This is the 18th in MacRo’s AI Corner series on data centers in Frederick County. In our April 15th post, we examined the lawsuit filed by Quantum Maryland, LLC and Frederick County voter Joan Aquilino — a compelling case arguing that the data center zoning ordinance is not legally subject to a citizen referendum. That filing was just the beginning.

In total, five separate lawsuits were filed between April 10 and 13, 2026, all challenging the Frederick County Board of Elections’ decision to certify the referendum petition targeting Ordinance 26-01-001 — the zoning map that established the Critical Digital Infrastructure Overlay Zone. On May 13th, the Frederick Circuit Court consolidated all five cases into a single proceeding. The plaintiffs include several companies owning land inside the overlay zone — Quantum Maryland, LLC, Windridge Properties, NDR Properties, Frederick Data Owner, LLC, and three Rowan Frederick LLCs — as well as individual registered Frederick County voters, among them are Joan Aquilino, Justin Cassity, Theodore Butz, and David Pleasants.

Two of those filings — by the Rowan Frederick entities and by Frederick Data Owner/Justin Cassity — share the same core legal theory as the Quantum case but bring distinct additional arguments worth examining.

What All Five Cases Agree On

Every complaint targets the same April 3rd letter from Election Director Barbara Wagner certifying the petition as sufficient. And every complaint makes the same foundational argument: Ordinance 26-01-001 is not a “law” within the meaning of Section 308 of the Frederick County Charter and therefore cannot legally be subjected to a referendum. The ordinance took effect immediately, was never introduced as a written bill, and was never presented to the County Executive for signature or veto — none of the hallmarks of Charter-enacted legislation.

All five filings also point to the same pivotal fact: Frederick County’s own attorney told the Council on the very day the ordinance was signed that neither it nor the companion resolution would be subject to a valid referendum petition. The Board approved the petition anyway.

What the Later Filings Add

The Rowan Frederick complaint makes a clean, focused version of the “not a law” argument. The Frederick Data Owner/Cassity filing goes further, raising three additional grounds: that overturning the zoning map by popular vote would violate Maryland’s established comprehensive planning law; that the Board mishandled the petition review process; and that signatories were materially misled — told the referendum targeted only a portion of the ordinance when in fact it referred the entire thing.

Why This Is a Winning Argument

Taken together, the five consolidated cases present a formidable challenge. The argument is that Maryland courts have consistently held that referendum authority extends only as far as a charter explicitly allows. Frederick County’s Charter limits referendum to laws “enacted pursuant to this Charter” meaning bills, vetoes, and 60-day effective periods. The ordinance cleared none of those bars.

The County Attorney’s independent memo — issued before any lawsuit was filed — reaches the same conclusion and will be difficult for any court to dismiss. Add Maryland’s well-established requirement that zoning maps align with adopted comprehensive plans, and the legal case for keeping this referendum off the ballot is appears to be strong on multiple fronts.

The consolidation of all five cases means the court will now weigh the full weight of these arguments at once.

Rocky Mackintosh is the owner of MacRo, Ltd., a commercial and industrial real estate brokerage based in Frederick, Maryland. He served on the Frederick County Charter Board from 2010 to 2012.