The fate of an effort to redevelop Baltimore’s Inner Harbor will be decided by the state’s highest court after attorneys argued Wednesday whether votes for a Baltimore ballot question tied to that development should be counted.

The Supreme Court of Maryland is expected to swiftly make a decision.

The initiative, known as Question F, would allow developer MCB Real Estate to revamp the city’s waterfront by replacing its aging shopping and dining pavilions with four taller buildings with office space, including a conjoined 32-story tower with 900 apartments and off-street parking. It also would add a new park and two-tier promenades and realign city roadways. Voters must approve the question to allow the land to be rezoned, much of which was preserved as parkland by charter amendments passed in the 1970s.

A group of city residents, represented by attorney Thiru Vignarajah, successfully challenged the question last month. Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Catherine Vitale sided with them, ruling the question’s wording was too confusing and not “proper charter material.” Election officials had already mailed out ballots with the question on it, but they could not certify those vote tallies, she said.

The state Board of Elections, joined by MCB Real Estate managing partner P. David Bramble and the city, appealed, arguing Vitale’s decision improperly restricted the Baltimore City Council’s legislative authority and caused “ballot chaos” by validating a legal challenge less than two months before Election Day. Vignarajah, a four-time failed city office seeker, tried to propose a ballot amendment that would prevent Harborplace’s development by preserving it as a park. That effort, which would have reversed what he called the city’s “backroom deal with Bramble,” failed to gather enough signatures to qualify.

Baltimore officials and business leaders, including Mayor Brandon Scott, have supported Bramble’s plan since he first unveiled it a year ago. They argue the ambitious proposal would shape Harborplace’s future and “showcase the best of Baltimore.” The state has pledged $67.5 million toward the project, which Bramble estimates will require about $900 million, almost half of it in public funds.

Critics, including the Inner Harbor Coalition, say it would privatize the city waterfront. Scott countered that Harborplace had deteriorated over the last 20 years and that opponents only got involved “the moment a Black man from West Baltimore decides to intervene.”

During oral arguments Wednesday, Vignarajah argued against Dan Kobrin, an attorney with the Maryland State Attorney General representing the State Board of Elections, and chief city solicitor Michael Redmond over the timing of the challenge. The three cited case law that often veered in technicalities, while the seven-judge panel asked clarifying questions but did not appear to side with either party.

“When a voter opens their ballot, they should be confident in it,” Kobrin said. “Litigation this late erodes confidence in the ballot.”

The challenge also denied the city its “right to self-determination,” Redmond said, a refrain Scott used when announcing the city’s intent to appeal Vitale’s “disrespectful” decision last month.

Redmond also argued against Vignarajah’s point that the initiative would effectively privatize the waterfront.

“It’s a false assertion” that the amendment is a zoning issue, Redmond said. “It makes a restriction slightly less so.” The charter protects parts of the Inner Harbor from development, including 29 acres of green space.

Vignarajah pushed back against Kobrin and Redmond’s contention that his challenge came too late. His clients had “searched like hawks,” trying several avenues to obtain the language of the question that would appear on the ballot before challenging it. Even Baltimore media outlets had trouble locating a copy, Vignarajah said, after the city solicitor certified the ballot language on Aug. 2, a strategic move he conceded after the hearing that “may have worked.”

Part of Kobrin’s argument that the challenge was too late hinged upon a typo in an email Tony Ambridge, Vignarajah’s main client, had sent to city solicitors seeking a copy of the ballot language. In his email, Ambridge had written the due date was Sept. 2 when he meant to write Aug. 2, Vignarajah said.

“I sure hope this doesn’t come down to a typo in an email,” he said after the hearing. “My impression is that members of the media asked for this language between August and September, and were denied it. That is a vital, important fact. We are cautiously optimistic that the justices realize that repeatedly emailing public officials asking for this information being rebuffed should be enough, and that that would therefore understandably allow the challenge to move.”

Both Kobrin and Redmond declined to comment after the hearing. Neither Baltimore Election Director Armstead Jones nor his deputy, Abigail Goldman, responded to requests for comment.

Baltimore Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis also declined to comment specifically on the arguments, referring a reporter to Kobrin and Redmond.

“I’m looking forward to a quick resolution on the matter,” DeMarinis said.

The court is expected to issue a decision soon.

Have a news tip? Contact Lia Russell at lrussell@baltsun.com, 667-334-9198 and x.com/LiaOffLeash.