Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery) agreed to carve churches out of her bill prohibiting nonprofits from partisan activities, after Black lawmakers raised concerns about the historical importance of houses of worship in civil rights activism. (Photo by Danielle J. Brown/Maryland Matters)
The House and Senate churned through hundreds of bills in double and triple floor sessions Monday, but that doesn’t mean there was not serious debate, as the fate of pending legislation continued to get clearer.
Senators gave final approval to a bill that would make it easier for lawmakers to hold second jobs with state or local governments, despite conflict-of-interest concerns from opponents, and they gave a preliminary OK to a bill limiting partisan activity by charities, after churches were amended out of the bill. The Senate also approved, by the thinnest of margins, a bill streamlining the process for adults to change their gender identification on their birth certificates.
Both chambers passed versions of bills banning “dynamic pricing,” or the possibility that a retailer might charge different people different prices based on the customer’s personal information, with some differences that will have to be worked out between the Senate and House.
And House members debated lead in ammunition and PFAS in sludge spread on farmland before voting to approve restrictions on both.
Such is the nature of “crossover day,” the date by which a bill has to pass out of one chamber to be guaranteed a hearing in the second in the remaining three weeks of the session. Even then, passage is not assured, and bills with enough support or powerful enough patrons can still find their way to passage. But crossover day remains an important deadline for lawmakers and bill watchers.
As the Senate wrapped up its third floor session of the day late Monday, Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) said that the body is in a “great spot with 21 days to go.”
“The desk is officially cleared for crossover,” Ferguson said just before 10 p.m. “Well done, we got through a lot.”
But the day was not without dispute.
Jobs for legislators
The Senate gave final approval to Senate Bill 618, making it easier for a legislator to work for the state or a local government, despite conflict-of-interest concerns from critics.
The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ron Watson (D-Prince George’s), who gave up a job with Prince George’s County schools after questions were raised about whether current state law would allow him to both work for the county and continue to serve as a state senator.
Current exceptions include legislators who held a government job before being elected or appointed to office, for a person who provides “education instruction” and for a “career promotion, change, or progression that is a logical transition from a pre–existing relationship.”
Under the bill, which passed 32-10, a legislator could work for a state, county or local government if that person had served one elected term in the General Assembly and met other standards, including having “objectively satisfied the minimum education, licensure and experience requirements” of the job. It would take effect Jan. 13, 2027, when the next legislature is sworn in.
“I’m just very happy that that we’ve actually provided the flexibility and the recognition of how hard this work is and how hard it is to do a part time job and the impediments it puts on full time employment,” Watson said in a brief interview after the Senate vote Monday night. “Looks like we made a giant step forward to modernize our ethics rules, and I look forward to it benefiting members of the General Assembly.”
The bill received a boost Friday, when the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics voted 10-2 for an amended version of the bill, which includes the committee issuing guidance to lawmakers that would include “necessary actions that a member should take to avoid a conflict of interest.”
Senate Minority Leader Stephen Hershey Jr. (R-Upper Shore), who serves on the ethics committee, offered an amendment that would prohibit legislators from taking a job as an “at-will employee.” Only merit-based positions would qualify.
“If there is truly a job that makes sense, that you’re skilled at and that you want to apply for, that’s one thing,” Hershey said. “But to have a brand new county executive, for instance, in a certain county say that I want certain senators to work for me … that’s where we’re going to lose this and that’s where we’re going to run into potential corruption.”
Watson said Hershey’s amendment isn’t necessary because both at-will and merit jobs are competitive, and the amendment failed 27-13.
Another member of the ethics committee, Sen. Jason Gallion (R-Harford and Cecil), offered an amendment that would require that the committee post a list of each legislator, according to a recent financial disclosure statement, who “has been employed or is employed by the state or a local government.”
Watson, noting that lawmakers already report employment annually, called Gallion’s amendment “redundant and not necessary.” The amendment was rejected 29-13.
Concerns about conflicts of interest with government agency employment are not new: A 1998 report that looked at the state’s public ethics laws after an ethics concern led to former Sen. Larry Young of Baltimore City being expelled from the Senate, said the “appearance of improper influence can be unavoidable” when a lawmaker is employed by other governmental agencies.
“State agencies are quite dependent on the good will of legislators in the budget process an in the enactment of legislation,” according to the report. “Local governments, especially a legislator’s home county, are likewise heavily reliant on legislative actions … for their fiscal health and the passage of necessary legislation.”
SB 618 now move to the House where a companion bill sponsored by Del. Andrea Harrison (D-Prince George’s) has yet to get a committee vote.
Nonpartisan nonprofits bill carves out religious institutions
A bill to restrict the ability of charitable organizations to engage in partisan activity was put on hold last week, amid concerns that it would have a “chilling effect” on political actions that that originate out of Black churches.
After having a weekend to work out some of the concerns, bill sponsor Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery) agreed to offer an amendment to carve religious institutions out of the bill.
“I don’t love this amendment, but there were concerns about the impact of Senate Bill 4 on our faith institutions and religious organization,” she said on the floor Monday.
SB 4 would codify “the Johnson amendment,” a provision of the federal tax code that prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofits from engaging in political campaigns in exchange for their tax-exempt status. The rule has been in place for 72 years, but the Trump administration has moved toward weakening it, with the IRS proposing last summer that houses of worship be allowed to formally endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status.
A question of church and state dominates Senate debate on charitable organizations bill
During floor debate, Kagan argued that SB 4 wouldn’t halt any political activity that is taking place in religious spaces now. While it “wasn’t ideal” in Kagan’s perspective, she thought it would be helpful to “clarify” that the legislation would not affect religious institutions.
The weekend delay in consideration of the bill means SB 4 did not get a final vote Monday. While that would spell trouble for many bills, SB4 has the Senate president as a co-sponsor, and Kagan said she anticipates that the “Kagan-Ferguson” bill has a good chance of progressing even if the Senate vote comes after crossover.
Senate, House move bills aimed at ‘dynamic pricing’
The House and Senate advanced slightly different versions of bills to prohibit “dynamic pricing,” defined in the original versions of the bills as “the practice of varying prices of consumer goods or services within a business day based on demand or other factors, including through the use of artificial intelligence or models that retrain or recalibrate based on received information in real-time.”
The Senate Monday passed Senate Bill 385, which was amended to remove the 24-hour time frame and changed the definition of “dynamic pricing.” The Senate version prohibits retailers from the “discriminatory practice of offering or setting a personalized price for a good or service that is specific to a consumer based on the consumers personal data, regardless of whether the seller collected or purchased the personal data.”
The House version of House Bill 895, passed Saturday, changed the definition of “dynamic pricing” to remove the reference of surveillance data and artificial intelligence, replacing it with “personal data,” and prohibiting the use of dynamic pricing to alter the costs of a product within the same business day.
The House version also includes language from House Bill 1475, sponsored by House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Prince George’s and Anne Arundel), to require that stores have a disclaimer if a price has been set by personal data: “This price was set by an algorithm usPeing your personal data.”
Peña-Melnyk, Ferguson and Gov. Wes Moore (D) all announced their support of dynamic pricing restrictions before the session, so the bill has a better chance than most. But House and Senate differences will need to be worked out before it can be sent to the governor.
‘X’ marks the gender
When LGBTQ+ advocates rallied in early March, they knew that legislation to modernize and streamline the process of changing one’s gender on a birth certificate would be one of the more challenging bills this session.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
That proved true Monday, with Senate Bill 626 barely passing on a 24-16 vote — 24 votes are the minimum to pass in the 47-member Senate — late in the day, with four Democrats voting against the bill and seven lawmakers absent or not in the room during the vote.
The bill would create a new category of “X” on birth certificates, to recognize individuals who are transgender or nonbinary.
It makes it easier for adults to request a new birth certificate with a gender designation different from the original document, by removing the current requirement that a physician attest to the gender transition of an individual. Language offering that streamlined process for minors was removed following discussions on the Senate floor – meaning a physician would still have to attest to the transition for a minor.
The Senate on Monday also accepted an amendment from Sen. Mike McKay (R-Western Maryland) requiring that the state health department keeps a historical record of changes in birth certificate designations. Those records would be sealed and not subject to the state’s Public Information Act.
‘Silver and Starter Homes’ bill struggles
Part of Moore’s priority housing legislation, the Starter and Silver Homes Act, may fall by the wayside this session. The bill would prohibit local jurisdictions from placing restrictions on how small a lot or house could be, to encourage the development of smaller homes.
But House Bill 239 has not been approved by the Economic Matters Committee, and Senate Bill 36 has yet to get a vote in the Education, Energy and the Environment Committee.
Committee Chair Sen. Brian Feldman (D-Montgomery) said that the committee was more focused on one of Moore’s other housing bills, pushing the legislation granting developers what’s called “vesting rights” – Senate Bill 325 — out of committee. It was approved by the Senate before the crossover deadline.
While the Starter and Silver Homes Act was not the priority of the committee, Feldman noted that “there’s still three weeks left.”
As part of the governor’s priority legislation, there is a greater chance that the legislation could be worked on even after crossover, but it is not a guarantee by any means for a complicated bill with the clock ticking.
Lead in bullets
A firearms debate on the House floor got fiery on Monday, as GOP legislators opposed a bill that would phase out lead-based ammunition from hunting.
Democrats said the goal is to protect wild animals from lead poisoning.
“In 2008 ,California started banning lead ammunition because it was recognized that it started impacting waterways and waterfowl there,” said the bill’s sponsor, Del. Michele Guyton (D-Baltimore County). “They were finding that animals were not only dying of lead poisoning when they had been shot … but they were also dying of lead poisoning when they ate … other animals that had been shot with lead.”
But Minority Whip Del. Jesse Pippy (R-Frederick) said that the House Bill 1067 goes too far in penalizing hunters. Because some people merely hunt on their own land, they do not need licenses and may not become aware of the new law, Pippy said. But if they’re caught with lead ammunition, they would face a $750 fine under the bill.
“We’re not saying lead is good. We’re just saying: ‘Let’s be reasonable about it,’” Pippy said. “Too much sun exposure is not good. But we’re not going to ban people from going outside.”
The bill passed by a vote of 91-42.
PFAS in sludge
For Del. Kevin Anderson (R-Lower Shore), a Somerset County farmer, the bill was a “quandary,” but he ultimately voted yes on a bill to apply new limits on sewage sludge that comes from wastewater treatment plants and is applied to farm fields.
Under the bill, if the sludge contains the harmful chemical PFAS at a level of 25 parts per billion, there are new restrictions about how it can be applied to land. At 50 parts per billion, the sludge cannot be applied to land at all. By comparison, federal limits for specific PFAS compounds in drinking water are as low as 4 parts per trillion.
“I have very strong concerns about [the bill], but as I looked into it, as a farmer, it sets regulation for parts per billion that we don’t have today. That’s a benefit to the farmer,” said Anderson. who sits on the environmental committee.
Another Republican on the committee, Del. Robin Grammer (R-Baltimore County) expressed concern that farmers could face liability under the bill for the health effects from PFAS, which can include cancer, reproductive harms and cholesterol worries.
“There is no liability here. And the way I see this is that we’re leaving a liability to the farmers,” Grammer said.
He was one of a handful of “no” on the bill, which passed 130-7. The bill passed the Senate unanimously on Friday. The same measure stumbled last year because of concerns from the wastewater industry.
Del. Dana Stein (D-Baltimore County) said the bill adds new guidelines to limit people’s exposure to PFAS in the food system, and the concentrations could be made more stringent over time. He added that even without the bill, citizens could file suit over PFAS contamination and associated health concerns.
“Without this bill, there would be no limits on the concentration of PFAS that can be applied on the farms,” he said.
Originally published at Marylandmatters.Org