This is the 15^th in the series of articles in MacRo’s AI Corner focusing on the data center industry in Frederick County. Over the course of the last 2 years, our government has engaged the community in countless hours of discussion and planning over the matter of properly managing the placement and growth of data centers in the county. Despite that effort, several individuals felt compelled to oppose the progress that has been made.  From that a referendum ballot initiative drive garnered enough signatures to be considered by the Frederick County Board of Elections.   This post examines a newly filed lawsuit challenging the Frederick County data center referendum, outlining why the plaintiffs argue the measure is legally invalid due to fundamental flaws in its authorization, certification, and petition process.

The recently filed lawsuit challenging the proposed data center referendum in Frederick County is not just another political disagreement—it is a direct and substantive legal challenge that raises serious doubts about whether this referendum should appear on the ballot at all.

Filed by Quantum Maryland, LLC and Joan Aquilino, a Frederick County voter and Charter drafter, the complaint presents a compelling case that the referendum process, as carried out, is legally flawed in multiple fundamental ways.

At its core, the lawsuit argues that the Board of Elections’ decision to certify the petition was not just questionable — it was legally unsupportable.

1. The Ordinance Is Not Subject to Referendum

The first—and arguably most significant — argument is straightforward:

Ordinance 26-01-001 is not a “law” subject to referendum under the Frederick County Charter.

The Charter’s referendum provision (§ 308) applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Charter’s formal legislative process, meaning bills adopted under §§ 301–310. The ordinance at issue, however, was not enacted as a bill. It was adopted as a zoning map amendment under Maryland’s Land Use Article—a routine administrative process the County has used for decades.

The key distinction is this:

• Bill 25-09, which created the CDI Overlay Zone in September of 2025, was a law subject to referendum.
• The referendum committee did not act within the required 60-day window to challenge that bill.
• Instead, it is now attempting to target an implementing ordinance, which is not independently subject to referendum.

The plaintiffs argue, convincingly, that this is a back-door attempt to undo legislation that was not timely challenged when it legally could have been.

If that argument holds, the referendum should never have been accepted in the first place.

2. The Board of Elections Failed Its Legal Duty

The second issue is procedural—but no less critical.

Election Director Barbara Wagner acknowledged that she was “unable to make a determination” as to whether the petition was authorized by law. Despite that, the petition was certified based on what was described as a “presumption of sufficiency.”

The problem is:

Maryland election law contains no such presumption.

The Director had a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to determine whether the petition was legally authorized before certification. According to the lawsuit, failing to make that determination—and certifying anyway—is itself grounds to invalidate the process.

This is not a minor technicality. It goes directly to whether the referendum was properly vetted before being advanced toward the ballot.

3. The Petition Itself Is Defective

The third issue goes to the integrity of the petition itself.

The lawsuit alleges that:

• The ordinance text included in the petition was reproduced at such a reduced scale that it was effectively illegible, preventing signers from meaningfully reviewing what they were signing.
• Circulators made material misrepresentations about the scope of the referendum—suggesting it applied only to a 1,000-acre expansion and would not affect ongoing construction.

In reality, voiding the ordinance could eliminate the mapped CDI Overlay Zone entirely, with potential consequences for hundreds of millions of dollars in existing development.

If these claims are substantiated, it raises a fundamental issue:

Were voters accurately informed about what they were being asked to support?

A Process That Cannot Be Ignored

Taken together, these three points present a serious legal challenge:

• The measure may not be subject to referendum at all
• The certification process may have been improperly executed
• The petition itself may be fundamentally flawed

This is not simply a policy dispute. It is a question of whether the legal framework governing referendums has been followed.

Conclusion

The referendum process is a powerful tool—but it is also one that must be used carefully and in strict compliance with the law.

Based on the arguments presented, this lawsuit makes a strong case that those standards were not met.

If the courts agree, the appropriate outcome is clear:

The referendum should not move forward to the ballot.

Become a MacRo Insider

Rocky Mackintosh, Broker of MacRo, LTD has been advising regional landowners, investors, and institutions for over 50 years.  He has been an active member of the Frederick community for over five decades. He has served on a number of as community organization boards and chairman, including as a member of the Frederick County Charter Board from 2010 to 2012.  He has firsthand experience supporting nationally recognized hyperscalers with site search and selection services throughout the Mid-Atlantic.