter’s district or polling assignment.

If you are a registered Davidson County voter who moved within the county but did not update your address, election officials say you must go to the new assigned voting location on Election Day to change your address and vote. Do not rely on a familiar polling place without checking the official lookup first.

Bring acceptable photo identification

Voters must present photo identification issued by the federal government or the State of Tennessee unless an exemption applies. Bring the required ID before arriving at the polling place.

Review the sample ballot for your address

The official sample ballot covers multiple election categories, but not every Nashville-area voter will see every contest. Ballot contents depend on the voter’s residence, congressional and legislative districts, school board district, party ballot and municipality.

The state and federal primary includes governor and U.S. Senate contests, U.S. House races in Districts 4, 6 and 7, Tennessee Senate races in Districts 17, 19 and 21, and Tennessee House races in Districts 50 through 56 and 58 through 60. The applicable party ballot also includes state executive committee contests in specified Senate districts.

The county general election includes Davidson County judicial and administrative offices, including circuit and criminal court judge contests, public defender, county trustee, general sessions judge, sheriff, court clerks, county clerk and register of deeds. It also includes school board seats in Districts 2, 4, 6 and 8, along with judicial retention questions listed on the official ballot.

Voters in Oak Hill will also see a municipal election for three city commissioner seats. That contest is limited to Oak Hill voters and is separate from the state and federal primary and the Davidson County general election.

Choose one party ballot in the primary

Primary voters must select their preferred party ballot. The official instructions say voters should verify that selection on the printed application to vote before signing and again on the ballot-marking device before marking the ballot.

Redistricting-related implementation work makes it especially important to review the sample ballot for the voter’s address. Davidson County election officials have described accuracy reviews and district-assignment work ahead of the primary. The safest approach is to rely on the current official polling-place lookup and sample ballot rather than an older voter card, map or sample ballot.

Election Day checklist

• Confirm your voter registration information.
• Find your assigned Election Day polling place.
• Review the official sample ballot for your address and party choice.
• Bring acceptable federal- or Tennessee-issued photo identification.
• Choose one party ballot in the primary.
• Plan to vote Thursday between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
• Check whether your ballot includes Oak Hill, school board or district-specific congressional and legislative contests.

For Nashville and Davidson County voters, the practical step on Wednesday, Aug. 5, is to verify the address, polling place and ballot before leaving home. Early voting ended Aug. 1, and Election Day voting must take place at the location assigned to the voter.

Sources

• Official August 6, 2026 Nashville-Davidson County sample ballot
• WSMV redistricting coverage

The Virginia Department of Elections lists both the Democratic and Republican primary results as unofficial. Congressional results that cross locality lines become official only after certification by the State Board of Elections, so the nominees described here remain subject to that formal process.

Three matchups were settled Tuesday

Shannon Taylor, the elected prosecutor in Henrico County, won the Democratic nomination in the 1st District and will face Republican Rep. Rob Wittman. The district includes Richmond-suburban communities and stretches across parts of eastern and northeastern Virginia. It has generally favored Republicans, but Democrats are treating it as a target rather than conceding the race.

In the 2nd District, former Rep. Elaine Luria won the Democratic nomination and will face Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans in a rematch of the 2022 contest. Centered on Virginia Beach and including a substantial military presence, the coastal district has one of the clearest recent swing histories in Virginia. Luria won the seat in 2018 and served two terms before Kiggans defeated her in 2022.

Former Rep. Tom Perriello won the Democratic nomination in the 5th District and will face Republican Rep. John McGuire. The district covers much of central and Southside Virginia and has a more Republican political baseline than the 2nd. Perriello previously represented the district for one term beginning in 2009, making the contest a comeback bid and a test of whether a familiar Democratic candidate can compete in a more Republican-leaning district.

The 6th District has a nominee, but not the same history

Beth Macy is the Democratic nominee in the 6th District, where she will challenge Cline. Macy’s nomination is reflected in Democratic Party and federal candidate records, while the state’s election-results page continues to label the Aug. 4 results unofficial pending certification.

The 6th covers much of the Shenandoah Valley and western and southwestern Virginia. Its rural, small-city and Appalachian geography differs sharply from the military-centered 2nd and the Richmond-suburban portions of the 1st. Gov. Abigail Spanberger included Cline’s district in a four-seat list of Republican-held seats Democrats could target, alongside the districts held by Wittman, Kiggans and McGuire. That list shows where the governor and Democratic strategists intend to compete; it is not an independent forecast that the four races are equally competitive.

Why the map still matters

Virginia’s congressional boundaries were expected to be a major factor in the 2026 campaign because a proposed redistricting amendment could have altered several House contests. The Supreme Court of Virginia later voided the referendum, finding that the constitutional amendment process had not been followed. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, leaving the existing congressional map operative for the November election.

The legal outcome was not a rejection of the amendment by voters. Instead, the court ruling nullified the referendum and prevented the proposed replacement map from taking effect. Candidates must therefore compete across the districts already in place, with very different combinations of military voters, Richmond suburbs, rural communities, college towns and small cities.

Four districts, four different tests

The 1st is a Republican-leaning seat where Taylor must build support across a broad eastern Virginia district while competing against Wittman’s long incumbency. The 2nd is the clearest rematch, returning Luria and Kiggans to a district where voters recently changed parties.

The 5th presents a different challenge. It includes central Virginia communities where Republican candidates have recently performed strongly, and Perriello’s prior service does not by itself establish that the race will be close. Democrats’ decision to include the district among their targets is a campaign assessment, not an independent election forecast.

The 6th gives Democrats a candidate with a statewide public profile as an author and a campaign that has drawn attention in the Shenandoah Valley and western Virginia. But the district’s political history and geography make it a different test from the 2nd. Macy’s nomination and Spanberger’s target list establish the contest’s importance to Democratic strategy, not its likely result.

What will shape November

The next phase will turn on turnout, fundraising, candidate organization and how national House-control arguments interact with local concerns. Military and defense issues are likely to carry particular weight in the 2nd, while affordability, health care, agriculture, federal employment and rural services may matter differently across the 1st, 5th and 6th.

Voters now have identified major-party matchups in the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th, although the Aug. 4 results remain unofficial until certification. The general election is scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026.

The primary results establish the field, not the winner. They also leave Virginia’s November House contests operating under the map that remained in place after the redistricting referendum was voided.

Sources

• Virginia Department of Elections — Election Results
• Associated Press — Virginia Democrats pick nominees to try and flip 2 US House seats
• WTOP — Six months in, Spanberger defends her record as economic concerns persist
• Supreme Court of Virginia — McDougle v. Scott, Record No. 260127

Local election authorities are administering the August 4, 2026, primary under House Bill 1’s Missouri First map. The Secretary of State’s Office said the map remains in effect after Missouri Supreme Court rulings held that submitting referendum petitions did not automatically suspend the law.

At the same time, Referendum Petition 2026-R004 remains listed on the Secretary of State’s official preliminary reports page as current as of July 31. August 4 is the deadline for the Secretary of State to determine whether the petition is valid. The official page reviewed for this article did not show a final certification or rejection.

What voters are using today

House Bill 1 redrew Missouri’s eight congressional districts during a special legislative session. The new map divides portions of Kansas City among three districts and changes the boundaries of the 5th Congressional District, represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver.

In a May 14 guidance statement, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins said local election authorities should continue candidate filing, ballot programming and precinct assignments under the districts established by House Bill 1. That is the map being used for the August primary.

Missouri’s official election calendar lists August 4, 2026, as the primary election and November 3, 2026, as the general election.

What remains unresolved

Referendum Petition 2026-R004 seeks to put the redistricting law before voters. The Secretary of State’s preliminary petition page identifies the petition as current as of July 31 and warns that the verification data is preliminary and reflects the review stage at the time of posting.

The Secretary of State’s determination deadline falls on August 4, the same day as the primary. The preliminary page, by itself, does not establish whether the petition ultimately will be certified or rejected.

The Associated Press reported that the petition appeared on track to receive enough valid signatures based on progress reports from local election authorities, while also reporting that Hoskins had questioned whether a referendum could legally be used for congressional redistricting.

Why the map was not suspended

Submitting referendum signatures did not automatically suspend House Bill 1. The Secretary of State said the Missouri Supreme Court’s May rulings affirmed the law and clarified that filing referendum petitions alone did not stop it from taking effect.

That creates an important distinction for voters: the referendum review and the map’s current operational status are separate questions. Filing a petition began the verification process, but it did not replace the district boundaries election officials were instructed to use for the primary.

What certification could change

If the Secretary of State certifies Referendum Petition 2026-R004, the map could go before voters at the November 3 general election. Axios reported that certification would suspend the map pending the vote and that the Missouri Supreme Court had indicated the map could then be treated as though it never took effect.

That would not, by itself, establish exactly how the November congressional election would proceed. Courts and election officials could still have to address which district boundaries govern, whether any election procedures must change and how candidates nominated under the August map would be treated.

If the petition is rejected, the map would remain in place unless subsequent court action changes its status. Challenges to the redistricting law and appeals are separate from the Secretary of State’s petition review.

Kansas City faces the clearest change

Kansas City voters are among those most directly affected. The new map splits portions of the city among three congressional districts and changes the boundaries of the 5th District, according to Associated Press and Axios reporting.

Those changes determine which congressional candidates appear on primary ballots, which voters are grouped together and which residents would be represented by a winning candidate in November if the map remains in effect.

What to watch next

The immediate item to watch is the Secretary of State’s final action on Referendum Petition 2026-R004. Residents should also watch for updated election guidance, court filings and decisions addressing the map’s status after the primary.

For now, the operational answer is clear: Missouri’s August 4 congressional primary is being conducted under House Bill 1’s Missouri First map. The boundaries that will govern the November 3 general election, and the status of candidates nominated under the August map, remain unresolved questions unless and until the petition process and related court proceedings produce further decisions.

Sources

• Missouri Secretary of State preliminary petition reports
• Associated Press report on Missouri congressional districts
• Axios Kansas City report on Missouri’s map fight

The General Assembly’s special session runs from August 3 through August 5 and is limited to congressional redistricting. House Bill 488 still must clear additional legislative steps before Maryland voters could decide whether to approve it.

What changed this week

House Bill 488 would amend the Maryland Constitution and establish a framework for congressional redistricting after the 2026 statewide general election. The current special-session action is separate from the bill’s earlier regular-session history: the House passed the measure 99-37 on February 2, 2026, and the Senate referred it to the Rules Committee.

Lawmakers are now considering the measure during the special session scheduled for August 3-5. Legislative leaders have limited the session to legislation concerning redistricting standards, according to regional reporting from WTOP.

What House Bill 488 would do

The proposed amendment would clarify that requirements involving adjoining territory, compactness, substantially equal population, natural boundaries and political-subdivision boundaries apply to districts used to elect members of the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates.

It would also authorize the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the state’s congressional districting. That would create a state-court review framework for future congressional maps, if the amendment takes effect.

The bill contains temporary constitutional language for congressional elections held after the 2026 general election and before a congressional plan adopted after the 2030 census becomes effective. Its proposed ballot language says a 2026 congressional plan could be used for the 2028 and 2030 elections and until a post-2030-census plan takes effect.

That language could make a future map relevant beginning with the 2028 election, but the result is not guaranteed. It depends on legislative approval, voter approval and any later map-drawing process.

What it would not do

House Bill 488 does not itself redraw Maryland’s congressional districts through the August special-session action or change the map for the 2026 election. Maryland’s congressional candidates and voters will use the existing map unless a separate legal development changes it.

The proposal also is not final. A constitutional amendment requires support from three-fifths of all members elected to both the House of Delegates and the Senate. If lawmakers complete that step, the amendment would be submitted to voters at the November 3, 2026, general election.

Why the issue is contested

Democratic supporters, including Gov. Wes Moore, have framed the effort around voting rights and fair representation. In a July 7 statement, Moore said Maryland needed tools to protect voters while broader redistricting rules remain unsettled. That statement predates the August special-session action.

Republican lawmakers have criticized the narrow session and questioned whether the effort is intended to give Democrats more flexibility in drawing congressional boundaries. Those are partisan arguments, not established findings about a future map.

The debate follows a 2022 ruling that struck down a congressional map after interpreting constitutional language on compactness, contiguity and geographic boundaries as applying to congressional districts. WTOP reported that lawmakers are seeking to clarify that those standards govern state legislative districts instead, while creating a separate mechanism for congressional review.

What to watch next

The immediate checkpoints are final votes during the August 3-5 special session and whether the amendment is placed on the November 3 ballot. If lawmakers approve it and voters ratify it, the General Assembly could later consider a congressional map for elections after 2026.

Any future map could still face legal challenges involving partisan gerrymandering, voting rights or the scope of state-court review. Until those steps occur, the practical effect for Maryland’s 2026 congressional election is unchanged: the existing map remains in use.

Sources

• Maryland General Assembly: House Bill 488 text
• Associated Press: Maryland General Assembly advances redistricting amendment
• Maryland State Archives: 2026 Legislative Session

The Florida Supreme Court on June 10 denied an emergency request to block the map. The 6-1 decision in Equal Ground Education Fund v. Secretary, Florida Department of State, case SC2026-0857, was based on jurisdiction and procedure—not a ruling that the map complies with the Florida Constitution.

For voters, that means the new districts are the operative districts unless a later court order changes them. Candidates and election officials have already proceeded under the map during the congressional qualifying period.

What the Supreme Court decided

The majority said it could not intervene while the First District Court of Appeal was considering an appeal involving the request for a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court said it did not have jurisdiction over that ongoing, nonfinal matter and declined to assume that the eventual appellate decision would provide a basis for Supreme Court review.

The ruling denied the challengers’ requested emergency relief. It did not resolve their underlying claims that the map violates Article III, Section 20, of the Florida Constitution, known as the Fair Districts Amendment.

That amendment includes limits on partisan gerrymandering and protections against drawing districts to diminish racial or language minorities’ ability to elect representatives of their choice. Claims that the new map violates those provisions remain allegations being litigated, not findings by the Supreme Court.

How the case reached the court

A Leon County circuit judge denied a preliminary injunction on May 26. That ruling addressed whether the map should be blocked before a final decision and did not end the lawsuit or decide the ultimate constitutional questions.

The challengers appealed. On June 1, the First District Court of Appeal declined to certify the case for pass-through review by the Florida Supreme Court. On June 3, it also denied a request to expedite its own appellate review.

Justice Jorge Labarga dissented from the June 10 Supreme Court decision. He argued that the court had jurisdiction and that the approaching congressional election justified faster review. His opinion is a dissent, not controlling law.

What it means for Florida voters

The Florida Department of State’s 2026 election calendar lists Aug. 6 as the deadline to request that a vote-by-mail ballot be mailed for the primary. Mandatory early voting runs Aug. 8 through Aug. 15, although counties may offer additional days. Primary Election Day is Aug. 18.

Voters should confirm polling places, early-voting locations and any optional voting days with their county supervisor of elections. District assignments can be checked through state and county voter-information tools.

The Department of State lists the second 2026 qualifying period as running from noon June 8 through noon June 12 for U.S. representatives and other offices. That period is closed. Candidates therefore qualified under the new congressional districts, adding to the map’s immediate practical effect even though the legal challenge continues.

What could happen next

The underlying case can continue in the trial court and through appellate review. A later merits ruling could determine whether the map violates the Fair Districts Amendment and, if so, whether a court orders a remedy for a future election.

The record reviewed does not establish a scheduled redraw or a court-ordered change to the Aug. 18 ballot. It also does not establish that the map cannot change during the 2026 cycle. The current status is narrower: no court has ordered a map change for the Aug. 18 primary as of Aug. 4, 2026.

Sources

• Supreme Court of Florida, Opinion SC2026-0857
• Florida Department of State, 2026 Election Dates
• Associated Press, Florida court allows use of new U.S. House map drawn by Republicans

The practical result is straightforward: voter district assignments, congressional ballots, polling information and campaign strategies are based on the existing boundaries, not the proposed map that lawmakers had sought to put before voters.

How the proposed map was blocked

On May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia voided the April 21 redistricting referendum. The court found that the legislative process used to advance the proposed constitutional amendment violated Article XII, Section 1, of the Virginia Constitution.

The referendum did not itself enact a new congressional map. The proposed amendment would have allowed Virginia to redraw its U.S. House districts between the normal once-a-decade redistricting cycles under specified conditions, including when another state conducted mid-decade congressional redistricting.

Virginia election officials then said no congressional-boundary changes would be made for either the 2026 primary or general election. The U.S. Supreme Court docket shows that the stay application in Scott v. McDougle, No. 25A1240, was denied on May 15.

That order was not a merits ruling resolving every issue in the redistricting dispute. It denied the requested stay, leaving the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling in place for the 2026 election calendar.

Why voters are voting in August

The referendum effort still affected election administration even though its outcome was later nullified. Virginia’s 2026 primary was moved from the usual June schedule to August 4. The U.S. House filing deadline for candidates seeking a party nomination was May 26, while independent U.S. House candidates face an August 4 filing deadline.

Virginia’s Department of Elections says the 2026 general election is scheduled for November 3 and will use the same pre-referendum congressional boundaries.

Voters who are unsure of their district or polling location can check their information through the Virginia Department of Elections’ online voter-information tools before casting a ballot.

Competitive House races remain under old lines

The old map matters politically because candidates prepared for a possible set of districts that never became operative. Once the courts settled the issue in May, campaigns had to continue under congressional boundaries that have been in place since 2021.

Associated Press reporting identifies the 1st and 2nd districts as important Democratic targets. Republican Reps. Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans avoided primary challenges but are expected to face competitive general-election contests. In the 2nd District, former Rep. Elaine Luria is competing in a four-way Democratic primary against Nila Devanath, Bill Fleming and Patrick Mosolf. The 1st District has a seven-way Democratic primary, with Henrico County prosecutor Shannon Taylor viewed by many observers as a leading candidate.

The contests are part of Democrats’ effort to gain House seats in November, but the existing map does not guarantee a particular partisan result. It determines which voters, communities and incumbents are grouped together as campaigns move toward the general election.

What happens next

For the immediate election cycle, the legal uncertainty over Virginia’s congressional boundaries has ended. The August 4 primary and November 3 general election are proceeding under the same map that was in place before the referendum.

The broader question of mid-decade redistricting could return through future legislation or litigation, but the proposed 2026 amendment cannot be treated as current or operative. For Virginia voters, the immediate task is to verify the district and polling information assigned under the existing boundaries.

Sources

• Virginia Department of Elections redistricting ruling notice
• U.S. Supreme Court docket in Scott v. McDougle
• Associated Press primary-day coverage

Hoskins must issue a certificate of sufficiency or insufficiency for referendum petition 2026-R004. The petition seeks to repeal House Bill 1, the 2025 law that replaced Missouri’s previous congressional plan with new district boundaries.

The timing creates an unusual election-law problem: Missouri is holding its primary under the new map before the legal process determining whether the map took effect is complete.

What Hoskins must decide

Missouri’s referendum process requires valid signatures meeting district-specific thresholds in at least six of the state’s eight congressional districts. The Secretary of State’s 2026 process guide says a sufficient petition must receive a certificate by 5 p.m. on August 4, the 13th Tuesday before the November general election.

The latest official report, posted as current through July 31, remains preliminary. It reflects local election-authority verification but is still subject to quality control, including review for duplicate signatures, incomplete information and other defects. The report says the figures do not represent final counts or a final determination of certification.

That means the July 31 figures do not establish that the referendum has qualified. Hoskins’ certificate, followed by any authorized challenge or judicial review, is the next decisive step.

Why Missouri is using the map today

House Bill 1 was enacted in 2025 and became effective on December 11, 2025, according to the court record. State election officials directed counties to conduct the August 4 primary under the new lines.

In Maggard v. State, issued May 12, the Missouri Supreme Court held that submitting the referendum petition on December 9 did not automatically suspend House Bill 1. The court said the statutory verification and certification process had to establish whether the petition was legal, sufficient and timely.

The court’s analysis makes the August 4 decision especially consequential. If the petition is ultimately found insufficient, House Bill 1 took effect on December 11. If the petition is ultimately found sufficient, the December 9 filing date could control because the petition was submitted before the law’s effective date. In that circumstance, House Bill 1 would be treated as referred to voters and would take effect only if approved by a majority of votes cast on the referendum.

What happens if the petition qualifies

If Hoskins certifies the petition as sufficient, the map would be placed before voters in November. That certification would not, by itself, answer every question about the primary already being conducted under the new lines.

Courts and election officials could still have to address how the referendum affects the November districts, candidate filings, ballot administration and the legal status of primary results. Those are potential consequences, not settled outcomes. The Missouri Supreme Court did not rule that Tuesday’s primary results would be invalidated or that November voting would definitely use different boundaries.

If Hoskins finds the petition insufficient, House Bill 1 remains in effect under the Supreme Court’s analysis, although petition opponents could pursue judicial review and other litigation could continue.

For Missouri voters and candidates, the immediate developments to watch are the secretary of state’s certificate, any challenge to that determination, new court filings and official instructions about which congressional districts will govern the November election.

Sources

• Missouri Secretary of State: Preliminary signature report for referendum 2026-R004
• Missouri Supreme Court: Maggard v. State
• Axios Kansas City: Missouri map fight lands on primary election day

The qualifying period closes at 4:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 7. Under Act 7 of the 2026 Regular Session and guidance from the Louisiana secretary of state, anyone planning to run for U.S. representative in the new fall election cycle must qualify during that period, regardless of party affiliation.

Where and how candidates must file

U.S. House candidates must qualify at the Louisiana State Archives, 3851 Essen Lane, in Baton Rouge. The filing office will be open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from Wednesday through Friday.

Candidates may qualify by paying the required fee or submitting a certified nominating petition. Qualifying fees must be paid with cash, a certified or cashier’s check from a state or national bank or credit union, or an eligible U.S. Postal money order. The qualifying form must accompany the payment.

Act 7 sets the congressional nominating-petition requirement at 250 qualified voter signatures for the 2026 fall election. Certified petitions must be submitted during the Aug. 5-7 qualifying period.

What changed for the congressional races

Act 7 canceled the May 16 and June 27, 2026, congressional party primaries and declared votes cast in those contests void and not counted. The law also directs the secretary of state to cancel nominating petitions submitted for those earlier elections and return specified portions of qualifying fees paid for them.

The law moves the U.S. House contests to a Nov. 3 open primary. If a House race is not resolved in November, the scheduled open general election is Dec. 12.

The schedule change followed a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional map. The Associated Press reported that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s second majority-Black congressional district. Gov. Jeff Landry then suspended the earlier congressional primary while state officials addressed the map and related legal issues.

The enacted election schedule is now established, but the broader redistricting dispute and any related legal challenges remain separate from the qualifying deadline. The candidate field, ballot information and district details may develop after qualifying closes and election officials finalize the fall ballot.

What voters should expect

The Nov. 3 ballot will include the U.S. House contests as an open primary rather than a conventional closed party primary. The congressional races therefore are operating under a different framework from party-primary offices that qualified earlier in the year.

Voters should not treat the canceled May 16 or June 27 congressional votes as valid election results. Act 7 expressly says those votes are void and not counted.

Key dates for the Nov. 3 election

• Aug. 5-7: U.S. House qualifying in Baton Rouge. The deadline is 4:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 7.
• Oct. 5: Deadline to register to vote in person, by mail or at an Office of Motor Vehicles location.
• Oct. 13: Deadline for online voter registration.
• Oct. 20-27: Early voting, excluding Sunday, Oct. 25, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• Oct. 30: Deadline to request an absentee ballot by 4:30 p.m., except for military and overseas voters.
• Nov. 2: Deadline for registrars to receive voted absentee ballots by 4:30 p.m., except for military and overseas voters.
• Nov. 3: Election Day. Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
• Dec. 12: Scheduled open general election for House races that require another election.

The immediate deadline applies to candidates, not voters. Residents should monitor the secretary of state’s candidate and ballot information as qualifying ends and the November ballot takes shape.

Sources

• Louisiana Secretary of State: November 3 election qualifying reminders
• Louisiana Legislature: Enrolled Act 7 of the 2026 Regular Session
• Associated Press: Louisiana congressional primaries suspended after Supreme Court ruling

Residents should confirm their congressional district, polling place and sample ballot through the Alabama Secretary of State before voting. Districts 3, 4 and 5 are not part of this special congressional primary.

Why Alabama is holding another congressional primary

The special primary grew out of a legal fight over Alabama’s congressional map. In a May 26 preliminary injunction, a three-judge federal court ordered the state to continue using the race-blind, court-ordered map used for the 2024 elections and the May 19, 2026, primary.

The court found that Alabama’s 2023 legislative map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and reaffirmed its finding that the plan intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. That order was a preliminary injunction, not a final resolution of all redistricting litigation. The state pursued an appeal, so the court’s findings and the appeal posture should not be treated as a final ruling by a higher court.

Under Alabama law, the May 19 congressional primary results in Districts 1, 2, 6 and 7 became ineffective when the governor set special primaries for those districts. The May vote was therefore not simply postponed; it does not determine the party nominees in the four affected House races.

Who is affected

Only voters assigned to Congressional Districts 1, 2, 6 or 7 will participate in the special congressional primary. Voters in Districts 3, 4 and 5 do not vote again in these House contests on Aug. 11.

Because the map litigation changed the election-administration timeline, voters should not rely on an old sample ballot, a prior polling-place notice or the results from May. Use the Secretary of State’s 2026 Election Information and Upcoming Elections pages to check the district associated with your address, polling-place information, candidate certifications and the correct sample ballot.

What voters will see at the polls

Alabama does not register voters by party. An eligible voter may choose a Democratic or Republican primary ballot at the polling place, but may participate in only one party’s primary in the election.

Review the current state-certified sample ballot before arriving. Candidate lists and ballot information should be checked against the Secretary of State’s current materials because party certifications and state certifications are the official sources for the contests.

The Aug. 11 election is a special primary, not the general election. Its purpose is to determine the party nominees for the affected congressional races under the court-ordered districts.

Deadlines and voting logistics

The deadline to register to vote for the special primary was Wednesday, July 22. Voters who registered by that deadline should still confirm their registration and polling information before Election Day.

For absentee voting, applications sent by mail had to be received by the county absentee election manager seven days before the election, on Monday, Aug. 3. Applications delivered by hand are due five days before the election, on Thursday, Aug. 6.

Absentee ballots returned by hand must be received by the close of business on Monday, Aug. 10. Ballots returned by mail must reach the absentee election manager by noon on Tuesday, Aug. 11. Separate rules apply to military and overseas voters; those voters should use the Secretary of State’s UOCAVA instructions or contact their absentee election manager.

Polling places are scheduled to be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day. Polling places in Alabama’s Eastern time zone use Eastern time. Voters should bring an approved physical photo ID. The Secretary of State lists accepted identification, including an Alabama driver’s license, a valid state or federal ID, a U.S. passport, a military ID, a tribal ID and qualifying student or employee IDs.

What happens after the vote

There will be no runoff for the Aug. 11 special primary. The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes in each party’s contest will be that party’s nominee, subject to the official canvass and certification process.

County executive committees must meet by noon Tuesday, Aug. 18, to receive, canvass and tabulate returns by precinct and publicly declare the results. The chair of each state party executive committee must also certify the names of the nominated candidates to the Secretary of State by noon that day.

Political parties may submit amendments or corrections to the special-primary candidate certifications through Monday, Aug. 24. The certified nominees then advance to the Nov. 3, 2026, general election, unless a later official action changes the ballot.

Checklist before voting

• Confirm that your voter registration is active.
• Check whether your address is in District 1, 2, 6 or 7.
• Verify your polling place through Alabama’s official voter tools.
• Bring an approved physical photo ID.
• Choose either the Democratic or Republican primary ballot.
• Review the current sample ballot and candidate certifications.
• If voting absentee, confirm the application and ballot-delivery deadlines with your county election office.

The Secretary of State’s election-information pages are the best place to check for updated district, candidate, sample-ballot and voting instructions before Aug. 11.

Sources

• 2026 Alabama Special Primary Election Calendar
• Singleton v. Allen May 26 federal court order

The Troy Park site is in Elkridge, not Glenwood. County officials announced the selection on June 17, 2026, as a potential location for Howard County’s 14th high school. The selection is not the same as a completed school, funded construction project, opening date or approved enrollment plan.

What the proposed legislation would do

Howard County Council legislation known as CR123-2026 would convey the Troy Park property to the Howard County Board of Education for use as a future public school. The proposal includes a restriction requiring the property to be used for that purpose, with a reversion provision if it is not.

The Howard County Council’s July 6 legislative record listed CR123-2026 for legislative consideration. The July 20 public-hearing record also listed the measure for public review. As of July 31, the available records do not establish that the land transfer was final or that construction had been authorized.

Why Glenwood readers should care

Howard County’s school-capacity planning materials connect enrollment projections with residential-development constraints and future redistricting assumptions. Glenwood Middle School and Glenelg High School appear in the school-capacity service context relevant to Glenwood-area development and school-demand planning.

A selected site for another high school could give the county a location to incorporate into future capacity projections and capital planning. Over time, those planning decisions may affect which school projects receive priority, how proposed residential development is reviewed, and what transportation questions are studied as enrollment patterns change.

Those are potential planning effects, not announced changes for Glenwood. Any future impact would depend on enrollment forecasts, Howard County capital plans, Board of Education actions, transportation analysis and a formal boundary process if one is later proposed.

What is not happening now

No Glenwood attendance-boundary change has been proposed or approved in connection with the Troy Park site as of July 31, 2026. There is also no approved opening date, construction schedule or student-reassignment plan tied to the proposed High School 14 location.

For Glenwood residents, the immediate development is a countywide school-capacity and land-planning decision. The next meaningful signals will come from future county legislation, school-capacity updates, Board of Education capital plans, public hearings and any formal redistricting proposal that specifically identifies Glenwood-area schools.

Sources

• Howard County Council CR123-2026 public-hearing record
• WBAL-TV report on the Troy Park High School 14 site
• CBS Baltimore report on Elkridge High School 14

The ruling allows Tennessee election officials and candidates to proceed under the map adopted during the Legislature’s May extraordinary session. It did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying constitutional claims or permanently uphold the map.

What the map changes

The new map divides Shelby County, including Memphis, among Congressional Districts 5, 8 and 9. It breaks up the former 9th District, which included most of Shelby County and had been the state’s majority-Black congressional district.

Tennessee enacted the map on May 7 after a three-day extraordinary session. Related legislation changed election procedures for the 2026 congressional elections, including the candidate-qualifying deadline, petition rules, candidate residency requirements and voter-notice provisions.

The enacted law moved the qualifying deadline for the August congressional primary from March 10 to May 15, 2026, and created a special qualifying period. Under the new process, candidates could submit nominating petitions with 25 signatures from registered voters residing anywhere in a county that is partly within the newly drawn congressional district.

The law also created an exception to the usual one-year county-residency requirement for candidates seeking the U.S. House in the 2026 primary. Candidates who had qualified before the map was enacted could remain in their original district, notify the coordinator of elections that they were running in a different district, or withdraw. The court record identifies May 15 as the deadline for a change-of-district or withdrawal notice.

Why the ruling matters before Aug. 6

The Tennessee Secretary of State’s 2026 election calendar lists Aug. 6 as the congressional primary date. With the injunction denied, ballots, candidate assignments and election preparations will continue under the districts currently in force.

The immediate district-boundary changes affect Memphis-area and other Shelby County voters most directly. A voter’s congressional district may differ from the district used in earlier elections, so voters and candidates should rely on current assignments from their county election commission or the Secretary of State rather than prior campaign or district information.

The changes also create administrative work for county election commissions on a compressed schedule. A related federal court memorandum says Tennessee appropriated $3,154,700 to reimburse counties for expenses connected to the 2026 congressional elections. The funds may be used for overtime, additional staff, expedited vendors, training, signage, voter education and, if counties choose, mailed notices.

The same court record says mailed notice is not required. The law permits notice to be satisfied through publication on a county election commission’s official website, if the county has one.

The lawsuit is not over

The July 23 opinion in Sherman v. Hargett addressed whether the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary relief before the 2026 elections. It was not a final ruling upholding the map, and it did not reject the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits.

The plaintiffs challenge the redistricting law and related election changes, arguing that they unlawfully burden voting, speech and political-association rights. The case remains pending, and a later ruling or appeal could change the map or the rules governing future elections.

For now, Tennessee’s 2026 congressional primary is scheduled to proceed under the enacted map, with Shelby County divided among Districts 5, 8 and 9. That status remains subject to any later order from the court.

Sources

• July 23 federal panel opinion in Sherman v. Hargett
• Federal court memorandum opinion in Hale v. Lee
• Tennessee 2026 election dates
• Associated Press: Federal judges allow new Tennessee map

Gov. Wes Moore issued the formal proclamation on July 17, limiting the session to legislation that would clarify that requirements for state legislative districts do not apply to Maryland’s congressional districts.

The proclamation does not approve a new congressional map. It also does not establish that Maryland’s districts for the 2026 general election will change.

What the proclamation authorizes

The governor’s proclamation convenes the Maryland General Assembly in a “special and extraordinary session” beginning August 3, 2026, in Annapolis. Its stated purpose is to pass legislation amending the Maryland Constitution to clarify and reaffirm that provisions governing Maryland’s state legislative districts do not apply to the state’s congressional districts.

The exact amendment language for the August session was not included in the available proclamation or source materials. Details of any proposal—including the standards it would establish and how it would affect future mapmaking—therefore remain unsettled.

The Maryland Register’s publication of the proclamation confirms the August 3 start date, the Annapolis location and the authorized constitutional purpose.

Voters would have to approve any amendment

Under the process described by The Associated Press, a proposed constitutional amendment would first need approval by three-fifths of the House of Delegates and three-fifths of the Senate. Only then could the measure go to voters.

The potential statewide ballot date is November 3, 2026, but that date remains conditional on passage by both chambers and the required ballot-placement process.

If voters approve an amendment, it would change the constitutional framework for future congressional redistricting. Voter approval by itself would not constitute adoption of a new congressional map. Any later mapmaking, legal review or election-administration decisions would remain separate steps.

What this means for the 2026 election

Residents should not assume that the August session will redraw Maryland’s congressional districts or that a new map will be used in the 2026 general election. The available records establish a planned session to consider constitutional language, not a completed map or a final election-calendar ruling.

The practical question for voters is whether lawmakers approve a constitutional amendment and, if they do, what language appears on the ballot. A later amendment could create a legal path for lawmakers to revisit congressional maps in a future election cycle, but any possible effect on a later election—including 2028—should be treated as a future possibility rather than a confirmed schedule or court ruling.

Earlier proposal was broader

The August session should not be confused with House Bill 482, an earlier 2026 proposal. The bill’s first-reader text included broader redistricting provisions, including standards for drawing districts, an independent commission structure, public participation requirements and court-review mechanisms.

The General Assembly’s official record identifies HB 482 as a constitutional bill and lists its first reading on January 23, 2026, followed by a notice of a January 27 hearing. The record does not show that the bill was enacted. HB 482 is evidence of an earlier legislative approach, not proof that lawmakers will consider the same language during the August session.

What residents should watch next

The next consequential documents will be the amendment text introduced for the special session, legislative committee and floor actions, and any final ballot language approved for November. Election officials and courts could also issue later guidance or rulings affecting how an approved amendment is implemented.

For now, the immediate development is the governor’s legal authorization for a narrowly defined session. Maryland’s congressional districts should not be described as changed based solely on the July 17 proclamation or the scheduled August 3 convening.

Sources

• Governor’s proclamation convening the extraordinary session
• Maryland Register publication of the proclamation
• Associated Press: Maryland lawmakers to meet in August for special session on redistricting
• Maryland General Assembly HB 482 legislation record

What the court decided on July 23

The judges declined to issue a preliminary injunction that would have paused enforcement of the new Tennessee U.S. House districts before the primary. In practice, the decision keeps the new boundaries in place for the Aug. 6 election stage.

According to reporting on the case, early voting began July 17, and primary election ballots had already been finalized using the new boundaries—one reason Tennessee and election officials argued that an emergency pause came too late.

What Tennessee’s new map changes for Memphis-area voters

Reporting on the decision says Tennessee’s redraw splits apart a long-standing majority-Black district based in Memphis. Instead of keeping that core Memphis voting base together in one U.S. House seat, the new map places Memphis-area voters across three different congressional districts.

For voters, that can affect which U.S. House candidates appear on a ballot and how local campaigns and outreach are targeted.

What plaintiffs asked for—and what they got instead

The plaintiffs sought an emergency stop: they asked the judges to pause the new districts before the Aug. 6 primary. They argued the map diluted Black voting strength and raised constitutional concerns.

Tennessee and election officials argued the challenge should not get a preliminary injunction at that stage—disputing the alleged discriminatory motivation and pointing to the fact that ballots were already finalized under the new lines.

Crucially, this was a preliminary-injunction decision. It does not end the lawsuit on the merits.

What voters and candidates should do next

• Check your assigned district before the Aug. 6 primary. With Memphis-area voters split among multiple districts, the contest on your ballot may differ from what you expected under older lines.
• Plan campaign and outreach around the new district boundaries. Candidate filings, canvassing, and voter contact strategy generally follow district lines—and those lines changed.
• Watch the court docket for later steps. A denial of emergency relief means there is still legal work ahead in the background.

What’s still uncertain

Because the panel declined to block the map at the preliminary stage, the lawsuit is not over. The next courtroom steps could include further motions and, later, possible remedies that would change how districts are drawn or used—but that is not something the July 23 order itself decides.

Sources

• AP News — Federal judges allow Tennessee’s new congressional map for Aug. 6 primary
• Sherman et al. v. Hargett et al. (Doc. 62) — Order (Per Curiam), July 23, 2026

The practical effect is that Colorado voters will not see these proposals on the ballot through this route. The court said the measures would have opened the door to mid-decade congressional redistricting and new U.S. House districts for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles.

For Colorado, that keeps the 2021 congressional map in place for now. For the broader country, AP reported the ruling is another setback in the national redistricting fight over House control.

The Colorado Judicial Branch says Title Board decisions can be appealed to the state Supreme Court, which may affirm or reverse them on an expedited schedule.

Sources

• Colorado Supreme Court opinion (Cases 26SA126 and 26SA153)
• AP News: Colorado court rejects congressional redistricting initiatives