MARYLAND: Legislative leaders urged to ensure public access - specific recommendations from advocates for Open Government
Advocates for Open Government call on Senate and House Leadership to ensure public access during the 2022 legislative session
Suggest COVID-19 protocol improvements, and to make increased access permanent
With the legislative session scheduled to begin in less than a week, Common Cause MD, ACLU of Maryland, CASA, League of Women Voters of MD, NAACP Baltimore City Branch and MDDC Press Association are calling on both the Senate and House of Delegates to improve their COVID-19 protocols. The organizations today outlined reasonable recommendations and feedback that will help eliminate confusion and ensure the public can observe and participate remotely in both chambers during the full 90-day legislative session.
On Wednesday, the Senate and House of Delegates released COVID-19 protocols for the 2022 regular legislative session. Based on these guidelines, the House of Delegates has chosen to move forward with a hybrid process that includes in-person access to the Office Building and virtual access to committee proceedings throughout the entirety of the 90-day legislative session. The Senate has chosen to move forward with a more confusing process that includes hybrid for the first 30 days, with no ability for virtual participation for the remainder of the legislative session.
According to the organizations, the public’s ability to meaningfully and safely participate in the legislative process must be a priority as the Maryland General Assembly continues to navigate the COVID-19 public health crisis.
“The public health crisis forced the legislature to take steps to establish a more open and accessible process. But these changes should have been implemented long before the pandemic,” said Joanne Antoine, Executive Director of Common Cause Maryland. “The newest Senate protocols will roll back this level of access after 30 days. Those who can’t come to Annapolis will be excluded from the legislative process. As COVID-19 numbers continue to rise, it will be difficult for many people who are considered high risk to participate. We must do better than this. Let’s learn from 2021 and make permanent a hybrid process that allows for meaningful participation both in-person and remotely.”
“While last year’s session also faced challenges, it brought out the positive impact that virtual engagement gives the residents of Maryland in the ability to testify,” said Nikki Tyree, Executive Director of League of Women Voters MD. “The Senate introducing these new restrictive and tone deaf rules raises the question if they are looking to keep that transparency.”
“Marylanders need our elected officials and legislative process to be open and accountable, which is why it’s critical that the voting sessions and delegation meetings are live streamed throughout the entire legislative session,” Yanet Amanuel, ACLU of Maryland Interim Public Policy Director said. “It’s an important aspect of the legislative process that determines the outcome of a bill and should be transparent and accessible to the people.”
“The technology that we have opens access to our government,” said Reverend Kobi Little, President of NAACP Baltimore City Branch. “We must continue to utilize that technology during the entirety of this legislative session and going forward in future years.”
“The House and Senate should do everything in their power to ensure that everyone has equal access to the legislative process – including providing real solutions to those who are non-English speaking,” said Cathryn Paul, CASA Government Relations and Public Policy Manager. “The most marginalized Marylanders, those facing the greatest hardships, need access to their representatives now more than ever.”
Recommendations for both the House of Delegates and Senate:
- Bill Analysis: Fiscal and policy notes must be made available on the MGA website prior to the 48-hour window for witness testimony. If bill analysis is not available before this window, the hearing should be rescheduled to a later date.
- Witness Sign Up: Assistance for those with disabilities and whose first language is not English continues to be an issue. The MGA should take steps to identify cases where assistance will be needed. We recommend providing the witness sign-up in other key languages including Spanish, and providing interpreters for testimony when requested. At a minimum, the witness sign-up form should be adjusted to include an option to indicate that interpretation is needed. Those needing a translator during a hearing should not be forced to testify at the end of the hearing.
- Additional: Organizations should also be provided the opportunity to register multiple people to testify on a bill through a single account. Many of our members don’t have emails or understand how to use MyMGA for registration. We must make the process less burdensome for those actively working to engage members of the public throughout the process.
- Hearings: During the 2021 regular legislative session, many advocates and members of the public expressed concerns about committees continuously going on mute and livestream cameras being shifted. We again recommend requiring that all members of a public body participating in a virtual meeting or proceeding to be clearly audible and visible at all times.
- Additional: The MGA should also continue to ensure adequate closed captioning for hearings and other streams.
- Access to Testimony: OIS has designed a system to allow the public to upload written testimony. Written testimony should be made available online to the public in real-time instead of only after hearings conclude.
- Access to Legislators: During the 2021 regular legislative session, advocates and members of the public expressed concerns about the lack of responsiveness in legislative offices. We again urge the MGA to encourage legislators to provide public office hours with details on how to participate remotely and in-person. They should also ensure their phone and email inboxes are not full.
- Continued use of YouTube and Social Media: We urge the MGA to continue utilizing Twitter to provide updates on the legislative process. Legislative proceedings should also continue to be streamed on YouTube.
- Delegation Meetings: All Delegation meeting streams should be available through the MGA website, including those choosing to stream directly through platforms other than YouTube, like Facebook.
- Streaming: The MGA website should outline a clear process for reporting access issues directly to OIS in the instance a video stream goes down.
- Equal Treatment of Registered Lobbyists: If public access has to be limited at a later time, registered lobbyists – including those who represent State Agencies – must adhere to the same restrictions imposed on the general public.
Senate – Recommendations for COVID-19 Protocol Adjustments
- Committee Access: The Senate should conduct all committee proceedings virtually for the full 90-day legislative session. If the Senate decides to move forward with its plan to shift to in-person beginning on February 14th, the ability to participate remotely must be provided to the public and advocates. This includes the ability to testify both remotely and in-person during hearings, as well as make video recording available for online viewing after the fact.
- Witness Sign-Up: If hearings are conducted in-person beginning on February 14th, advocates and the public should have the ability to sign up to testify both online and in-person. The Senate must at least maintain the current 48 hour online window. If registration on the day of the hearing is allowed in person, the window for online sign up should also be extended. The testimony sign up deadline must be the same both online and in-person.
- Written Testimony: If the Senate chooses to move forward with its in-person plan beginning on February 14th, it’s critical we at least maintain the 48 hours window for online submission of written testimony. If written testimony is accepted in-person on the day of the hearing, the online submission deadline must be extended. Again, the deadline for submission of written testimony must be the same both online and in-person.
- Voting Sessions: If the Senate decides to move forward with its in-person plan beginning on February 14th, it is critical that voting sessions continue to be livestreamed for the public.
Black Voters, Baltimore County NAACP, League of Women Voters Baltimore County, and Common Cause Sue to Defend Voting Rights in Redistricting
MEDIA CONTACT: Meredith Curtis Goode, [email protected], 443-310-9946
Danielle Dyer, NAACP, [email protected]
Katie Scally, [email protected], 408-205-1257
LaQuita Howard, [email protected], o 202-843-0573, c 832-477-8370
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD – Today, a group of Baltimore County voters joined with the Baltimore County Branch of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Baltimore County, and Common Cause - Maryland in filing a federal lawsuit challenging the racially discriminatory and unlawful redistricting plan approved by the Baltimore County Council Monday evening. Despite a massive outcry from local voters and many options to create a fair plan offered by civil rights groups, the County Council voted for a plan that violates the racial fairness commands of the Voting Rights Act, which are meant to protect against diluting the voices of Black, Indigenous, and other Voters of Color, as well as BIPOC candidates. Black voters challenging the illegal redistricting plan are Charles Sydnor, Anthony Fugett, Dana Vickers Shelley, Danita Tolson, Sharon Blake, Gerald Morrison, and Niesha McCoy.
“Yesterday evening, the Baltimore County Council adopted Bill 103-21, Revision of Councilmanic Districts. The Council's defiant action violates the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and The Voting Rights Act, the Federal statute designed to enforce the 15th Amendment,” said Dr. Danita Tolson, President of the Baltimore County NAACP. “By adopting this illegal legislation, the Baltimore County Council joins the ranks of infamous state and local politicians throughout the country who are adopting redistricting legislation designed specifically to solidify their incumbency and disenfranchise African American and other minority voters. It is abundantly clear that the Baltimore County Council's adopted redistricting legislation will result in continued dilution of African American and minority voting strength. Today, the Baltimore County NAACP along with other like’minded individuals and organizations have no choice but to seek redress in Federal court to stop such action.”
Census data shows that over the last two decades, racial diversity in Baltimore County has increased substantially, with Black, Latinx, and Asian populations each growing significantly. Now, Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) residents make up 47 percent of the County’s population, up from 25 percent in 2000 and 35 percent in 2010. Despite this population growth, the redistricting plan engages in racial gerrymandering to creates six majority white districts. While Black people constitute 30 percent of the voting-age population of Baltimore County, under the County Council’s plan they will only have a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice in just one of seven County Council districts. Conversely, while non-Latinx white people constitute 55 percent of the voting-age population of the County, they will control six of the seven County Council districts. The 2021 redistricting plan engages in racial gerrymandering by packing excessively high numbers of Black voters into its one majority-Black district, while also dividing a politically-cohesive Black communities into other Council districts, which illegally dilutes the voting influence of all Black voters.
“Despite the growing number of People of Color in our community, the Baltimore County Council drew racially gerrymandered maps,” said Ericka McDonald, League of Women Voters of Baltimore County co-president. “They ignored census data and violated theVoting Rights Act. The League will push for these maps to be redrawn to protect all voices in Baltimore County – not the political interest of the council.”
Plaintiffs seek a declaration from the federal court that the redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act, an injunction prohibiting Baltimore County from holding elections under this unlawful system, and an order mandating a redistricting plan for the election of members of the County Council and Board of Education that comports with the Voting Rights Act, as well as with all other relevant constitutional and statutory requirements.
“Throughout this year’s redistricting process, we and residents across Baltimore County called on Council members to follow the law and put the people above politics,” said Joanne Antoine, Executive Director of Common Cause – Maryland. “Instead, they chose to ignore the law at the expense of free and fair elections. The county’s voting districts don’t belong to politicians, they belong to the people. The people, specifically Black voters, have a right to have a voice in choosing their representatives and should not have to live a decade under an illegal map.”
“I take no pleasure in having to sue my County government,” said Plaintiff Charles E. Sydnor III, a voter in Baltimore County and Maryland State Senator representing District 44. “I have no doubt that its act will have an adverse effect on this entire County for years to come. It pains me that in 2021 we still find ourselves fighting against tactics meant to dilute voices in the political arena. It pains me that today we must sue for something as fundamental and basic as our full right to equally participate in the local governance of our communities.”
“Baltimore Council members have voted for a redistricting plan that is racially discriminatory,” said Plaintiff Dana Vickers Shelley, a voter in Baltimore County and Executive Director of the ACLU of Maryland. “Despite being in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act, they remain determined to protect their own self interests — their place and positions — above the rights of thousands of Black voters in the County who deserve fair representation. However comfortable Council members might feel about passing an illegal plan, the Voting Rights Act still exists and Black voters are determined to defend it and our right to have elected officials who represent us and our communities.”
“I served as President of the Baltimore County Branch of the NAACP in 2001 when we challenged the redistricting map,” said Plaintiff Anthony Fugett, a voter in Baltimore County. “The County Council listened to our request and created what is today the 4th District. Now in 2021 the current Council decided not to listen to some of its citizens who requested a map that represented the racial makeup of the County. Instead, they made their reelection the priority for the map. It is a sad day for Baltimore County when a citizen has to take the county you live in to Federal court to do their job.”
“Once again the politicians have decided what is best for the people who voted them into office,” said Plaintiff Gerald Morrison, a voter in Baltimore County. “I don't understand this. They have got to realize that we are the ones who put them in the office to do what we like to have done. The majority of the people did not want the redistricting map that the Baltimore County Council put forth. The majority of the people also felt that there could be a way that we could have two majority black districts and everything would be fine. The NAACP along with the ACLU have proven that it could be done. However, Baltimore County Council decided to go along with the map that everybody else was against."
"As a resident of the 4th District in Baltimore County, it is disgraceful that the Baltimore County Council doesn't care about its minority residents,” said Plaintiff Niesha McCoy, a voter in Baltimore County. “By approving this redistricting map, they knowingly violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act."
The civil rights groups worked with an experienced emographer to analyze census data for Baltimore County, and proposed several alternative redistricting plans that fulfill the purpose of the Voting Rights Act by expanding election opportunities for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color voters relative to their increasing share of the population.
The County Council plan’s exclusion of BIPOC voters from electoral opportunities perpetuates a long history of race discrimination in Baltimore County. Until 2002, only white candidates were elected from every County Councilmanic district, all of which were configured to encompass majority white populations. In 2001, civil rights activists, including the Baltimore County NAACP and ACLU of Maryland, urged the County to adopt a plan that would comply with the Voting Rights Act and that would ensure that Black residents could vote for a candidate of their choice to represent their community. The resulting plan included one district that had a majority Black population and in the 2002 election, voters in the district made history by electing the first-ever Black representative to the Baltimore County Council. Consistently since then, residents of the majority-Black district have elected Black representatives, while the remaining majority-white districts have all elected only white officials. The groups assert that this pattern shows “the persistence of racially polarized voting and the importance of districting in addressing resulting minority vote dilution.”
Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew D. Freeman of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, John A. Freedman, Mark D. Colley, and Michael Mazullo of Arnold & Porter, and ACLU of Maryland Legal Director Deborah Jeon.
ANNAPOLIS, MD — Yesterday, December 8th, more than 50 people from across Maryland gathered near the steps of the State Capitol in Annapolis, MD to make their voices heard about the new Congressional maps that were proposed by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission and passed by the Maryland General Assembly. The rally was organized by The League of Women Voters of Maryland, in collaboration with The People’s Maps Maryland. This non-partisan coalition strives to bring better representation to communities of interest and encourages all Marylanders to lend their voices to the democratic process.
The rally featured redistricting, social justice, and voting rights leaders who highlighted the importance of:
● Making sure that communities of interest that will have fair and equitable representation by enabling them to vote in the same election districts with others who have like interests. Whenever possible, drawing maps so any block of voters isn’t drowned out by an overwhelming majority of a single party thus assuring the votes aren’t wasted.
● One person, One vote is the goal for all and any maps drawn. Maps shouldn’t be drawn so any block of voters is drowned out by gerrymandered blocks
● Passing the federal Freedom to Vote Act that will protect our voting rights, get big money out of politics, ensure fair voting districts, and help to create a democracy that works for all.
The event began with the crowd chanting: “Fair maps for Us, Not for You!.” A call to all elected
officials to remember that they serve the people not their own interests. Deborah Mitchell, Co-President of the League of Women Voters of Maryland spoke at the event saying “I’m not an expert on redistricting, but I am an expert on the lived experience of injustice. I’m telling you the politicians drawing lines to protect their power is an injustice.” Reverend Kobe Little, President of Baltimore County NAACP, stressed the importance of hearing the voters, “We have to vote in every election. That means we have to hold our elected officials accountable to the commitments they make when they promise them. That means we can’t just send people to office; we have to go with them. We have to show up.”
Three Non-Partisan Groups Evaluate Proposed Congressional Maps Released by the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission
The non-partisan Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has given a Grade-F to the four Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission’s (LRAC) Congressional draft maps released on November 9, 2021. The LRAC electoral maps were graded on partisan fairness, competitiveness among other redrawn maps, compactness, and county splits. The PGP assessment helps Marylanders to compare these maps to others, including the final Congressional map of the Maryland Citizen Redistricting Commission. (See the Action Blog of October 27, 2021.)
Based on the most recent national and statewide elections data, the PGP-expected results will be 1 or 0 Republican and 7 or 8 Democratic members of Congress. Plans 1, 3, and 4 do not have any competitive districts; Plan 2 has one competitive district. All of these plans have 2 districts with 40 percent or more Black Voting Age Population (BVAP).
Another non-partisan group, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), has developed different analytical software, PlanScore, to evaluate partisan advantage in Congressional districts using the 2020 Presidential election results. Based on the PlanScore analysis, Democrats are predicted to win 86-90% of the seats with 64% of the vote share. The MCRC Congressional plan is also biased toward the Democrats but predicts that they will win only 79% of the seats.
A for-profit entity, FiveThirtyEight, presents their predicted partisan breakdown for these four LRAC and one MCRC map graphically at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/maryland/. This is consistent with the above results.
LWVMD encourages the public to examine these maps and let the LRAC know specifically what is good or not about them. The League invites the public to also observe and respond to the continuing work of the LRAC and sign up to rally with us in Annapolis on December 8 when the Maryland General Assembly considers which Congressional map to adopt.
The LRAC’s maps, in both easy-to-read PDF and an interactive format, can be accessed by the public by the link “Draft Congressional Concept Maps Released” at: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Committees/Details?cmte=rac
The LRAC has not yet released any legislative maps.
The details of the PGP’s Redistricting Report Cards on the Congressional maps are at:
The details of the CLC’s PlanScore on the Congressional maps are at:
Historical Maps 2012-2020: https://planscore.campaignlegal.org/maryland/#!2020-plan-ushouse-eg
The League of Women Voters of Maryland applauds the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission for releasing the Congressional draft maps. This is a promising sign that they are open to transparency and citizen input.
We were pleased to see that in LRAC’s release they have included four maps that demonstrate that the commission has heard the testimony given. Our hope is that this is an indication that LRAC and the Maryland General Assembly will continue to put partisanship aside to focus on the concerns of the residents of Maryland.
We urge all Marylanders to review these maps and send comments to LRAC in the coming weeks before the start of the special session on December 6th. Now is the time to contact your elected officials and demand they hear your concerns about these maps. We urge the Commissioners to hear this feedback and release a single map before the session starts. LWVMD continues to uphold our non-partisan mission and wants to ensure that, to the extent possible, all district lines are drawn with the goal of providing the best representation to the constituents in those districts. This can only be done through a transparent and public process.
To view the maps please go here:
To send feedback to LRAC, please email them at: [email protected]
The non-partisan Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has awarded a Grade-A score to the Maryland Citizen Redistricting Commission’s (MCRC) Congressional and State Senate draft maps released earlier this month. The MCRC electoral maps were graded on partisan fairness, competitiveness among other redrawn maps, and compactness and county splits. The PGP assessment helps Marylanders to understand what a fair map looks like, especially when compared to current district maps.
Based on the most recent national and statewide elections data, the PGP-expected results will be 2 Republican and 6 Democratic members of Congress and 14 Republican and 28 Democratic State Senators. Of the 47 state senate districts, five are competitive. Three Congressional districts have 40 percent or more Black Voting Age Population (BVAP); and six have 40 percent or more of total Minority Voting Age Population (MVAP). Fourteen of the senate districts have 40 percent or more BVAP, and twenty-eight have 40 percent or more of MVAP.
Another non-partisan group, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), has developed different analytical software, PlanScore, to evaluate partisan advantage in Congressional districts using the 2020 Presidential election results. Based on the PlanScore analysis, Democrats are predicted to win six Congressional seats, Republicans one, and the eighth district “leans Republican.” For the State Senate, PlanScore predicts 11 Republican seats plus 3 seats “leaning Republican,” and 30 Democratic seats plus 3 seats “leaning Democratic.”
The LWVMD encourages the public to examine these maps and let both the MCRC and the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission know specifically what is good or not about them. The League invites the public to also observe and respond to the work of both Commissions and to rally in Annapolis when the Maryland General Assembly considers the Congressional map. The MCRC’s maps, in both easily-read PDF and a format suitable for analysis, can be downloaded by the public at:https://apps.planning.maryland.gov/redistricting/commissionproposedmaps.html.
The details of the PGP’s Redistricting Report Cards are at:
The details of the CLC’s PlanScore are at:
Historical Maps 2012-2020: https://planscore.campaignlegal.org/maryland/#!2020-plan-ushouse-eg
Maryland’s Delegate map, being a complex combination of single and multi-districts, cannot be graded by standard statistical models.
“The Maryland Citizen Redistricting Commission Releases Draft Congressional and Legislative District Maps”
Media Contact Nikki Tyree, 410-269-0232 [email protected]
Response from League of Women Voters of Maryland.
The League of Women Voters of Maryland applauds the improved transparency and willingness to hear community voices of both of Maryland’s 2021 redistricting commissions, including the willingness to accept maps created by the public. However, the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC), has not yet announced its intention to open the map-drawing process to the public. Further, the LRAC cannot get meaningful public input on its draft Congressional map unless it is released no later thanNovember 15.
The bi-partisan Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC), also tasked with drawing Maryland’s legislative and Congressional district lines, is still in the process of its public regional hearings despite being formed in July. We are concerned about the public’s ability to meaningfully observe the map-drawing process. In addition, meaningful feedback is also needed from the public on the first draft of LRAC’s proposed maps. Releasing the Congressional map after the last hearing on November 18 will leave only a week for the public to study it, and no time for the Commission to consider the people’s comments. We ask that the Commission release the Congressional map before the hearings are completed, no later than November 15.
“If ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’, then surely a draft map is worth more than statements like “we are committed to fair elections and representation for all Marylanders.” It’s time for the Legislative Commission to show us the dividing lines for the next ten years.” – Beth Hufnagel, Redistricting Committee Chair, League of Women Voters of Maryland
The working meetings of the multi-partisan Maryland Citizen Redistricting Commission’s (MCRC), including the public process of actually drawing the maps, was a fascinating tutorial on the challenges and myriad choices of this process. The release of the MCRC’s proposed Congressional and state Legislative maps at the start of October will leave sufficient time for their four scheduled hearings during October to secure community feedback, and for the MCRC to consider the public’s comments before it sends the final maps to Governor Hogan.
The League of Women Voters of Maryland implores the LRAC to not only listen to Maryland citizens during these hearings, but also to hear their constituents before they decide on what districts are best for communities they do not live in.
August 12, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
With today’s Census Bureau’s data release the League of Women Voters of Maryland (LWVMD) calls for a redistricting process that includes maximum opportunity for public scrutiny. We are calling upon the Legislative Redistricting Advisory Commission (LRAC) to:
(1) demonstrate transparency by adhering to the Maryland General Assembly’s own Open Meetings Act;
(2) release the preliminary maps in a format suitable for quantitative analysis (GeoJSon) as soon as they are completed;
(3) hold multiple hybrid hearings, starting 2 weeks after the Commission releases its preliminary maps; and
(4) allow sufficient time for comments received at those hearings to be considered by the Commission—well before the start of the General Assembly’s 90-day session.
The LWVMD further calls on the LRAC to demonstrate its commitment to fairness by adopting standards, before its
process begins, that DO NOT:
● consider how individuals are registered to vote, how they have voted in the past, or the political parties to which
they belong; and
● consider the domicile or residence of any incumbent officeholder or potential candidates.
“In a democracy, voters must have the opportunity to pick their own legislators, not the other way around.” said DeborahMitchell, LWVMD co-president. “Trust between the voters and the people they elect must be nurtured.”For the first time a new form of public input is available: maps created by communities of interest (COI). The LWVMD requests that the LRAC reach out and gather COI maps from underrepresented communities and consider them in their mapping deliberations. Splitting communities is a form of voter suppression.
The LWVMD challenges the LRAC to use a dedicated website that both gathers information the Commission has released and provides information the public wishes to offer, a standard communications tool and form of transparency. At this point, the public does not even have contact information for the chair of the LRAC. Details of the LWVMD redistricting position, including background, is available on the LWVMD website.
For more information please contact Nikki Tyree at [email protected]
In April, our volunteer advocates submitted reports informing us which bills they were following had passed and which didn’t pass.
As reported at the time, 3 of the 4 policing accountability bills that passed and were sent to the Governor during the session were vetoed but those vetoes were over-ridden during session.
Another bill, HB 1372 Blueprint for Maryland's Future – Revisions passed during session and was on the Governor's desk for 6 days during which he took no action which meant it became law without his signature. The same process occurred with SB 786 Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021 - Baltimore City - Control of the Police Department of Baltimore City and SB 683 Election Law - Voting - Permanent Absentee Ballot List, Ballot Drop Boxes, and Reports.
The fate of the remaining bills that were reported on that had passed and been sent to the Governor was not known at the time.
This is what has happened.
Protecting the Vote
HB 1048 Election Law – Permanent Absentee Ballot List, Ballot Drop Boxes, and Reports will go into law without the Governor’s signature.
HB 222 Election Law – Correctional Facilities – Voter Registration and Voting (Value My Vote Act) will go into law without the Governor’s signature.
HB 156 Student and Military Voter Empowerment Act will go into law without the Governor’s signature.
HB 183 Public Information Act – Revisions (Equitable Access to Records Act) will go into law without the Governor’s signature.
HB 133 State Finance and Procurement - Appropriation Reductions (Board of Public Works Budget Reduction Clarification Act) was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 66 Digital Connectivity Act of 2021 was signed into law by Governor.
HB 18 Landlord and Tenant-Residential Tenants-Right to Counsel will go into law without the Governor’s signature.
HB 114-Transportation - Maryland Transit Administration Funding and MARC Rail Extension Study (Transit Safety and Investment Act) was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 199 Maryland Transit Administration - Funding (Transit Safety and Investment Act) was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 137 - Maryland Transit Administration – Conversion to Zero–Emission Buses (Zero–Emission Bus Transition Act) will go into law without the Governor’s signature.
The bills listed above that were vetoed by the Governor passed by enough votes to override those vetoes when the General Assembly next convenes. Advocates will be working to make this happen. The same is true of many of the other bills that were vetoed.
Clean Energy - Shari Glenn
SB 414 /HB483 Climate Solutions Now Act of 2021 was the major environmental focus this year of the League and dozens of coalition members. The legislation required the State to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 60% from 2006 levels by 2030; to achieve net-zero statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 2045; required the Maryland Department of Labor to adopt regulations establishing energy conservation requirements for buildings by July 1, 2022; and established a goal of planting and helping to maintain 5,000,000 sustainable trees of species native to the State by the end of 2030. The bill passed both chambers but died on the last day of the session. The bill will be back on the agenda next year with more time to reach an acceptable compromise.