Baltimore voters will get to decide whether a private developer can remake the Inner Harbor after the Maryland Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision.

Thursday’s ruling means voters will cast ballots on a charter amendment titled “Question F” which would ease restrictions on what MCB Real Estate, a private company, can build at the site of the existing Harborplace pavilions.

Last month, former Maryland Deputy Attorney General Thiru Vignarajah challenged the development proposal in Anne Arundel Circuit Court when he filed a lawsuit against the state board of elections on behalf of a group of concerned Baltimore residents. Vignarajah’s group, including former City Councilman Anthony “Tony” Ambridge, asked whether the proposed ballot question was written in a way voters could understand, and if it was permissible under Maryland law.

Anne Arundel County Judge Cathleen Vitale, a former Republican lawmaker, sided with Vignarajah and suggested the city had overstepped its bounds. Vitale allowed the question to remain on the ballot, but ordered the votes not to be counted.

But the Supreme Court found Vitale was wrong in her decision, determining the city has the legal authority to put the question on the ballot.

The legal challenge was an attempt to temporarily halt the construction of five new buildings — a mix of retail, office and residential space — along a completely reimagined waterfront promenade. The tallest would be two towers stretching 25 and 32 stories and containing up to 900 residential units. The amendment would also reconfigure the surrounding roadway, reducing the number of lanes, and allow for off-street parking to be built.

P. David Bramble, a Baltimore native, heads MCB Real Estate and had city and state backing for his grand plans. Bramble has donated to Mayor Brandon Scott and Gov. Wes Moore’s campaigns, and both joined him in announcing the plans a year ago.

The total cost of Bramble’s proposal is estimated to be around $900 million, with $400 million coming from taxpayers in a hypothetical mix of funds.

“We’re thrilled that the Maryland Supreme Court saw through this charade of opposition-at-any-cost and ruled that Baltimore’s residents were capable of making their voices heard on the future of Harborplace,” Bryan Doherty, Scott’s communications director, said on behalf of the mayor’s office. “This revitalization is long-overdue, and we are looking forward to this ballot question passing so we can ensure the future of one of our City’s best assets remains bright.”

Bramble, in a statement, said MCB was always confident the court would rule in its favor and that he and his partners look forward to voters approving the ballot question in November.

Vignarajah, in a text message, said while he is disappointed in the court’s ruling, he and his group will shift their focus to outreach efforts and encouraging residents to vote against the ballot question. It’s also possible Vignarajah tries to organize a 2026 ballot measure to undo this one, he said.

“We lost a legal battle today but the war to protect our city’s parks from private developers is far from over,” he wrote.

During arguments before the court on Wednesday, the justices thoroughly questioned Vignarajah over the merits of his argument, much like they did in August when hearing challenges to proposed charter amendments that would have cut the city’s property tax rate and created a fund to provide cash assistance to new parents. The core issue in all three cases was for the courts to determine whether the proposals were proper “charter material,” meaning whether they belonged in a city or county charter, which is a sort of local constitution.

The argument over Harborplace, though, was different because the ballot question originated with the City Council and not a citizen petition, and there is little case law regarding challenges about constitutionality for ballot questions that originate from legislative bodies.

Broadly speaking, legislatures have far more latitude on what they can put to voters to approve or disapprove in charters because they are the body that make laws. It’s why, for example, gambling and marijuana use are in the Maryland constitution.

In other words, Vignarajah was largely left to argue his case on the merits, to which the four-time candidate for citywide office did with gusto. Acknowledging that the court was dealing with a “blank slate,” he suggested that some things, like whether lawmakers should have term limits, are good questions for voters to decide and that others, like Harborplace, aren’t.

“Whether or not something should have multifamily housing and parking garages is not actually a question that is well submitted to the people, which is why it ought to be dealt with by the legislature,” Vignarajah said.

The original creation of public space around the Inner Harbor was done in 1978, also by charter amendment. The area is known in the city’s charter as “Inner Harbor Park,” which it describes as “from the World Trade Center around the shoreline of the Inner Harbor and including Rash Field.” Because it is already in the charter, an amendment is needed to permit development that isn’t already explicitly allowed.

The city and state argued three major points against Vignarajah: that he and his group brought their challenge too late in the elections process (he filed his case the day before ballots were set to be printed); that Baltimore’s elected officials were well within their rights to put this question before voters; and that the language, while being a bit dense, is clear.

“An average Baltimorean would know exactly what this language is saying,” said Michael Redmond, a city attorney.

Wednesday’s proceedings were a bit toned-down compared to some of the legal filings the city made ahead of time in which they took serious issue with Vignarajah’s attempt to paint the ballot language as “gibberish” and “word salad.”

“Clever and ambitious lawyers can use their skill to make even the most straightforward language a mess,” city attorneys wrote in one filing. “This kind of sophistry is a curious intellectual party trick, but it has no bearing on whether Baltimore City voters will understand what is being asked of them when they cast their ballots.”

The court fight was also not Vignarajah’s first attempt to block the Harborplace charter amendment. Over the summer he unsuccessfully led his own petition drive to put a competing measure on the ballot that would block all development in 20 city parks.

The court’s ruling was likely the only thing that stood between Harborplace being redeveloped.

As Vignarajah said in court: “Everyone is aware that virtually every one of these charter amendments gets passed.”

Baltimore Banner reporter Adam Willis contributed to this article.