Maryland voters deserve an honest ballot. They deserve an honest description of what they are being asked to approve. They deserve a General Assembly that follows the laws it writes. And they deserve courts that enforce those laws — not courts that see a bad pitch coming, call it bad, then step out from behind the plate, grab the bat themselves and try to put it in play anyway. That is what makes the Supreme Court of Maryland’s decision on Question 3 so troubling: The umpire did not simply make the call. It joined the game.

The court’s decision to keep Question 3 on the November ballot should concern every Marylander, regardless of party. As I review the opinion, I have serious doubts whether constitutional government still means what it says. You would feel the same way too. Any ordinary citizen would be justified in asking whether the legislature itself must obey the law. That same citizen has reason to question whether voters are entitled to candid notice of what their government is doing. And all of us should be concerned about the continued erosion of the separation of powers when courts decide to rescue the political branches from the consequences of their own catastrophes.

The lower courts were clear. They found more than just a trivial typo or a harmless defect in this redistricting amendment. They identified three separate and serious problems with Question 3.

First, the circuit courts concluded that the language of Question 3 was misleading and did not provide Maryland voters adequate constitutional notice of what they were being asked to approve.

Second, the courts concluded that the General Assembly failed to enact the measure in time to meet the requirements established by the Election Law Article.

Third, the courts concluded that Question 3 violated the Maryland Constitution’s single-subject requirement.

In other words: the wording was defective, the process was defective and the constitutional structure of the question itself was defective.

Those findings matter because ballot questions are not ordinary legislation. Despite how the Democratic leadership attempted to portray it, constitutional amendments remain a big deal. They are not campaign slogans and press conference zingers. They are direct appeals to the people.

And when government asks the people to amend their own constitution, government has a higher duty to speak plainly, proceed lawfully and make certain the public understands the consequences of its vote.

The court admitted the ballot language was misleading. That should have ended the matter. They should’ve just imposed the remedy and returned to chambers. But rather than judging, the court effectively stripped off its robes, crossed the street to the State House, cracked open the door to the legislative drafting office, made themselves comfortable and began writing a workaround. It rewrote the ballot language itself and then preserved the measure it had already acknowledged was misleading. Their job was to say, “This is wrong, and the law does not permit it.” Their job was not to don the hat of a legislative assistant and say, “How can we rewrite this so it survives?”

Judges wear robes for a reason. They are supposed to judge the work in front of them, not take off the robes, head downstairs to the drafting room and repair it themselves.

At oral argument, it was clear that the justices did not look favorably upon the General Assembly’s effort to hide the ball from Maryland voters. The original question did not plainly disclose that voters were being asked to strip away state constitutional protections that can be used to challenge partisan congressional gerrymandering. Nor did it adequately explain the practical difference between Maryland’s independent constitutional protections and the far more limited federal protections that would remain.

Question 3 is about far more than a congressional map or which political party holds power. The real question is whether Marylanders should amend their constitution and surrender independent state constitutional protections without being told, in plain English, exactly what they are giving up.

And there is an even more basic question: Should we hand government the keys to rewrite its own job description — and then allow it to disregard the voters whenever their answer is inconvenient?

That is not a technical dispute over maps. It is a question of who is ultimately in charge: the government, or the people who created it.

By the end, the problem is easy to see. The court was supposed to stand behind the plate, call the pitch and enforce the rules. It recognized that the pitch was bad. But instead of calling the batter out and sending the matter back where it belonged, the umpire picked up the bat, stepped into the box and swung at the same terrible pitch. Courts are not supposed to rescue bad pitches, rewrite the strike zone or take swings for the legislature. Their job is to make the call. And when the umpire starts batting for one side, Marylanders should have no trouble deciding what to do with Question 3: Vote no.

Jonathan M. Alexandre serves as legislative counsel for the Maryland Family Institute.