A ballot question intended to clear the way for the redevelopment of Baltimore’s Harborplace violates the Maryland Constitution, a circuit court judge ruled Monday, days after the state began printing ballots.

The decision issued by Anne Arundel County Judge Cathleen Vitale from the bench found that the proposal, which would amend the city’s charter to allow for residential development and off-street parking along the Inner Harbor, was not “proper charter material.” Vitale also found the wording of the proposed ballot question was indiscernible for the average city resident.

Vitale said the question can remain on ballots this fall, but the results will not be certified. She denied a request from challengers to conceal the results of the question.

The Supreme Court of Maryland may be asked to hear an appeal of the case. The timeline for that decision would be relatively short. Ballots are due to be sent to Maryland voters beginning Sept. 23. An attorney representing the Maryland State Board of Elections said he could not comment on the case Monday. The board has scheduled an emergency meeting for 4:30 p.m. Tuesday.

If the decision stands, it would be another two years before the Baltimore City Council could try again to place the question on the ballot.

The challenge was brought by former mayoral candidate Thiru Vignarajah on behalf of a group of 20 city residents. The group argued the wording of the question is confusing and misleading. Vignarajah made a secondary argument that the question was not a permissible amendment to the charter. Amendments must adjust the form and function of city government.

The ballot question, known as Question F, is needed to clear the way for an ambitious proposal from Baltimore developer MCB Real Estate to replace the aging shopping and dining pavilions on the city’s waterfront. Led by Baltimore native P. David Bramble, the group hopes to build four taller, mixed-use buildings, including a conjoined tower stretching 32 stories. MCB’s plan calls for 900 apartments and office space on the site along with a large new park space, a two-tier promenade and realigned roadways.

A representative for MCB said the company would have no comment following the ruling.

Mayor Brandon Scott’s office called the challenge a “spurious attempt by opponents of the project to derail it by any means necessary.”

“We’re confident the state will appeal and win,” they said.

The challengers expressed surprise at the ruling. Former Baltimore City Councilman Tony Ambridge, who was the lead petitioner, called the decision “remarkable.”

“To have it upheld like this shows the system works,” he said.

Vitale, a former Republican state lawmaker, several times signaled her support for the challengers during the almost four-hour hearing in Annapolis. (State law requires legal challenges to ballot questions to be brought in Anne Arundel County.) Reading aloud from the ballot question’s wording, Vitale said she “got a little lost.”

“What are they talking about?” she said as she concluded reading. Some challengers in the courtroom applauded before Vitale quieted them.

As printed on the ballot, the question gives a detailed geographical description of the Inner Harbor area and states that it will be amended to allow “for eating places, commercial uses, multifamily residential development and off-street parking with the areas used for multifamily dwellings and off-street parking as excluded from the area dedicated as a public park or for public benefit.” The commercial uses are already permitted. Residential development and parking are not.

Vignarajah took issue with the need for a detailed description. Vitale said she studied a map ahead of Monday’s hearing to try to get her bearings.

Dan Kobrin, an attorney with the Maryland State Attorney General who represented the Maryland State Board of Elections, argued the board was not required to conduct a more detailed review of the ballot question’s language.

In her ruling, Vitale disagreed. “I do not think the legislature intended for the state board to be no more than a rubber stamp,” she said.

The Baltimore City Council placed the Harborplace question on the ballot by a near unanimous vote in March with advice from the city’s attorneys who felt it would require an amendment to change the zoning for the waterfront property. Baltimore already has language related to Harborplace in its charter. It was added in the 1970s to clear the way for the pavilions there now. Another amendment was added in 2016.

Vitale signaled that the old language, too, might not be proper charter material.

“Whether or not to continue taking inappropriate steps to modify something that shouldn’t be there isn’t necessarily the appropriate course of action,” she said.

During Monday night’s meeting of the City Council, Councilman Eric Costello, the charter amendment’s sponsor, fired back at Vitale’s decision calling it “an outrage and an affront to the sovereignty of the city of Baltimore.” Allowing city voters to weigh in on the question and then not certifying their votes would be “voter suppression at its worst,” he said.

“This is no longer a question about Inner Harbor Park,” he said. “This is a question of our ability to govern ourselves as duly elected members of this city’s legislative body.”