Full Opinion

In the Matter of Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee, No. 67, September Term, 2025. FREDERICK COUNTY CHARTER – REFERENDUM – ZONING ORDINANCES Frederick County Council Ordinance 26-01-001 is not a “law” subject to referendum under § 308(a) of the Frederick County Charter. Under the Frederick County Charter, zoning ordinances that the County had authority to enact when it was a commission county are not subject to referendum. FREDERICK COUNTY CHARTER – PETITION SUFFICIENCY Maps depicting the location of a zoning overlay zone and zoning designations were in color in their original form as attachments to a zoning ordinance that was petitioned to referendum. For the petition, the maps were reproduced in black-and-white images that did not provide a full and accurate reproduction of important information, including the location of the overlay zone and zoning designations. Accordingly, the petition was insufficient, and the circuit court correctly enjoined the referendum. Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No. C-10-CV-26-000309 Case No. C-10-CV-26-000321 IN THE SUPREME COURT Case No. C-10-CV-26-000325 Case No. C-10-CV-26-000326 Case No. C-10-CV-26-000327 OF MARYLAND Argued: June 30, 2026 No. 67 September Term, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK COUNTY DATA CENTER REFERENDUM COMMITTEE Fader, C.J., Booth, Eaves, Killough, Harrell, Glenn T. (Senior Justice, Specially Assigned), Raker, Irma S. (Senior Justice, Specially Assigned), Getty, Joseph M., (Senior Justice, Specially Assigned), JJ. Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. Opinion by Fader, C.J. Harrell, J., concurs. 2026.07.24 14:08:00 -04'00' Filed: July 24, 2026 Gregory Hilton, Clerk We analyze whether an ordinance amending a comprehensive zoning plan to locate an approved overlay zone and alter the zoning designations of certain parcels is subject to referendum under the terms of the Frederick County Charter. We hold that it is not. We also hold that the underlying referendum petition was deficient because it failed to include a full and accurate reproduction of the ordinance at issue, as required by the Charter. We observe at the outset that although the subject of the ordinance at issue is zoning for data centers, the subject of this lawsuit is not. The location and construction of data centers is a matter of significant controversy and consequence at this moment.1 In deciding this case, this Court is not weighing in on that broader discussion, nor is it our place to do so. Instead, we address two straightforward legal issues involving the interpretation of the Frederick County Charter: (1) whether the Charter authorizes the submission of a zoning ordinance to referendum; and (2) whether the petition at issue satisfied the requirements of the Charter. In 2025, the Frederick County Council enacted a law, Council Bill 25-09, providing for a Critical Digital Infrastructure, or “CDI,” Overlay Zone that would permit the construction of data centers and supporting infrastructure on no more than one percent of County land. Bill 25-09 provided that the contours of the Overlay Zone would be established later “by ordinance,” which occurred soon thereafter with the Council’s 1 See, e.g., Battles over data centers intensify in the State House and communities, Maryland Matters (Apr. 20, 2026), https://marylandmatters.org/2026/04/20/battles-over- data-centers-intensify-in-the-state-house-and-communities/, archived at https://perma.cc/98KA-XE2M. enactment of Ordinance 26-01-001 (the “CDI Ordinance”). An organized group of citizens called the Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee, the appellant here, sought to petition the CDI Ordinance to referendum. After the Referendum Committee collected the requisite number of signatures, the Election Director of the Frederick County Board of Elections found the petition sufficient. Several entities and three County voters, the appellees here (the “Referendum Opponents”),2 challenged that finding in the Circuit Court for Frederick County. They argued both that the CDI Ordinance is not subject to referendum under the Charter and that the petition did not meet the Charter’s petition requirements because it did not contain a “full and accurate” reproduction of the challenged ordinance. The circuit court agreed with the Referendum Opponents on both issues. The Referendum Committee noted a direct appeal to this Court pursuant to §§ 6-209(a)(3)(ii) and 6-210(e)(3)(2) of the Election Law Article. After expedited briefing and arguments pursuant to Election Law §§ 6-209(a)(4) and 6-210(e)(3)(ii), we affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in a June 30, 2026 per curiam order. In re Frederick County Data Ctr. Referendum Comm., ___ Md. ___ No. 67, Sep. Term, 2025, 2026 WL 1872645 (June 30, 2026). We now explain the basis for our order. 2 The Referendum Opponents are Quantum Maryland, LLC, Joan Aquilino, Theodore H. Butz, Justin Cassity, Frederick Data Owner, LLC, NDR Properties, LLC, David S. Pleasants, Rowan Frederick LLC, Rowan Frederick II LLC, Rowan Frederick III LLC, and Windridge Properties L.C. 2 BACKGROUND A. Powers of Commission Counties and Charter Counties There are three forms of local county government in Maryland: charter home rule; code home rule; and commission. Baltimore City Bd. of Elections v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 489 Md. 465, 477 (2025). In 2014, Frederick County transitioned from a commission county to a charter home rule county. Our resolution of the present dispute requires an understanding of both some of the zoning powers Frederick County possessed as a commission county and the self-governance powers it gained as a charter county. Counties that have not adopted home rule are commission counties. Id. at 478; see Md. Code Ann., Local Gov’t § 1-101(d) (2013 Repl.; 2025 Supp.). Commission counties are governed by a Board of County Commissioners, see Md. Const. art. VII, § 1; Local Gov’t §§ 1-101(f)(4), 9-401, which may exercise only those powers that are expressly conferred by statute or that may reasonably be implied from such statutes, see Miller v. County Comm’rs of Carroll County, 226 Md. 105, 114 (1961). The General Assembly retains the power to legislate for commission counties, including by passing public local laws. A Board of County Commissioners may, however, enact ordinances on certain matters where authorized by statute. One such area is zoning, pursuant to provisions codified in the Land Use Article. See, e.g., Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 1-101(g)(2)(i) (2012 Repl.; 2025 Supp.) (defining “legislative body” to include a board of county commissioners); § 4-101(a)(2) (declaring State policy that “planning and zoning controls 3 shall be implemented by local government”); §§ 4-102 – 4-103 (identifying zoning powers of local legislative bodies). Public local laws enacted by the General Assembly for commission counties are subject to the referendum power contained in Article XVI, § 3(a) of the Constitution of Maryland. There is no provision in Maryland law authorizing the submission to referendum of zoning ordinances enacted by commission counties. Before 2014, the County was a commission county. As such, it was subject to public laws enacted by the General Assembly, both public local laws applicable only to the County and public general laws. Cf. Ritchmount P’ship v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections for Anne Arundel County, 283 Md. 48, 57 (1978). The Board of County Commissioners had no authority to enact either type of public law. Cf. Miller, 226 Md. at 114. It did, however, manage the County’s land use and zoning pursuant to the Land Use Article and its predecessor, former Article 66B. See, e.g., Land Use §§ 2-101 – 2-105 (concerning the establishment and operation of planning commissions); §§ 3-101 – 3-304 (concerning the development, adoption, and implementation of comprehensive plans); §§ 4-101 – 4-504 (concerning zoning). Pursuant to that authority, the County Commissioners enacted zoning ordinances that were subject to judicial review. See id. §§ 4-401 – 4-406 (governing judicial review of zoning decisions). Effective December 1, 2014, the County became a charter county. We recently summarized the sources of the legislative powers available to a charter county as follows: 4 [A charter county’s] legislative authority is provided by the Home Rule Amendment, Article XI-A of the Constitution of Maryland; and the Express Powers Act, Title 10 of the Local Government Article. Article XI-A authorizes the “transfer [of] the General Assembly’s power to enact many types of county public local laws to the . . . home rule counties.” McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12, 16 (1990), superseded by statute as stated in Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. Phillips, 413 Md. 606, 627-29 (2010). Article XI-A provides a structure for the interplay between State and local power. Section 2 of Article XI-A directs the General Assembly to “provide a grant of express powers” for charter counties. Section 3 provides the County Council of a charter county with the “full power to enact local laws . . . upon all matters covered by the express powers granted” by the General Assembly, and further provides “that in case of any conflict between said local law” and any general law enacted by the General Assembly, the general law “shall control.” Section 4 then prohibits the General Assembly from enacting local laws “on any subject covered by express powers granted.” Taken together, these sections authorize a shift of authority to legislate on “matters of purely local concern” from the General Assembly to charter counties. State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419, 422 (1927). The General Assembly carried out its charge under § 2 of Article XI- A by adopting the Express Powers Act, which “endows charter counties with a wide array of legislative and administrative powers[.]” Angel Enters. Ltd. P’ship v. Talbot County, 474 Md. 237, 261 (2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Ritchmount P’ship v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections for Anne Arundel County, 283 Md. 48, 57 (1978)). Engage Armament LLC v. Montgomery County, 494 Md. 1, 32-33 (2026). Section 10-102(a) of the Express Powers Act “authorizes charter counties to exercise express powers,” which are laid out in subtitles 2 and 3 of the Act. See Prince George’s County v. Thurston, 479 Md. 575, 601 (2022) (discussing Local Gov’t §§ 10-102(a), 10-201 – 10-206, and 10-301 – 10-330). One of those enumerated powers permits charter counties to “enact local laws relating to zoning and planning to protect and promote public safety, health, morals, and welfare[.]” Local Gov’t § 10-324(a). In addition 5 to the powers that are expressly enumerated, a “county council may pass any ordinance, resolution, or bylaw not inconsistent with State law that: (1) may aid in executing and enforcing any power [specified in the Express Powers Act]; or (2) may aid in maintaining the peace, good government, health, and welfare of the county.” Id. § 10-206(a). Section 9-205 of the Local Government Article expressly authorizes voters of a county, in adopting a charter, to “reserve . . . the power of referendum by which they may submit a local law enacted by the county council, by petition, to the voters for approval or rejection.” Id. § 9-205(a)(1). A charter that reserves this authority is required to specify the types of local laws that may be petitioned to referendum. Id. § 9-205(a)(2). B. The Frederick County Charter The County began the process of transitioning to a charter county in 2011. A nine- member Charter Board drafted a proposed charter and submitted it to the Board of County Commissioners, which approved it for referendum. The voters of the County adopted the proposed charter at the 2012 General Election, and it became effective on December 1, 2014. Frederick County, Md., Charter § 802. The Charter contains eight articles that set out general provisions (Article 1); create a legislative branch, the County Council (Article 2); establish requirements for the legislative process (Article 3); create an executive branch under a County Executive (Article 4); govern budget and finance (Article 5); address land use (Article 6); include miscellaneous provisions (Article 7); and address transition issues (Article 8). Most relevant here are Articles 2, 3, and 6. 6 1. Legislative and Referendum Powers Under Articles 2 and 3 The Charter vests in the County Council “[a]ll the legislative powers which the County may exercise under the Maryland Constitution and laws of the State[,]” subject to the power of referendum “retained by the people of the County as set forth in Section 308 of this Charter.” Charter § 202. In accordance with those legislative powers, “the Council may enact public local laws for the peace, good government, health, safety or welfare of the County and on all subjects that have been delegated to the County under the Maryland Constitution and by the laws of the State.” Id. § 301. The Council may also “repeal and amend” those public local laws the General Assembly had previously enacted for the County when it was a commission county. Id. In describing the County Council’s legislative authority, the Charter references laws, ordinances, and legislation, but does not define any of those terms. As noted, § 301 authorizes the enactment of “public local laws.” Section 305, titled “Enactment of Legislation,” provides that the “Council may enact no law except by written Bill.” Id. § 305(a). “Bill” is defined in Article 1 as “any proposed act of the County Council resulting in a law or ordinance[,]” but not a resolution. Id. § 104(c). Section 306 defines the County Executive’s veto authority over “any legislation.” Id. § 306(a). Section 307 addresses the effective date for “laws,” providing that all laws other than the Annual Budget and Appropriations Ordinance and expedited legislation “shall take effect sixty calendar days after enactment” unless a later date is specified. Id. § 307(a). 7 The power of referendum is set out in § 308, which provides that “a law, or part of a law, enacted pursuant to this Charter may be referred to the voters for approval upon the filing of a petition signed by seven percent of the registered voters of the County[,]” with four exceptions: (1) laws imposing taxes; (2) laws appropriating funds for current expenses; (3) laws prescribing council districts; and (4) laws adopting a compensation review commission. Id. § 308(a). A referendum petition “shall meet the requirements of State law and may consist of several papers, but each paper shall contain the full and accurate text of the law, or part of the law, that is subject to the petition.” Id. § 308(b). Petitions must be filed with the County Board of Elections “[n]o later than fifty-nine days following the date a law is enacted[.]” Id. § 308(c). If properly referred to the voters, the challenged law or portion of a law does “not take effect until thirty days after approval by a majority of voters.” Id. § 308(d). 2. Land Use Under Article 6 Article 6 of the Charter consists of a single section, § 601, titled “Adoption of Land Use Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland[.]” Subsection (a) explains the policy behind the “adoption” of the Land Use Article, stating that it is the County’s policy “that the provisions of the Land Use Article . . . that governed land use in the County prior to the Effective Date of this Charter shall continue to apply as if they have been codified in the Code of Public Local Laws of Frederick County on the Effective Date of the Charter.” Id. § 601(a). Subsection (b) requires that “[b]y 2016 the provisions [of the Land Use Article] that were considered applicable to the County on the Effective Date of the Charter shall be 8 codified in the Code of Public Local Laws of Frederick County.” Id. § 601(b). And subsection (c) requires that any future revisions to the Land Use Article that would have applied had the County remained a commission county “be promptly adopted by the County and codified in the Code of Public Local Laws of Frederick County.” Id. § 601(c). C. Data Center Workgroup and Resulting Council Actions In 2022, through Bill 22-05, the County Council amended Chapter 1-19 of the Frederick County Code to add “Critical Digital Infrastructure,” i.e., data centers, as a new use. See Frederick County, Md., Bill 22-05. The Bill: (1) defined CDI facilities and their electric substations; (2) established those facilities and substations as principal permitted uses in two zones, the Limited Industrial and General Industrial zones, subject to site development plan approval; (3) established applicable regulations; and (4) instituted required design elements (e.g., minimum lot area). Bill 22-05; see also Frederick County, Md., Code § 1-19-11.100 (definitions); § 1-19-5.310 (use table); § 1-19-6.100 (design requirements); §§ 1-19-8.402 – 1-19-8.403 (CDI regulations) (2022). The following year, Frederick County Executive Jessica Fitzwater created the Frederick County Data Centers Workgroup “to examine existing laws and to provide thoughtful guidance on shaping growth of” data centers, which was recognized as “a relatively new and rapidly changing technology industry poised for expansion in Frederick County.” Report of the Frederick County Data Centers Workgroup, at 1 (2024). The Workgroup met publicly eight times over six months and ultimately recommended, among other things, zoning amendments. Id. at 3-4, 6-17. 9 One such proposed amendment was to create a CDI floating overlay zone. Id. at 7. To the Workgroup, such a floating zone “would be applicant driven and would meet the criteria and standards for siting as established by the County through the existing CDI ordinance, or an amended or replacement ordinance.” Id. at 8. An application for such a designation would include “significant public notice and input[,]” including public hearings by the Frederick County Planning Commission, and public hearings and approval by the County Council. Id. The Workgroup also suggested that “the County Executive and County Council may wish to consider establishing an overall upper limit on data center development in Frederick County[.]” Id. In May 2025, the County Executive and Council “announced a compromise to limit where data centers can be built to the area around the old East Alco[] property north of Adamstown[,]” and to limit development “to less than 1% of the County’s total land mass[.]” Frederick County Off. of the County Exec., Legislation Introduced to Limit Data Centers (May 6, 2025), https://frederickcountymd.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=5555&ARC=8580, archived at https://perma.cc/4S25-CPDC. The announcement explained that the compromise would proceed in two phases. First, the County Council would co-sponsor a bill introduced by the County Executive that would contain “a text amendment to the zoning code to create” the overlay zone. Id. The County Council would “review and vote on the bill through its ordinary public legislative process.” Id. Second, the Division of Planning and Permitting would “develop a map through an open and transparent public process, which will be 10 presented to the Planning Commission for review and the County Council for approval.” Id. True to the announcement, the County Council advanced Bill 25-09 the following month to create the CDI Overlay Zone, a zoning designation intended to direct data centers and associated electric substations “to industrial lands in proximity to data conveyance infrastructure and other industrial uses, while minimizing impacts to non-compatible uses[.]” Bill 25-09. To accomplish that, the Bill made several changes to the Frederick County Code. Among other things, Bill 25-09: • amended the use table in § 1-19-5.310 of the Code to add zone CDI-OZ; • amended § 1-19-8.402 of the Code, which addresses zoning of CDI facilities, to recognize the new CDI Overlay Zone. Among other things, subsection 8.402 restricts the establishment of CDI to areas with zoning designations of Limited Industrial or General Industrial located within the CDI Overlay Zone, mandates minimum setbacks of 500 feet for CDI facilities abutting land zoned Residential, and requires applicants to demonstrate that they will minimize the impact of their development to the maximum extent practicable with respect to visual impact, impact on certain other types of local properties, impact on fragile ecosystems and watersheds, impact on recreational amenities and parks, and impact on “overburdened communities and underserved communities”; • amended § 1-19-8.403 of the Code, which addresses CDI electrical substations, to recognize the new CDI Overlay Zone and limit such substations to tracts within that zone; • enacted a new § 1-19-10.1100 of the Code to establish the CDI Overlay Zone. That subsection authorizes the County Council to create a CDI Overlay Zone “with the boundaries established by ordinance and identified on the Zoning Map[,]” limited to “lands with a comprehensive plan land use designation of Limited Industrial (LI) or General Industrial (GI) uses.” Id. § 1-19- 10.1100(B)(1), (2). The new subsection required the Council to “consider proximity to schools, colleges and universities, daycare centers, healthcare 11 facilities, and residential uses[,]” and limited the Overlay Zone to “less than 1% of the total land area of the County.” Id. § 1-19-10.1100(B)(3), (4). The Council enacted Bill 25-09 on September 2, 2025, and the County Executive approved it ten days later. Bill 25-09. As required under Charter § 307(a), the Bill was given an effective date of November 1, 2025, 60 days after the date of its adoption. Id. Following the adoption of Bill 25-09, the Frederick County Planning Commission certified a comprehensive plan amendment to the County Council, which held two days of public hearings on the plan amendment and proposed rezoning. The County Council approved amendments to the plan and directed preparation of a rezoning ordinance that would effectuate the changes and establish the contours of the Overlay Zone. County Council of Frederick County Meeting Minutes, Dec. 23, 2025, https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=112#docaccess8cb65518b, archived at https://perma.cc/8ATT-SFDM. After conducting public hearings and receiving comments and other correspondence, the County Council enacted both Resolution 26-01, which adopted the comprehensive plan amendment; and the CDI Ordinance, which amended the zoning boundary map to (1) locate the Overlay Zone and (2) identify the zoning designations of parcels within and immediately surrounding the Overlay Zone. In effect, the Overlay Zone would act as a floating zone in which properties located within it would “continue to have a base zoning designation, such as Agricultural or Limited Industrial, and property owners can continue to use their property in accordance with their zoning.” Livable Frederick Planning & Design Off., Frederick County, Md., Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay 12 Zone: An Amendment of the Livable Frederick Comprehensive Plan, at 1 (2025). However, property owners with property designated Limited Industrial or General Industrial within that floating zone would now have the option to pursue data center development. Id.; see Frederick County, Md., Code § 1-19-10.1100(B)(6)(a) (“Individual zoning map amendments for properties located within the Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay Zone shall be subject to the approval criteria” in the County Code). The CDI Ordinance recited that the Planning Commission had “engaged in a comprehensive review of the zoning and land use designations of the properties within the [CDI] Overlay Zone Planning Area[,]” and that property owners and planning department staff had “requested changes to zoning and land use designations of numerous properties within the Planning Area[.]” Frederick County, Md., Ord. 26-01-001. The Ordinance also recited the procedure that the Council had followed in considering the recommendations and extensive feedback, and that the Council had determined that the changes set forth in two maps attached as an exhibit were consistent with the comprehensive plan. Id. The Council therefore “enacted and ordained” the “zoning and land use designation” set forth on the attached exhibits, which contained two maps. Id. (citation modified). The first map, titled “Council Adopted Critical Data Infrastructure (CDI) Overlay Zone,” depicts the boundaries of the CDI Overlay Zone, encompassing approximately 2,614.9 acres, marked by a bold yellow line. The second map, titled “Council Adopted Zoning,” covers the same geographic area and identifies the zoning of properties on it using 10 different colors. The maps, each of which was attached to the Ordinance on full 8 1/2 by 11-inch pages, are: 13 14 A comparison of the two maps showed the inclusion of areas designated Agricultural, Limited Industrial, and General Industrial within the Overlay Zone, and areas with those same designations, as well as areas designated Resource Conservation, Residential, Planned Unit Development, Village Center, Mineral Mining, and Institutional just outside of the Overlay Zone. Both the Resolution and the CDI Ordinance were adopted by the Council on January 20, 2026 and made effective that same day. Neither was presented to the County Executive for approval. Also on January 20, the Frederick County Attorney advised the County Executive and Council that neither the Resolution nor the CDI Ordinance was a “law” subject to referendum under the Charter. According to the County Attorney, since Frederick County became a charter county, “the Council has never treated resolutions or ordinances as ‘laws’ subject to the formal Bill process or to referendum.” From our review, it appears that the County Council has acted consistent with the County Attorney’s representation since the Charter took effect. As reflected on the County Council’s website, it categorizes its actions as Bills, Ordinances, and Resolutions. County Council, Frederick County Gov’t, https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/591/County-Council, archived at https://perma.cc/ZXR5-9N98. Bills—which appear to exclusively concern changes to the County Code—all follow the process laid out in Article 3 of the Charter, including bearing effective dates at least 60 days after their adoption by the Council and presentation to the 15 County Executive for approval.3 Ordinances, by contrast, including all matters relating to specific zoning decisions, do not appear to follow the Article 3 process.4 Although some ordinances reflect that they were sent to the County Executive for approval, see, e.g., Ordinance 19-02-002, all the ordinances we reviewed—other than the Annual Budget and Appropriations Ordinance, which is required to have an effective date of “the first day of the fiscal year,” Charter § 307(a)—are identified as becoming effective the same day they were adopted. Matters addressed by resolution also do not appear to follow the process set forth in Article 3 of the Charter.5 D. Referendum Petition & the Election Director’s Certification The day following the Council’s adoption of the CDI Ordinance, the Referendum Committee submitted a draft referendum petition to the Frederick County Board of Elections for an advance determination of petition sufficiency. See Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-202(a)(1) (2022 Repl.) (“The format of the petition prepared by a sponsor may be submitted to the chief election official of the appropriate election authority, in advance of 3 See, e.g., Bill 26-01; Bill 26-02; see also Council Bills 2026, Frederick County Gov’t, https://frederickcountymd.gov/9176/Council-Bills-2026, archived at https://perma.cc/TN2Q-DWL6 (listing and linking to recent Bills). 4 See, e.g., Ordinance 16-01-001; Ordinance 19-02-002; see also County Council Ordinances, Frederick County Gov’t, https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=122, archived at https://perma.cc/S573-AFU3 (listing and linking to all historical County ordinances). 5 See, e.g., Resolution 15-01; Resolution 17-05; Resolution 21-20; see also County Council Resolutions, Frederick County Gov’t, https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=123, archived at https://perma.cc/EF3N-VKK7 (listing and linking to all historical County resolutions). 16 filing the petition, for a determination of its sufficiency.”). The petition included a form signature page provided by the State Board of Elections and a black-and-white reproduction of the two-page ordinance and its two exhibits. All four pages were reduced in size and reproduced on a single page to fit on the opposite side of each petition signature page, as follows: 17 18 The County Election Director provided an advance determination that the petition was “sufficient as to format only.” The Referendum Committee provided volunteer petition circulators with in-person training and a training manual. In addition to the petitions, the Committee required all circulators to have both (1) a physical copy of the full text of the CDI Ordinance and (2) a QR code that linked to the CDI Ordinance on the County website. The circulators were also provided with a checklist, which reminded them to ensure that each voter was aware of the ordinance being referred for referendum and to have the full CDI Ordinance available to read. In March 2026, the Referendum Committee timely submitted to the Board of Elections the referendum petition with 24,053 signatures. The Board of Elections reviewed and validated 21,029 of those signatures, enough to comfortably exceed the seven percent threshold set by the Charter. In a one-page letter to the Committee, the Election Director stated that she had reviewed the petition for compliance with § 6-206(c) of the Election Law Article. That provision sets out potential deficiencies that require a chief election official to “declare that the petition is deficient,” including if it is untimely, does not meet signature requirements, does not meet form requirements, is not on a subject authorized for referendum, or fails to meet other legal requirements. The Election Director determined that the petition was not deficient in all areas but one, which was whether “the use of a petition for the subject matter of the petition is not authorized by law[.]” See Elec. Law § 6-206(c)(5)(i). On that issue, the Election Director stated that she was unable to reach a 19 determination either way. However, relying on a so-called “presumption of sufficiency,” the Election Director concluded that because she was “unable to make a determination of a deficiency, the petition is sufficient[.]” E. Judicial Review & Declaratory Judgment in the Circuit Court Over the next week, the Referendum Opponents filed in the Circuit Court for Frederick County petitions for judicial review of the Election Director’s certification of the referendum petition. The Referendum Opponents also sought declaratory relief concerning the sufficiency of the petition and, alternatively, a writ of mandamus ordering the Election Director to make a proper determination as to whether the CDI Ordinance was subject to referendum. The Respondents-Defendants in the actions were the Referendum Committee, the Board of Elections, and the Election Director. The circuit court consolidated the petitions and heard them together. The Referendum Opponents first argued that the CDI Ordinance is not a “law” subject to referendum under the Charter, nor was it enacted “pursuant to” the Charter for purposes of § 308(a). They also argued that the referendum petition was insufficient because, among other reasons, it did not include the “full and accurate text” of the law as required by § 308(b). The Referendum Opponents contended that the small size of the text of the Ordinance and the use of black-and-white, rather than color, maps rendered the reproduction less than full and accurate. The Referendum Committee, Board of Elections, and the Election Director responded that the CDI Ordinance is a law subject to referendum, that it was enacted pursuant to the Charter, and that the petition was sufficient. 20 In addition to hearing legal argument, the circuit court admitted thousands of pages of evidence, including the petition signature pages and numerous documents related to the petition drive, and heard testimony from witnesses, including Mr. Steve Black, the co-chair of the Referendum Committee. During questioning by counsel for the Referendum Opponents, Mr. Black agreed that it was necessary to refer to the maps “to fully understand the meaning and import of the ordinance[.]” He also agreed that the black-and-white reproductions of the maps on the printed petitions made it difficult to tell what color was designated to each zone on the zoning map. And he acknowledged that the Committee thought “extensively” about whether to use color or black-and-white maps, and had been urged by some supporters to use color maps. Presented with numerous petitions in the record, Mr. Black conceded that none were fully legible. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Referendum Opponents. The court first concluded that the CDI Ordinance was not a “law” subject to referendum under the Charter. The court concluded that the plain language of the Charter was ambiguous but resolved the ambiguity using legislative history. Specifically, the court found persuasive the views expressed by members of the Charter Board during a meeting in December 2011. At that meeting, after discussion, the members declined to include zoning as an express exception from the referendum power only so as not to, in the words of the circuit court, “confuse the public into thinking anything about land use was changing.” According to the Charter Board members, by adopting the land use provisions in the Maryland Code that then applied to the County, nothing about zoning would change, rendering an express exception 21 for zoning irrelevant. Instead, the Charter Board elected to highlight the adoption of the Land Use Article prominently in the Charter. The court thus distilled from the members’ comments that “the Charter Board decided to continue the practice in Frederick County of not allowing referendums on zoning matters” but to not include an express exception for zoning to avoid confusing the public. The court also concluded that the petition was legally deficient because it failed to contain the “full and accurate text” of the CDI Ordinance, as required by Charter § 308(b). Because “[k]nowing where the computer data centers may be located is critical to understanding” the CDI Ordinance, the court found “the Referendum Committee’s failure to include the colorized maps in its petition to be fatal to its attempt to bring [the CDI Ordinance] to referendum.” Accordingly, the circuit court issued an order that (1) reversed the Election Director’s decision to certify the CDI Ordinance for referendum; (2) declared that, “pursuant to the Charter of Frederick County, [the CDI Ordinance] is not a subject matter about which a referendum may be pursued;” and (3) declared “that the Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee’s referendum petition is deficient pursuant to” Election Law § 6-206(c)(6) “because it fails to provide a ‘full and accurate text of the law’ as required by Frederick County Charter, Article 3, § 308(b)[.]” The Referendum Committee noted a direct appeal to this Court. The Board of Elections and the Election Director did not appeal. After expedited briefing and arguments, 22 we affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in a June 30, 2026 order. We now explain the basis for that order. DISCUSSION I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The primary issue before us—the interpretation of a county charter—is a question of law which we review without deference. Prince George’s County v. Thurston, 479 Md. 575, 585 (2022). “We give no deference to the circuit cou