2020 Legislative Wrap-Up

To Our Valued Clients, Friends, and Colleagues:

The 440th Legislative Session of the Maryland General Assembly adjourned on March 18, 2020 – 19 days earlier than expected due to the Covid-19 pandemic. After difficult deliberation and the closure of other branches of government, the presiding officers made the decision to adjourn early for the first time since the Civil War.

Due to emergency precautions in the last days of the Legislative Session, all state buildings, including the State House and all legislative offices, were closed to the general public and access to legislators was substantially curtailed. The General Assembly focused on fulfilling their constitutional duty to pass a balanced budget and some other key pieces of legislation, including the highly anticipated Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.

At this time each year, HJM likes to take a moment to share the highlights of the Legislative Session. Despite the early adjournment, the 2020 session was extremely busy with members of the Maryland General Assembly introducing 2,745 bills, excluding local bond initiatives and 18 Joint Resolutions. The following synopsis is not an exhaustive report of the legislative activities this session, but an overview of particular topics of interest. If you have specific questions, please feel free to contact us.

Please note that the table of contents in this document is interactive. If you would like to jump to a specific topic or issue, just click that issue in the table of contents.

Thank you for entrusting your legal, lobbying and government relations needs in the State of Maryland with Harris Jones & Malone, LLC.

Sincerely,

Lisa Harris Jones Sean Malone

Table of Contents Vetoes ...... 6 Vetoes Overridden ...... 6 1. Handgun Permit Review Board ...... 6 2. Ban the Box ...... 6 3. Maryland Dream Act Modifications ...... 6 4. State Personnel Grievance Procedures ...... 7 5. Oyster Advisory Commission ...... 7 Education ...... 8 Blueprint for Maryland’s Future ...... 8 Built to Learn Act of 2020 ...... 8 For-Profit-Higher-Education ...... 9 Disorderly Closures ...... 9 Labor and Employment ...... 9 Wage History and Wage Range...... 9 Paid Bereavement Leave ...... 10 Heat Stress Standards ...... 10 Family Medical Leave Insurance Program ...... 11 General Contractor Liability ...... 11 Prevailing Wage Mandate on Investor-Owned Utilities ...... 11 Business Regulation ...... 12 Nighttime Construction Noise Reduction Act ...... 12 Home Improvement Contractors - Home Improvement Contracts ...... 12 Surety Insurance - Failure to Act in Good Faith ...... 12 Farmers Market Integrity Act ...... 13 Micro Markets ...... 13 Merchant Cash Advance – Prohibition...... 13 Taxation & Revenue ...... 14 21st Century Economy Fairness Act ...... 14 Digital Advertising ...... 14 Combined Reporting ...... 15 Throwback Rule ...... 15 Sales and Use Tax ...... 16 Tobacco Products – Taxation and Regulation ...... 16 Transportation ...... 17 School Transportation – Alternative Vehicles ...... 17

Peer–to–Peer Car Sharing – Sales Tax Sunset Extension and Study ...... 18 Electric Vehicles ...... 18 Department of Transportation – Promise Act ...... 18 Public Safety ...... 19 Organized Retail Theft ...... 19 Domestic Violence Protections ...... 19 Strangulation ...... 19 Protective Orders and Peace Order Filing Considerations ...... 19 Hate Crimes ...... 20 Items & Symbols Used to Threaten or Intimidate ...... 20 2nd Lieutenant Richard Collins, III’s Law...... 20 Police Hate Crime Training Requirements ...... 20 Energy ...... 20 Renewable Energy ...... 20 Governor’s CARES Legislation ...... 21 Black Liquor ...... 21 Waste-To-Energy ...... 21 Large Scale Hydropower ...... 21 Community Choice Energy ...... 22 Transition of Coal Burning Energy Facilities ...... 22 Changes to the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Process Climate and Labor ...... 22 Use of Existing Transmission Lines ...... 23 Rapid Health Assessments ...... 23 Healthcare ...... 23 Health Insurance Protections ...... 23 Telehealth ...... 24 Telehealth Pilot Program for Mental Health and Chronic Condition Management Services ...... 24 Health Care Sharing Ministries ...... 24 Minor Consent to Mental Health Treatment ...... 25 Prescription Drug Affordability Board – Function and Funding ...... 25 Drug Affordability Board and Fund ...... 25 Drug Board – Legal Advisor ...... 25 Patient Access to Medical Treatment and Pharmaceuticals ...... 26 Out-of-Pocket Accumulators ...... 26 Step Therapy Protocol ...... 26 Reverse Auction for State Pharmacy Benefit Managers ...... 26 Health Occupations ...... 26 Athletic Trainers ...... 26

Medical Directors of Outpatient Mental Health Clinics ...... 27 Pharmacists - Maintenance Injectable Medications ...... 27 Pharmacists – Smoking Cessation Aids ...... 27 Limited Prescriptive Authority for Dental Hygienists ...... 28 Doulas – Certification and Coverage ...... 28 Real Property ...... 28 Clean Buildings Jobs Act of 2020 ...... 28 Housing Opportunities Made Equal ...... 29 Annual Eviction Moratorium ...... 29 Residential Leases - Repair of Dangerous Defects and Failure to Pay Rent ...... 30 Tenant Protection Act ...... 30 Amendments to Declarations and Governing Documents ...... 30 Disclosures to Condominium Unit Owners and Prohibited Provisions in Instruments ...... 30 Reserve Studies ...... 31 Responsibility for Property Insurance Deductibles ...... 31 Electric Vehicle Recharging Equipment and Reserved Parking Spaces ...... 32 Homeowners Associations - Number of Declarant Votes ...... 32 Gaming & Horse Racing ...... 32 Sports Gaming ...... 32 Video Lottery Terminal Licensees – Renewal and Taxation ...... 33 Racing and Community Benefit Act of 2020 ...... 33 Worker’s Compensation ...... 33 Legal Fees ...... 34 Hernia Claims ...... 34 Injured Workers Insurance Fund – Revisions ...... 34 Uninsured Employers’ Fund – Revisions ...... 34 Consumer Protection & Privacy ...... 34 Facial Recognition Data ...... 35 Net Neutrality ...... 35 Cannabis ...... 36 The Fakiza Rahman Act ...... 36 Physician Assistants as Certifying Providers ...... 36 Medical Cannabis Administration to School Students ...... 36 Medical Cannabis Licenses ...... 36 Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission Interim Promises ...... 37

Family Law ...... 37 Removal of Barriers to Remarry ...... 37 Environment ...... 37 Environmental and Natural Resources Ombudsman ...... 37 Refuse Disposal Systems - Incinerators, Scrap Tires, and Local Authority ...... 38 Zombie Permit Elimination Act ...... 38 Elections and Campaign Finance ...... 38 Campaign Contributions by Foreign-Influenced Entities ...... 38 Mail-in Voting and Prepaid Postage ...... 39 Study on Vote by Mail Elections ...... 39

Vetoes

Vetoes Overridden

Following the 2019 Legislative Session, Governor Hogan vetoed eight bills on policy grounds. The Maryland General Assembly (MGA), where Democrats hold a three-fifths majority in both chambers, took swift action to override five of the Governor’s eight vetoes. The following five bills that were overridden are now Maryland Law:

1. Handgun Permit Review Board

Senate Bill 1000/House Bill 1343 was introduced as emergency legislation by Senator Pam Beidle (D - Anne Arundel County) and Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary (D - Howard County) aimed at eliminating the State’s Handgun Permit Review Board (the Board) within the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS). When Governor Hogan vetoed the bill, he stated that it “threatens the ability of law–abiding citizens to appeal decisions regarding handgun permits [and] does nothing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of dangerous people.” The legislature disagreed and overrode the Governor’s veto. Under the bill, a person who is denied a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, or a renewal of such a permit, or whose permit is revoked or issued with restrictions, may request to appeal the decision directly to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) instead of requesting that the Board review the decision before appealing.

2. Ban the Box

Senator Jill Carter (D - Baltimore City) and Delegate Nick Mosby (D - Baltimore City) introduced and passed during the 2019 Legislative Session, Senate Bill 839/House Bill 994, entitled “Ban-the-Box”. The Governor vetoed this bill on the grounds that “employers have the right, and often the need, to know the criminal history of applicants they may hire. Senate Bill 839/House Bill 994 prohibits businesses from requiring an applicant to disclose this important information until the first in–person interview. This would result in costly and time–consuming human resources work that ultimately goes nowhere.” The legislature disagreed with the Governor and overrode his veto. Under the bill, an employer of 15 or more employees is prohibited from, before the first in-person interview, requiring the applicant to disclose whether the applicant has a criminal record or has had criminal accusations brought against the applicant. The bill does not apply to an employer that is expressly authorized to do so by another applicable federal or state law or if the employer provides programs, services, or direct care for minors or to vulnerable adults. If the Commission of Labor and Industry determines that the bill has been violated, the Commissioner must issue an order compelling compliance and, for a subsequent violation, may assess a civil penalty of up to $300 for each affected applicant or employee.

3. Maryland Dream Act Modifications

In 2019, Senator Clarence Lam (D - Baltimore and Howard Counties) and Delegate Eric Luedtke (D - Montgomery County) introduced and passed Senate Bill 537/House Bill 262, which expands the circumstances under which an individual is exempt from paying the out-of-state tuition rate under the Maryland Dream Act by: (1) removing the requirement that an individual earn an associate’s degree or 60 credits at a community college prior to receiving in-state tuition at a public four-year institution; (2) extending from four to six years the time by which an individual must register as an entering student after graduating from high school or receiving the equivalent qualification in the State; (3) reducing the amount of time an individual must have attended a high

school in the State from three years to any amount of time, although the individual still must have graduated from a Maryland high school or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in the State; and (4) altering the time period in which the individual or the individual’s parent or legal guardian must have filed a Maryland income tax return. Finally, the bill grandfathers in individuals who, on or after June 15, 2012, were exempt from paying the out-of-state or out-of- county tuition rate at a public institution of higher education. The Governor in vetoing the legislation contended that it did not go as far as his own “common sense” legislation to expand existing tuition relief programs to all Maryland students, which the legislature cast aside. The legislature rejected this reasoning for vetoing the bill and instead moved the bill into law through a veto override.

4. State Personnel Grievance Procedures

House Bill 891 was introduced by Delegate Keith Haynes (D - Baltimore City) to give the legislature more say over the State’s collective bargaining process. This bill was identical to legislation the Governor rejected a year earlier. The legislature was unable to override the Governor’s veto in 2019 because it was the first session of a new term. Instead, the legislature reintroduced and passed the same bill in the 2019 Legislative Session. In vetoing the bill a second time, the Governor was very pointed, “last year, I vetoed this exact same legislation, and I am perplexed by the General Assembly, once again choosing to pass such a flawed piece of legislation, with no changes or amendments.” Intent on making the bill law, the General Assembly easily overrode the Governor’s veto.

In short, the bill expands application of state employee grievance proceedings to include a dispute between an employee and their employer about the interpretation and application of any term or condition of a memorandum of understanding between the State and the exclusive representative. The State employee grievance proceedings apply to independent personnel systems; however, the bill does not apply to specified Maryland Transit Administration employees. The Secretary of Transportation must adopt regulations that address procedures for the redressing of grievances, under the broader application of “grievance” in the bill.

5. Oyster Advisory Commission

Senate Bill 830/House Bill 720 was a measure introduced by Senator Sarah Elfreth (D - Anne Arundel County) and Delegate Kumar Barve (D - Montgomery County) and was designed to change the State’s management of the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay. This bill reestablishes the Oyster Advisory Commission (the OAC) with new membership and requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the OAC, in coordination with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, to develop a package of consensus recommendations for enhancing and implementing the fishery management plan for oysters. DNR must also implement the 2019 Fishery Management Plan for Oysters and may not reduce or alter boundaries of existing oyster sanctuaries until a fisheries management plan has been developed based on the consensus recommendations. Public listening sessions must be held to identify possible management actions for use in the public oyster fishery. DNR must periodically review and assess the oyster stock and, with stakeholder input, implement management actions that increase oyster habitat, maintain harvest, and grow the oyster stock. Calling the bill “ambiguous” and the product of “secret backroom deal making,” the Governor unsuccessfully vetoed the bill.

Education

Blueprint for Maryland’s Future

The MGA, in 2016, created the Kirwan Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education (Kirwan Commission) to develop recommendations on how to enhance Maryland’s primary and secondary schools. The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (the Blueprint), Senate Bill 1000/House Bill 1300, is based on the findings of the Kirwan Commission and revises the State’s school funding formula for the first time in nearly two decades. The Blueprint is a 10-year strategic plan to raise academic achievement and strengthen Maryland’s education workforce by 2030. Over that time frame, $3.8 billion will be injected into Maryland’s primary and secondary schools.

This investment will be dedicated, but not limited to the following: (1) increasing educator salaries and staffing, while also fostering educator retention; (2) expanding career and technical education (CTE) curriculums; (3) instituting at least 200 community schools with wraparound services for students in poverty or with special needs in the hopes of closing the opportunity gaps between low-income students and their more affluent peers; (4) expanding full-day, pre-k to three and four-year-olds; and (5) creating accountability to ensure that the new funding goes to classrooms and not simply central offices. The $3.8 billion price tag for the Blueprint will be split between the State and county governments. The legislature added one major feature that was not included in the Kirwan Commission’s interim report, the creation of an inspector general (IG) to investigate instances of fraud, waste, and abuse in schools. The IG will be appointed only through the unanimous vote of the Governor, the State Treasurer, and the Maryland Attorney General. One other notable amendment to the bill limits the implementation of Kirwan reforms during an economic downturn. If state revenues drop by 7.5% in a given year, the Kirwan implementation at the time would be paused and the increases to education spending would be limited to the rate of inflation.

Built to Learn Act of 2020

The Built to Learn Act was a legislative priority for both Senate and House leadership as evidenced by being designated as bill number 1 in both chambers. Sponsored by Senator Doug Peters (D - Prince George’s County) and Speaker Adrienne Jones (D - Baltimore County), the legislation will provide significant increases in funding for school construction throughout the State. The bill codifies the provisions of the constitutional amendment approved by the voters at the 2018 general election, known as the Education Trust Fund (ETF) lockbox. Additionally, it requires the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) with the authority to issue revenue bonds, backed by annual payments from the ETF totaling more than $2 billion over the next five years, to finance public school construction throughout the State beginning January 1, 2021. The legislation also increases or extends mandated state funding for supplemental public-school construction programs and establishes a new special fund and mandate for the highest priority school facilities. All construction projects funded under the bill must be approved by the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) using the same process used for the Public School Construction Program. Construction contracts funded by the bond proceeds are not subject to approval by the Board of Public Works (BPW). The bill also creates the Public School Facilities Priority Fund to provide state funds to address the facility needs of the highest priority schools identified by the statewide facilities assessment completed by IAC under current law, with highest priority given to schools with a severe facility issue that required the school to be closed. The bill takes effect July 1, 2020, except the priority funding mandate takes effect July 1, 2022, and additional contingent provisions take effect July 1, 2026.

It should be noted that Governor Hogan cross filed his own vision for school construction, Senate Bill 276/House Bill 338: Building Opportunity Act of 2020, a $3.8 billion allocation for school construction funding over five years. The Governor introduced this bill in 2019 as well. Like the Built to Learn Act of 2020, the funding for the Governor’s initiative would have also come from a share of casino revenues in the ETF lockbox and the MSA would have been responsible for issuing bonds. One distinct difference between the two bills is that the Building Opportunities Act required the MSA to obtain approval from the BPW before issuing any bonds. In the end, the Hogan administration ultimately supported the Built to Learn Act, “because the aim is the same.”

For-Profit-Higher-Education

In response to a federal rule known as “90/10”, which caps the share of revenue for-profit institutions of higher education and private career schools can appropriate from federal student aid at 90%, Senator Arthur Ellis (D - Charles County) and Delegate Pat Young (D - Baltimore County) introduced Senate Bill 294/House Bill 59 to remedy a perceived loophole in this rule. Apparently, the 90/10 rule exempts federal tuition benefits for veterans and active members of the U.S. military, as well as their spouses and financially dependent children, because the law only applies to federal Title IV education funds. The bill passed in the last days of the legislative session and prohibits for-profit higher education institutions and private career schools from admitting new Maryland residents if they are unable to acquire at least 10% of their annual revenue from a source other than federal funds, including civilian or military educational aid. The 10% threshold applies to either two out of three of the immediately preceding fiscal years or two consecutive years. By December 1, 2020, the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) must adopt regulations to implement this legislation. The bill will take effect July 1, 2020.

Disorderly Closures

With the intent to keep institutions of post-secondary education accountable in the event of a “disorderly closure,” Senator Paul Pinsky (D - Prince George’s County) and former Delegate and now Senator Shelly Hettleman (D - Baltimore County) introduced Senate Bill 446/House Bill 469. A “disorderly closure” is defined as the cessation of educational instruction, as determined by MHEC, of a program in which the: (1) institution did not provide a satisfactory amount of time, for all Maryland students to complete the program; (2) institution did not transition all Maryland students into another program at the institution; and/or (3) the institution did not enter into at least one school-to-school teach-out agreement. This legislation, among other things, authorizes the Secretary of Higher Education to require post-secondary educational institutions to refund all tuition and fees to Maryland students if the institution does not file all essential records of the academic achievement of a former student with MEHC in a manner to be determined by regulation, and establishes that an institution that participates in a disorderly closure is in violation of the enrollment agreement made with the student at the time of closure. The bill was ultimately amended to, among other things, remove joint and several personal liability requirements of an institution’s chief executive officer and members of its governing body in connection with a disorderly closure. The bill was then passed and becomes effective on July 1, 2020.

Labor and Employment

Wage History and Wage Range

After three sessions of debate, the MGA expanded Maryland’s Equal Pay for Equal Work law to include not only employees, but job applicants. Under Senate Bill 217/House Bill 123, sponsored by Senator Susan Lee (D - Montgomery County) and Delegate Karen Lewis Young (D - Frederick County), an employer who conducts interviews or who is involved in the hiring, recruitment, or salary negotiation

9 process must provide, upon request of the applicant for employment, the wage range for the position for which the applicant applied. The bill simultaneously prohibits an employer from seeking an applicant’s wage history information and from screening or considering an applicant for employment or determining an applicant’s wages based on the applicant’s wage history. Applicants for employment are not prohibited from voluntarily sharing wage history information with an employer. Finally, the bill prohibits an employer from retaliating against or refusing to interview, hire, or employ an applicant for employment because the applicant did not provide wage history or requested the wage range. Should an employer violate any of the provisions of the expanded Equal Pay for Equal Work law, the bill permits the Commission of Labor to levy a $300 civil penalty for each applicant for whom the employer is not in compliance for a first offense and up to a $600 civil penalty for each applicant for each subsequent violation within a three year period. The bill takes effect October 1, 2020.

Paid Bereavement Leave

Senator Mary Washington (D - Baltimore City) and Delegate Regina Boyce (D - Baltimore City) introduced Senate Bill 260/House Bill 712, to expand Maryland’s Flexible Leave Act by authorizing employees of businesses with at least 15 employees to use earned paid leave for bereavement leave. As introduced, an employee was eligible to use bereavement leave for the death of the employee’s immediate family member or the employee’s pet. The House Economic Matters Committee ultimately struck the pet provision from the bill and then passed it out of the House. Senate inaction on the bill resulted in the bill failing this session.

Heat Stress Standards

Senator Cory McCray (D - Baltimore City) and Delegate Lorig Charkoudian (D - Montgomery County) introduced legislation to address the intersection of climate change, “heat stress”, outdoor labor, and “heat related illnesses”. In this context, “heat stress” means the net load to which a worker is exposed from the combined contributions of metabolic heat, environmental factors, and clothing worn that results in the body storing more heat, causing body temperatures to rise to sometimes dangerous levels. “Heat-related illness” means a medical condition resulting from the body’s inability to rid itself of excess heat. The original drafts of Senate Bill 434/House Bill 722 would have required employers to develop, implement, and maintain an effective excessive heat-related illness prevention plan for employees tailored and specific to hazards in the place of employment, in writing, in a language the majority of employees understand, and available upon request. In addition, the Commissioner of Labor and Industry was required to adopt regulations by October 1, 2022, that would have to include a standard establishing heat stress levels for employees that, if exceeded, trigger action to protect employees from heat-related illness and ensure all employers comply with requirements relating to occupational exposure to excessive heat. Finally, an employer would have been required to provide annual training to its employees and keep records as specified in the bill.

After extensive push back from industries who employees regularly work outside, the House sponsor opted for a more collaborative approach on the legislation and heavily amended it. These amendments resulted in the ultimate passage of the bill. Under the amended version of the bill, the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, in consultation with the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health (MOSH) Advisory Board, is to develop and adopt regulations by October 1, 2022, that require employers to protect employees from heat-related illness caused by heat stress. Before the Commissioner begins the process for developing and adopting the regulations, MOSH must hold informational hearings in four different geographical areas of the State to obtain input from interested parties. In developing the regulations, the Commissioner must consider specified national standards created by the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and the American National Standards Institute. The bill takes effect October 1, 2020.

Family Medical Leave Insurance Program

Senate Bill 539/House Bill 839, introduced by Senator Antonio Hayes (D – Baltimore City) and Delegate Kris Valderrama (D - Prince George’s County), would have established the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) program and FAMLI Fund to provide up to 12 weeks of benefits to a “covered employee” taking leave from employment due to caring for family members, the individual’s own serious health condition, or a qualifying exigency arising out of a family member’s military deployment. A “covered employee” is defined as an employee who has worked at least 680 hours over a 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which leave is to begin. Under the bill, the weekly benefit was based on an individual’s average weekly wage and could range from $50 to a $1,000 cap that is indexed to inflation.

Contributions to the FAMLI fund would have been shared equally between employers and employees and are based on employee wages. All employers who employ at least one employee would have been required to participate in the program. The total contribution rate was not supposed to exceed 0.5% of an employee’s wages and could only be applied to all wages up to and including the Social Security wage base. Paid family leave plans are currently in place in eight other states and the District of Columbia. Proponents of the bill believe that it will support the current generation of adults who have been tasked with taking care of both their minor children and aging parents as well as military families whose family stability can rapidly change. Human resources representatives and members of different chambers of commerce opposed the bill for they feared that it would result in additional costs and administrative burden to employers, and especially small businesses. In addition, opponents argued that the law will result in significantly higher absentee rates. Ultimately, the bill failed to pass as neither the Senate Finance Committee or the House Economic Matters Committee gave the bill and up or down vote.

General Contractor Liability

Senator J.B. Jennings (R - Baltimore and Harford Counties) and Delegate Chris Adams (R - Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot, and Wicomico) reintroduced Senate Bill 959/House Bill 1333, which would have established that a general contractor on a project for construction services is jointly and severally liable for specified violations of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law committed by a subcontractor only if an employee, whose wages were withheld in violation of the law by a subcontractor, notifies the general contractor, in writing, that the violation occurred and the general contractor fails to cure the violation within 30 days. After considerable pushback from employment lawyers and union lobbyists, the House Economic Matters Committee gave the bill an unfavorable vote.

Prevailing Wage Mandate on Investor-Owned Utilities

Senator Ben Kramer (D - Montgomery County) and Delegate Lorig Charkoudian (D - Montgomery County) introduced Senate Bill 1011/House Bill 1048 to require investor-owned gas and/or electric utilities to require contractors and subcontractors on specified underground projects to pay their employees at least the applicable prevailing wage rate. The bill applied to projects involving the construction, reconstruction, installation, demolition, restoration, or alteration of any underground gas or electric infrastructure of the company, and any related traffic control activities. The Department of Legislative Services estimated that the costs for the affected projects, going forward, may increase by 2% to 5%, with the potential for variances outside of that range. The bill had a late hearing in the Senate but ran out of time before the early adjournment of the MGA.

Business Regulation

Nighttime Construction Noise Reduction Act

Delegate David Moon (D - Montgomery County) introduced House Bill 84 prohibiting the State Highway Administration from issuing state highway work permits for road construction to be conducted on a State highway between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. the following day in a residential zone, a commercial residential zone, an area within 500 feet of one of those zones, or an area within 500 feet of a dwelling, unless a zoning official determined that issuing the State highway work permit was in the interest of public safety, health, or welfare. HB 84 received considerable pushback from construction industry professionals and citizen groups who support road construction efforts that would alleviate traffic congestion in their jurisdictions. In the end, the sponsor withdrew the bill after the hearing and before the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Environment and Transpiration Committee could give the bill an up or down vote.

Home Improvement Contractors - Home Improvement Contracts

Under current law a home improvement contractor may not require or receive any payment for a home improvement before the home improvement contract is signed, nor may they receive a deposit of more than one-third of the home improvement contract price before or at the time of execution of the contract. In an effort to provide homeowners options to procure improvements to their homes, while providing liquidity to home improvement contractors, Senator Brian Feldman (D - Montgomery County) and Delegate C. T. Wilson (D - Charles County) introduced Senate Bill 1016/House Bill 1290, which would have authorized home improvement contractors to collect the full contract price of a home improvement contract if the contractor post with the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General (the Division) an irrevocable letter of credit (LOC), payable to the Division, of $100,000 per home improvement contract, up to $2 million. In the event of a dispute with a contractor, the legislation provided that a homeowner may file a complaint with the Division and request that the Division draw on the contractor’s LOC. After notification and investigation, the Division may draw on the LOC to satisfy the complaint if the contractor is determined to be at fault. If the Division draws on a LOC twice within two years, the contractor is prohibited from posting a LOC for five years. While SB 1016 never moved out of the Senate Rules Committee, the House Economic Matters Committee opted to send HB 1290 to interim study.

Surety Insurance - Failure to Act in Good Faith

Surety insurers are subject to the statutory requirements and restrictions set forth in the Maryland Insurance Article. Surety insurers, however, are excluded from the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act and the Insurance Bad Faith Act in the Insurance Code. Senate Bill 801, sponsored by Senator Ed Reilly (R - Anne Arundel County), proposed to amend these provisions to give recourse to general contractors and owners in instances where a surety insurer fails to properly undertake its obligations under a performance bond. A performance bond is a surety insurance policy issued by an insurance company to guarantee to an obligee, typically an owner or general contractor, satisfactory completion of a project by the insurance company's principal, generally a subcontractor. A performance bond is required on all public projects and on large commercial projects and protects an owner or general contractor when its subcontractor fails to perform. Often in these instances, the subcontractor is experiencing financial difficulties and cannot complete its contract, and the owner or general contractor looks to the surety insurer to complete the work.

SB 801 proposed to provide remedies to an owner or general contractor where the surety insurer fails to promptly perform its obligations under a performance bond, refuses to perform for an arbitrary or capricious reasons, fails to act in good faith, or forces the contractor to institute litigation to compel the surety to perform or recover amounts due for performance. The bill addressed the wide-spread concerns of commercial owners and general contractors in Maryland that surety insurers are delaying and failing to step up when their principals have defaulted on a construction job. The surety industry along with the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) opposed the bill on account that a surety bond is a “tripartite agreement” (involving the surety, its principal and the contractor obligee) and therefore it is different from insurance and the surety insurer should not be subject to any duties to act in good faith. The opposition ignored the special relationship that exists between a surety insurer and an obligee that is identical to that involving an insurer and an insured. When an obligee requests that a principal to obtain a commercial surety bond to guarantee the principal's performance, the obligee is insuring itself from the potentially catastrophic losses that would result in the event the principal defaults on its original obligation. When the principal actually defaults, the surety insurer must promptly and in good faith assume or correct any flaws in performance pursuant to the terms of the original contract, thereby eliminating the obligee's risk of loss in the venture. In the end, the bill did not receive a vote in its committee of jurisdiction.

Farmers Market Integrity Act

Senator Jason Gallion (R - Cecil and Harford Counties) introduced Senate Bill 351 which would have prohibited the use of the term “farmers’ market” to describe a market or other sales location that did not meet the definition outlined within the legislation. This legislation also would have prevented the sale of farm and food products at a “farmers’ market” that did not meet specified standards relating to the products being grown or processed by the seller or purchased by the seller directly from another farmer. SB 351 established enforcement provisions, criminal fines, and a Farmers’ Market Review Panel to review appeals of such fines. The bill was withdrawn after the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) agreed to convene an advisory group of farmers, food distributors, retail stores, food service businesses, and restaurants to review the State’s “locally-grown” advertising regulations, the Maryland’s Best program, and the definition of “farmers’ market.” Upon completion of such review, MDA agreed to share its recommendations for any modifications to relevant laws and regulations with Senator Gallion.

Micro Markets

Senator Ed Reilly (R - Anne Arundel County) and Delegate C.T. Wilson (D - Charles County) introduced Senate Bill 601/House Bill 1605, which would have streamlined regulation of micro markets as food service facilities in Maryland. This legislation built on the standard definition of micro market established by legislation in the 2018 Legislative Session and would have required the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) to establish minimal regulations for these modern, unmanned, vending facilities. In response to the introduction of the bills, the MDH initiated communication with Maryland’s vending industry and suggested many of the regulatory goals of the legislation could be accomplished through administrative action. The bills were subsequently withdrawn in order to allow MDH to work with industry to develop a more efficient regulatory scheme for these facilities.

Merchant Cash Advance – Prohibition

At the request of the Maryland Retailer Association, Senator Ben Kramer (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Seth Howard (R – Anne Arundel County) introduced Senate Bill 913/House Bill 1478, which would have prohibited merchant cash advances (MCAs), as defined in the legislation, in Maryland. The bill defines “merchant cash advance transaction” as an arrangement between a buyer and a seller in which

13 the buyer agreed-to purchase and agreed-on a percentage of future credit card revenues that are due to a seller for a predetermined purchase price. After the initial introduction and hearing on the bills, both the Senate Finance and House Economic Matters Committees indicated an interest in a regulatory approach to MCAs, more akin to what has been seen in other states, rather than an outright ban. While the committees did not move forward on the legislation this Session, interim work with the Commission of Financial Regulation and the reintroduction of similar legislation in 2021 is expected.

Taxation & Revenue

In anticipation of significant increases in education expenditures for the implementation of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (the Blueprint), the General Assembly sought to pass legislation during the 2020 Legislation Session that would have raised state revenues going forward, primarily through newly applied taxes. The Senate and House championed different approaches to raising revenues and ultimately passed legislation to subject digital goods to the State sales and use tax, impose a gross receipts tax on revenues derived from digital advertising for businesses meeting certain thresholds, and an increased tax on tobacco products and electronic smoking devices.

21st Century Economy Fairness Act

In a bipartisan effort to raise revenue and impose parity in the marketplace, Senator Jim Rosapepe (D – Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties), Andrew Serafini (R – Washington County) and Delegate Marc Korman (D – Montgomery County), introduced Senate Bill 1001/House Bill 932: 21st Century Economy Fairness Act, which subjects specified digital products and codes to the State sales tax, similar to that applied to their tangible good counterparts. The fiscal note for the amended legislation estimated that the State would gain more than $83 million in Fiscal Year 2021, and the legislation directs that funding to programs created under the Blueprint. This legislation will take effect July 1, 2020.

Digital Advertising

Newly elected Senate President Bill Ferguson (D – Baltimore City), along with Senate President Emeritus Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. (D – Calvert and Prince George’s Counties) and House sponsor Delegate Alonzo Washington (D – Prince George’s County) championed a new revenue source through the establishment of a gross receipts tax on specified digital advertising revenues in Senate Bill 2/House Bill 695. The highly controversial legislation, which passed the full legislature on Sine Die, mandates that the annual gross revenues of a person derived from digital advertising services in the State are to be determined using an apportionment fraction based on the annual gross revenues of a person derived from digital advertising services in the State and the annual gross revenues of a person derived from digital advertising services in the United States. The Comptroller must adopt regulations that determine the state from which revenues from digital advertising services are derived. The bill imposes the tax at the following rates:

• 2.5% of the assessable base for a person with global annual gross revenues of $100.0 million through $1.0 billion; • 5% of the assessable base for a person with global annual gross revenues of $1.0 billion through $5.0 billion; • 7.5% of the assessable base for a person with global annual gross revenues of $5.0 billion through $15.0 billion; and • 10% of the assessable base for a person with global annual gross revenues exceeding $15.0 billion.

Additionally, the bill imposes certain tax return filing requirements on businesses with digital advertising revenues in the State of at least $1 million. State revenues gained from the implementation of the tax are also directed to the programs implemented under the Blueprint and to emergency measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill was passed over the strong objections of several business groups and members of the digital advertising industry, including media outlets and consumers of those advertising services who expect to be indirectly impacted by an increase in the cost of those services. While the bill has an effective date of July 1, 2020, with an application for tax years after December 31, 2020, it is highly likely that the bill is challenged on grounds of constitutionality and legality, and it is already the subject of motions for injunction and other litigation. The Governor may also veto the legislation.

Combined Reporting

The 2020 Legislative Session saw the reintroduction of various legislation to require corporations doing business in Maryland to use a combined reporting method to compute their Maryland taxable income. Senate Bill 311, the Corporate Tax Fairness Act of 2020, sponsored by Senator Paul Pinksy (D – Prince George’s County) would have imposed combined reporting on all corporations in the State, while Senate Bill 24, the Small Business Fairness Act, sponsored by Senator Ron Young (D – Frederick County), would have only imposed combined reporting on businesses in the restaurant and retail industries. Delegate Mary Lehman (D – Prince George’s County) sponsored House Bill 295, which was similar to Senator Pinsky’s bill, but also specified that any state revenue gained from the bill be specifically directed to education funding.

Similar bills have failed to gain traction in previous years, but due to the increased focus on raising revenues in 2020, provisions mandating combined reporting for all corporations in Maryland were amended into another corporate tax bill and passed successfully out of the House. However, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, which had shown a preference for the narrower restaurant and retail version of the bill, failed to move the House Bill and ultimately no action was taken on combined reporting before the early adjournment.

Throwback Rule

In addition to combined reporting, legislation was introduced to increase state revenue from corporate income tax by implementing the “throwback rule” on income from goods manufactured in Maryland and sold in other states. Senator Pinsky’s Senate Bill 311 included throwback provisions in addition to combined reporting, and Delegate Vaughn Stewart (D - Montgomery County) sponsored House Bill 473, a stand-alone bill implementing the throwback rule in Maryland.

As introduced, these bills would require that sales of tangible personal property must be included in the numerator of the sales factor used for determining the Maryland taxable income of a multistate corporation if: (1) the property is delivered or shipped to a purchaser within the State, regardless of the point from where it is shipped or other conditions of the sale or (2) the property is shipped from an office, store, warehouse, factory, or other place of storage in the State and the corporation is not taxable in the state of the purchaser. The bills provided that a corporation is considered taxable in a state if: (1) in that state the corporation is subject to a net income tax, a franchise tax measured by net income, a franchise tax for the privilege of doing business, or a corporate stock tax or (2) that state has jurisdiction to subject the taxpayer to a net income tax, regardless of whether, in fact, the state imposes a tax.

Both bills were met with significant opposition from Maryland’s business community, particularly those with manufacturing facilities in the State. HB 473, amended to include other corporate tax provisions, passed successfully out of the House, but failed to progress beyond initial introduction in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.

Sales and Use Tax

Additional attempts to raise revenues were made through attempts to newly apply the State’s sales and use tax to designated services. House Bill 1628, sponsored by the Majority Leader, Delegate Eric Luedtke (D – Montgomery County) would have lowered the sales and use tax from 6% to 5%, but broadly applied it to most services provided in the State. The legislation was estimated to raise state revenues by nearly a billion dollars in Fiscal Year 2021 and more than $2 billion per year going forward, which would have covered the full cost of the Blueprint. At the House bill hearing, there was hours of testimony from hundreds of opponents to the bill, and the House Ways and Means Committee quickly gave an unfavorable report to the controversial legislation.

Delegate Lorig Charkoudian (D – Montgomery County) sponsored House Bill 1354, which also expanded the sales and use tax to designated “luxury services”, including golf courses and country clubs, marinas, lobbying services, dog walking, etc. A narrower, amended version of the bill passed out of the House and was subsequently amended further in the Senate, but ran out of time and failed to pass on Sine Die.

In addition to attempts to expand the sales and use tax, there was also legislation aimed at increasing state revenues by repealing certain longstanding exemptions to the sales tax. House Bill 1145, sponsored by Delegate Michael Jackson (D – Prince George’s County) would have repealed an existing sales tax exemption for certain snack foods sold in vending machines, established a “snack tax” on those same products and directed the funds to the “Meals for Achievement” program to fund school-based food service programs for students. Similarly, House Bill 1284, sponsored by Delegate David Moon (D – Montgomery County) would have repealed the same vending machine exemption to the sales tax, along with other current exemptions for precious metal bullion or coins and certain machinery and fuel. HB 1284 would also have repealed other tax credit programs. HB 1145 failed to progress after its initial hearing, and HB 1248 received an unfavorable report from the House Ways and Means Committee.

Tobacco Products – Taxation and Regulation

In the wake of the wave of vape-related illnesses that emerged in the Summer of 2019, the 2020 Legislative Session saw several bills introduced to regulate and tax tobacco products and electronic smoking devices (ESDs). Senate Bill 233/House Bill 3, championed by Delegate Dereck Davis (D – Prince George’s County) and Attorney General Brian Frosh (D – Montgomery County), sought to reduce the harmful impact of tobacco products on youth and other vulnerable populations in Maryland through significant regulation. As introduced, this legislation would have implemented an industry-wide flavor ban, including a ban on all menthol products. After lengthy and emotional hearings in the Senate and House with significant testimony both in support and opposition to the proposed legislation, a substantially amended bill was passed favorably out of the House Economic Matters Committee and the full House, more or less, along party lines.

HB 3, as amended, would have not only banned the inclusion of all flavors and menthols in tobacco products and ESDs, it would also have outright banned closed-system and cartridge-based ESDs, in contradiction to regulatory efforts being undertaken by the federal government through the Food and Drug Administration’s pre-market tobacco application process. The menthol and ESD-ban included in the amended bill were much more controversial on the Senate side, and due to concerns over those

16 provisions, potential impact on state revenue from the tobacco tax, and the abbreviated session timeline, HB 3 failed to progress beyond initial introduction in the Senate Finance Committee and died for lack of action on Sine Die.

Other tobacco-related legislation, including Senate Bill 54, sponsored by Senator Clarence Lam (D - Baltimore & Howard Counties), Senate Bill 410, sponsored by Senator Ben Kramer (D – Montgomery County), and House Bill 1374, sponsored by Delegate Barrie Ciliberti (R – Carroll & Frederick Counties) would also have restricted flavors in vaping products and ESDs, but none of those bills gained traction in the legislative session.

In addition to the regulatory bills, several bills were introduced to increase taxes on all forms of tobacco products and ESDs. Senate Bill 3, sponsored by Senator Cory McCray (D – Baltimore City), and House Bill 732, sponsored by Delegate Eric Luedtke (D – Montgomery County), would have increased taxes on various tobacco products across the industry. After significant debate and amendment, HB 732 passed the General Assembly with the tax changes included in the chart below:

Product Current Rate Rate Under HB 732* Cigarettes $2.00/pack $3.75/pack Other Tobacco Products 30% Wholesale 53% Wholesale (includes chewing tobacco, snuff, and snus) Cigars 70% Wholesale 70% Wholesale Pipe Tobacco 30% Wholesale 30% Wholesale Premium Cigars 15% Wholesale 15% Wholesale Electronic Smoking Devices 6% Sales Tax 12% Sales Tax (includes vape liquid, unless otherwise specified) Vape Liquid Sold in a Container 6% Sales Tax 60% Sales Tax that Contains 5ml or Less *These rates take effect July 1, 2020

In addition to setting a new tobacco tax regime for the State, HB 732 also explicitly preempts local jurisdictions from taxing or regulating tobacco products, including ESDs, with the exception of grandfathering in a 30% wholesale tax on vape products enacted in Montgomery County earlier in 2019. Legislators touted the amended legislation as discouraging the use of harmful nicotine products, while raising state revenues to address, among other things, increased healthcare costs to the State associated with the use of these products. As noted in the previous section on corporate taxation, the tobacco tax provisions included in HB 732 were combined with the digital advertising tax and both measures are being seriously considered for veto by the Governor.

Transportation

School Transportation – Alternative Vehicles

Delegate Carl Anderton (R - Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot, & Wicomico Counties), with the support of other local jurisdictions and school systems, introduced House Bill 1234 to increase flexibility in transportation options for K-12 students. HB 1234 would have authorized a county board of education to provide transportation for specified public school students to and from school using a vehicle other than a Type I or Type II school vehicle (i.e. a yellow school bus) when a school vehicle cannot reasonably be provided. The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) would have had to consult with county

17 boards of education and the Motor Vehicle Administration to adopt regulations establishing minimum vehicle and driver safety standards for alternate student transportation under the bill. The bill also broadened the definition of a nonpublic school with respect to the transportation of students to mean any elementary or secondary school in the State that is not part of the public elementary and secondary education system.

While HB 1234 passed unanimously out of the full House prior to the crossover deadline, due to the abbreviated legislative session, there was insufficient time for the Senate to pass the bill. It is likely that local jurisdictions will work with legislators and MSDE in the interim to establish similar flexibility through administrative action, particularly in light of increased transportation mandates placed on local school systems under the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.

Peer–to–Peer Car Sharing – Sales Tax Sunset Extension and Study

In 2018, the General Assembly passed legislation to regulate Peer-to Peer Car Sharing The legislature requested a study to determine the appropriate tax rate for this industry, setting the sales tax rate at 8%. Senator Cory McCray (D – Baltimore City) and Delegate Mark Chang (D – Anne Arundel County) introduced Senate Bill 573/HB 841 to permanently set the sales tax rate. Due to the fact that the studies performed in accordance with the 2018 legislation made no recommendation, the MGA simply extended the sunset of the 8% sales tax for one year and requested that the Department of Legislative Services perform a study and make a recommendation on the appropriate sales tax rate.

Electric Vehicles

Two bills were introduced to, once again, extend the sunset of the Electric Vehicle Recharging Equipment Rebate Program and vehicle excise tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles. Delegate David Fraser-Hidalgo (D – Montgomery County), who has been a long-time champion of efforts to increase the adoption of zero emission vehicles, introduced House Bill 1223. This bill, as introduced, increased the amount of funding allocated to this program, from $6 million to $24 million, and would have limited the tax credit to zero emission vehicles, thereby making plug-in vehicles ineligible.

The Governor’s administration introduced a similar bill, Senate Bill 277/House Bill 359. This bill also increased program funding but would have eliminated the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Cap for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. While there was significant discussion on each of these bills and interest in consolidating concepts to move forward with just one bill, the proposal fell victim to the abbreviated legislative session and did not pass. There will be some efforts during the interim to see what administrative options are available to revive this very important program.

Department of Transportation – Promise Act

House Bill 1249 would have established a laundry list of requirements for the public-private partnership (P3) agreement the in connection with the project to construct toll lanes on I-495 and I-270. The legislation would have required that at least 10% of the revenues from the toll lanes be deposited into a special fund to be used only for transit projects in the counties where the toll facilities are located. The bill specified that P3 agreements for toll lanes may require a bidder to: (1) initiate a community benefit agreement that promotes increased opportunities for local businesses and small, minority, women–owned, and veteran–owned businesses in the transportation industry and (2) ensure the timely, safe, and efficient completion of the project by facilitating a steady supply of highly skilled craft workers who are paid not less than the prevailing wage rate. The bill passed the House unamended but did not receive a hearing in the Senate before the MGA adjourned.

Public Safety

Organized Retail Theft

Under current law, when a person commits a theft under one scheme or continuing course of conduct, whether from the same or several sources, the conduct may be considered as one crime and the value of the property or services may be aggregated in determining whether the theft is a felony or misdemeanor. Senator Robert Cassilly (R – Harford County) and Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D – Montgomery County) introduced Senate Bill 598/House Bill 830, which would have: (1) applied this provision to a theft committed against the same or multiple victims and (2) specified that multiple thefts committed by the same person in multiple counties under one scheme or continuing course of conduct may be aggregated and prosecuted in any county in which one of the thefts occurred. The bill defined “organized retail theft” as the commission, either alone or with one or more other persons, of a series of thefts of retail merchandise from one or more retail merchants with the intent to: (1) return the merchandise to the merchant for value or (2) resell, trade, or barter the merchandise for value. If the court were to find that the crime is organized retail theft, that finding must become part of the court record for purposes of reporting to Criminal Justice Information Services. While the bill advanced through the Senate, the House took no action on the bill, and it failed on Sine Die.

Domestic Violence Protections Strangulation

Senate Bill 212/House Bill 233: Criminal Law - Assault in the First Degree - Strangulation was introduced by Senator Susan Lee (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Jesse Pippy (R – Frederick County). With the passage of this legislation, strangulation will be classified as a felony. Proponents of the bill noted that when strangulation or suffocation are present in an assault the likelihood of homicide increases by 750%. Strangulation is routinely charged as a second-degree assault, which is simply an impermissible touching such as a slap, punch, or kick. Second degree assault is a misdemeanor in Maryland and carries a maximum ten-year imprisonment which is rarely handed down in sentencing. By establishing strangulation as a first-degree assault, an individual now faces a felony charge and up to 25 years of incarceration. The original legislation sought to include suffocation as a felony assault as well but was subsequently amended out before the bill’s passage.

Protective Orders and Peace Order Filing Considerations

Senate Bill 210/House Bill 248, entitled Protective Orders - Relief Eligibility-Rape and Sexual Offenses was introduced by Senator Jeff Waldstreicher (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary (D – Howard County). This bill expands eligibility for a domestic violence protective order by altering the definition of a “person eligible for relief” to include an individual who alleges the commission, within one year before the filing of the petition, of rape or a sexual offense or attempted rape or sexual offense in any degree. It also removes these offenses from the list of offenses for which an individual may seek relief under provisions of law regarding peace orders. This important bill passed in the final days of session. Maryland trial courts were struggling with the issue of whether a petitioner is eligible for protective order relief, under a theory that an act of rape or sexual offense, where the victim and assailant have no domestic, familial, or intimate partner history, is the equivalent of the parties having had a sexual relationship. Trial courts have routinely declined to construe the statute in such an expansive manner given the plain, ordinary meaning of “sexual relationship,” and in the absence of a legislative definition of that term to the contrary. This differing interpretation of “sexual relationship” among the judges has led to inconsistent application of the law. Petitioners in identical situations receive different outcomes depending on which judge hears the case. Proponents of the bill contend that this legislation

19 will eliminate confusion and inconsistency in the application of the law and thus offer greater protection to victims. The bill becomes law on October 1, 2020.

Hate Crimes Items & Symbols Used to Threaten or Intimidate

Senator Sarah Elfreth (D – Anne Arundel County) and Delegate Marc Chang (D – Anne Arundel County) reintroduced and passed Senate Bill 161/House Bill 5. The passage of this bill expands current hate crime law to include prohibiting an individual from placing or inscribing an item or symbol, including an actual or depicted noose or swastika, without the express permission of the owner of the building or property, the owner's agent, or a lawful occupant, and with the intent to threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons.

2nd Lieutenant Richard Collins, III’s Law

Senate Bill 606/House Bill 917 was introduced by Senator Joanne Benson (D – Prince George’s County) and Delegate C.T. Wilson (D – Charles County) to strengthen Maryland’s existing hate crimes law. Under the bill, in order to qualify as a hate crime, “hate” defined as “discriminatory motive based on religious, racial or sexual orientation animus”, does not have to be the exclusive motivating factor behind the commission of a hate crime. Under existing law, a crime only becomes a hate crime if it was committed “because of” discriminatory animus. Several courts have interpreted this language to mean that a hate crime occurs when hate is the only factor motivating the conduct. This proposed change would ensure that crimes could be punished as hate crimes even where the perpetrator had mixed motives (e.g., hate and greed). The bill is named for U.S. Army Lt. Richard Collins, III, a 23-year-old who was days from his Bowie State University graduation when a white supremacist stabbed him to death in 2017. A Prince George’s County judge dropped the hate crime charge against murderer, saying that prosecutors could not show the killing was committed solely because of Lt. Collins’ identity. The legislation passed both chambers and will become on law October 1, 2020.

Police Hate Crime Training Requirements

Senate Bill 633/House Bill 541 was introduced by Senator Jeff Waldstreicher (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Lesley Lopez (D – Montgomery County) to ensure that all Maryland police officers are properly trained on how to respond to hate crimes. The bill lays out training standards for cadets and those currently serving. Under the guidelines, an officer will be trained every three years on the criminal laws concerning hate crimes, the appropriate treatment of victims of hate crimes, and the procedures for proper reporting. This legislation passed and has an effective date of October 1, 2020.

Energy Renewable Energy

In the 2019 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed the Clean Energy Jobs Act to substantially increase the State’s renewable energy goals for the next two decades. In the wake of that controversial legislation, several bills were introduced in 2020 to make additional changes to Maryland’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), including comprehensive legislation put forth by the Hogan Administration to establish a Clean and Renewable Energy Standard (CARES). Additionally, other legislation was introduced to incentivize and prioritize cleaner, renewable energy sources in Maryland.

Governor’s CARES Legislation

At the request of the Governor’s administration, legislation was introduced to add “clean energy” to the RPS, remove some currently eligible combustion sources, like waste-to-energy, and replace them with large-scale hydroelectric. Senate Bill 265/House Bill 363 renamed the modified program to CARES. Beginning in 2021, the nominal overall amount of energy that must be from clean and renewable sources is increased by 25 percentage points; however, there is an annual reduction of about that amount each year due to existing in-state nuclear generation, so the net total does not increase beyond existing levels until 2031. Clean energy sources must be used for a minimum amount of the total each year, similar to the existing solar and offshore wind carve-outs but may also be used to meet any remaining general requirement. Finally, the solar carve-out is fixed to 2.5% for municipal electric utilities. As introduced, the bill would take effect January 1, 2021, and apply to all compliance years beginning in that year.

At hearings held in both the Senate Finance and House Economic Matters Committees, significant opposition was lodged from some utilities, sectors of the renewable energy industry, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, and the bill failed to progress following the initial hearings.

Black Liquor

Following the closure of the Luke Paper Mill in Western Maryland during the 2019 interim, there was increased pressure on the legislature to remove energy derived from woody biomass or “black liquor” from the RPS. Senator Delores Kelley (D – Baltimore County) and Delegate Dereck Davis (D – Prince George’s County), chairs of the respective energy committees, sponsored Senate Bill 168/House Bill 98 to remove mill residue from eligibility for inclusion in the State’s RPS as a Tier 1 resource. Other eligible sources of qualifying biomass were unchanged. A presently existing obligation or contract right would not be impaired in any way by the bill, which applied to all RPS compliance years beginning January 1, 2021, or later. After SB 168 received an unfavorable vote in Senate Finance, the House legislation did not progress.

Waste-To-Energy

Senator Michael Hough (R – Frederick County) and Delegate Nick Mosby (D – Baltimore City), sponsored Senate Bill 560/House Bill 438. This bill would have removed waste-to-energy and refuse- derived fuel from eligibility for inclusion in the State’s RPS as a Tier 1 resource, effective October 1, 2020. A presently existing obligation or contract right would not be impaired in any way by the bill, which applies to all RPS compliance years beginning after December 31, 2020. Following controversial hearings in both the Senate and the House, with significant opposition from labor factions, the bills did not progress.

Large Scale Hydropower

Late in the Legislative Session, Senator Katherine Klausmeier (D – Baltimore County) introduced Senate Bill 1032 to double the maximum size of hydroelectric sources eligible for “Tier 1” of the State’s RPS, from 30 megawatts to 60 megawatts; other eligibility requirements are unchanged. The bill also indefinitely extends “Tier 2” of the RPS beyond its current expiration at the end of 2020. The current Tier 2 percentage requirement is maintained at 2.5%, which makes the combined RPS total 2.5 percentage points more than under current law beginning in 2021. Due to its late introduction and the abbreviated session, the bill hearing was cancelled, and the legislation failed to progress.

Community Choice Energy

Senator Pam Beidle (D – Anne Arundel County) and Delegate Lorig Charkoudian (D -Montgomery County) sponsored Senate Bill 315/House Bill 561 to authorize a county, municipality, or group of counties and/or municipalities to form or join a “community choice aggregator,” beginning October 1, 2021, under specified conditions. The legislation required the Public Service Commission (PSC) to adopt related regulations by July 1, 2021, including those related to risk mitigation for standard offer service customers. While several local government executives came out in strong support of the bills, there was significant opposition to the legislation at both the Senate and House hearings from utilities and the retail energy suppliers – particularly to the restrictive opt-out provisions included in the bill, as introduced. In response to that opposition, the House sponsor significantly amended the bill down to a “pilot” program for Montgomery County only. While the legislation was successful in passing out of the House it failed to progress on the Senate side, likely due to the abbreviated session.

Transition of Coal Burning Energy Facilities

Senator Chris West (R – Baltimore County) and Delegate Kumar Barve (D – Montgomery County) sponsored Senate Bill 887/House Bill 1545 to: (1) establish a cap on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for “affected electric generating units,” with a staggered timeline for implementation; (2) establish a Fossil Fuel Community Transition Account and related advisory board within the Department of Commerce to provide grants for specified individuals and communities affected by the transition from fossil fuels and the retirement of electric generating units; (3) redirect proceeds from specified accounts within the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF) to the transition account to provide grant funding; and (4) establish related reporting requirements. The bill was met with significant opposition in both the Senate and House hearings, primarily from the labor representatives for the workers at the targeted facilities. These stakeholders had concerns about the short period of time they had to review and respond to the proposed legislation and that the employee support provided in the bill was insufficient and lacked a long term and dependable funding source. In light of those concerns and the abbreviated session, the bill failed to progress beyond the initial hearings. It is expected that similar legislation will be reintroduced in the 2021 Legislative Session.

Changes to the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Process Climate and Labor

There were several bills introduced to add to the factors the PSC must consider when reviewing and approving an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). Senator Kelley sponsored Senate Bill 538 to require the PSC to consider the effect of a proposed generating station, overhead transmission line, or qualified generator lead line on the preservation of environmental quality and climate, before taking final action on an application for a CPCN.

Similarly, Senator Ben Kramer (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Charkoudian (D – Montgomery County) sponsored Senate Bill 656/House Bill 531 requiring the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to include an evaluation of the impact of electric power plants on climate change as part of its ongoing research, as specified, including whether the related emissions and climate effects are consistent with the State’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals. Separately, the PSC, in supervising and regulating public service companies, must consider: (1) the maintenance of fair and stable labor standards for affected workers; (2) additional specified climate effects; and (3) the State’s GHG emissions reduction goals. Further, the PSC may not take final action on a CPCN without considering the effect of climate change on the project and, for a generating station, the impact of the project on GHG emissions and its consistency with the State’s GHG emissions reduction

22 goals. Senate Bill 656 was voted favorably out of the Senate, but after being jointly assigned to the House Economic Matters and Environment and Transportation Committees, it failed to progress.

Use of Existing Transmission Lines

The Harford County Senate Delegation put forth legislation (Senate Bill 578) to require the PSC, before taking final action on an application for a CPCN, to consider whether an applicant’s design prioritizes the use of existing infrastructure or upgrading existing infrastructure. In addition, this legislation prohibited the PSC from authorizing a person from undertaking the construction of an overhead transmission line that is aligned with and within one mile of a conservation easement, unless there is an exceptional showing of good cause. The bill must be construed to apply only prospectively to CPCNs issued by the PSC on or after the effective date of the bill and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on CPCNs issued before that date. This legislation was in response to a series of protests and litigation in response to the Transource transmission line project in Harford County, but it failed to progress beyond the initial hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.

Rapid Health Assessments

House Bill 109, reintroduced by Delegate Robbyn Lewis (D – Baltimore City), would have required an applicant for a CPCN for the construction of a generating station, a high-voltage overhead transmission line, or a qualified generator lead line to conduct a rapid health impact assessment (HIA) on the project and report on its findings. The applicant would be required to complete the rapid HIA: (1) by contracting with a person with relevant expertise or (2) in accordance with any relevant guidance from specified federal, state, and local government units. The applicant must submit the rapid HIA report within 45 days of the initial application. The PSC must take final action on the CPCN application only after due consideration of the findings from the rapid HIA and must always consider the effect of the project on air and water quality in the surrounding areas. The bill received an unfavorable report from the House Economic Matters Committee.

Healthcare

Health Insurance Protections

During the 2020 Legislative Session, there was a focus on proactive measures that would address potential state issues arising from either the full or partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Senator Brian Feldman (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D – Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties), co-chairs of the Maryland Health Insurance Coverage Protection Commission, introduced and passed Senate Bill 124/House Bill 196. Additionally, Senator Feldman along with Delegate Shane Pendergrass (D – Howard County) introduced and passed Senate Bill 872/House Bill 959 as emergency legislation. The former was amended and requires the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange to report back to the Senate Finance and the House Health and Government Operations Committees on issues/data points related to establishing state-based individual market health insurance subsidies. The objective of creating such a program is to continue efforts to keep insurance affordable in Maryland. The latter establishes in statute some of the consumer protection provisions that currently exist in the Affordable Care Act, including but not limited to protections and coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage for children up to age 26, access to preventative services without a cost-sharing requirement, and a prohibition on lifetime or annual limits. This bill also establishes non-discrimination provisions.

Telehealth

Senator Cheryl Kagan (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Sandy Rosenberg (D – Baltimore City) passed important legislation expanding telehealth opportunities in Maryland. Senate Bill 402/House Bill 428 establishes clear regulatory authority to use telehealth communications, both synchronous and asynchronous, for new or existing patients. All standards of care apply, and all applicable state and federal laws apply. Generally, a healthcare practitioner may not prescribe a controlled dangerous substance through telehealth unless (1) the prescription is for a patient is in a qualifying healthcare facility or (2) the Governor has declared a state of emergency due to a catastrophic health emergency. Further, once signed into law, the language in this bill will supersede restrictions on the use of asynchronous communications in regulations by adopted by the following boards:

· Physicians · Nurses (teletherapy only) · Social Work Examiners · Licensed Professional Counselors · Psychologists · Speech Language Pathologists/Audiologists

SB 402/HB 428 is emergency legislation and will take effect upon the Governor’s signature.

Telehealth Pilot Program for Mental Health and Chronic Condition Management Services

Senator Steve Hershey (R - Kent, Queen Anne's, Cecil, and Caroline Counties) presented an emergency bill that requires Medicaid, subject to the limitations of the State budget, to provide mental health services appropriately delivered through telehealth to a patient in the patient’s home setting. The bill also expands the definition of “telehealth” for purposes of private insurance coverage to include the delivery of mental health care services to a patient in the patient’s home. By December 1, 2020, the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) must apply to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for a waiver to implement a specified telehealth pilot program and, if approved, administer the pilot program. MDH must also study and report on whether substance use disorder (SUD) services may be appropriately provided through telehealth to a patient in the patient’s home setting. The pilot program and study provisions of the bill terminate June 30, 2025.

Health Care Sharing Ministries

Health Care Sharing Ministries (HCSMs), sometimes referred to as Religious Publication Arrangements (RPAs), are groups whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and agree to share medical expenses among its members. As HCSMs are not considered insurance, the law does not require that HCSMs offer the essential benefits required by regulated health plans. Instead, members of HCSMs agree to make voluntary contributions to help pay all or some portion of the eligible medical expenses of fellow members. Participants are not guaranteed that any part of their medical expenses will be paid by such members and are not responsible for all expenses related to the medical treatment. In recent years, there have been some concerns raised by the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) that certain HCSMs were operating health plans outside of the law and oversite of MIA. Therefore, in response to the request by a HCSM, Senator Katherine Klausmeier (D – Baltimore County) and Delegate Nic Kipke (R – Anne Arundel County) introduced Senate Bill 697/House Bill 994 to establish a new section in Maryland’s Insurance Article to define and regulate HCSMs. The legislation was met with varying

24 opposition. Recognizing that the 90-day session did not allow for the required time to educate members of the MGA on HCSMs, both bills were withdrawn for further deliberation and collaboration.

Minor Consent to Mental Health Treatment

Senate Bill 611/House Bill 782, introduced by Senator Malcolm Augustine (D – Prince George’s County) and Delegate Heather Bagnall (D – Anne Arundel County) as introduced, would have allowed any minor, regardless of age, to have the same capacity as an adult when consenting to consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of a mental or emotional disorder by a health care provider or a clinic. The bill would have also authorized a health care provider to decide to provide information to a parent, guardian, or custodian of a minor unless the health care provider believes that the disclosure will lead to harm to the minor or deter the minor from seeking care. After pushback from health care practitioners and parents, the bill was amended to raise the age of the minor to at least 12 years old and created a pre-treatment, subjective determination by the health care provider that the minor was “mature and capable of giving informed consent”. The bill was also amended to address concerns surrounding prescribing psychotropic medications to minors as such medications have long term physical consequences that children are incapable of understanding. The amendment mandated that a minor younger than age 16 could not consent to the use of prescription medications to treat a mental or emotional disorder. While the amended bill passed the Senate, the House took no action on the bill.

Prescription Drug Affordability Board – Function and Funding

In the 2019 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed legislation creating the Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) and set certain requirements for that board. Over the interim, former legislator and Secretary of Health Van Mitchell was appointed Chair of the PDAB and began initial administrative meetings. In order to fund the initial functions of the PDAB, funding was temporarily transferred from the Maryland Health Care Commission (MHCC), and in the 2020 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed additional legislation to clarify the ongoing funding source and function of the PDAB.

Drug Affordability Board and Fund

As amended, Senate Bill 669/House Bill 1095, departmental legislation introduced at the request of the PDAB, repeals the requirement that the PDAB determine a funding source and report to specified committees of the MGA with a recommendation on legislation necessary to establish a funding source by December 31, 2020. Instead, the bill requires the board to assess and collect an annual fee on specified entities to fund the board. All fees must be paid to the newly established Prescription Drug Affordability Fund. If the board receives funding for its initial establishment from the MHCC, the board must repay the funds over a three-year period beginning June 1, 2021. The bill unanimously passed both the Senate and House and takes effect June 1, 2020.

Drug Board – Legal Advisor

House Bill 1100, sponsored by Delegate Shane Pendergrass (D – Howard County), repeals the requirement that the PDAB hire legal counsel. Instead, the bill specifies that the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the board and must designate an assistant Attorney General as counsel to the board. The bill also clarifies that the board may set upper payment limits in accordance with a specified plan of action. The bill also reduces the frequency by which the board is required to meet from at least once every six weeks to at least four times per year and delays the date by which the board must complete specified actions. The bill unanimously passed both the Senate and the House and takes effect June 1, 2020.

Patient Access to Medical Treatment and Pharmaceuticals

On behalf of a newly formed coalition of patient advocacy organizations, the MGA considered legislation aimed at increasing access and coverage for patients seeking medical services. These bills would have altered requirements on carriers to increase access and cost-saving options for patients. Although such legislation did not progress beyond initial hearings in the 2020 Legislative Session, these issues are expected to be reintroduced in future sessions.

Out-of-Pocket Accumulators

Senator Joanne Benson (D – Prince George’s County) and Delegate Patrick Young (D – Baltimore County) introduced Senate Bill 623/House Bill 1360, which failed to pass, to limit the out-of-pocket maximum that individuals with health insurance must pay. As introduced, this legislation would have required insurers, non-profit health service plans, and health maintenance organizations (collectively known as carriers), when calculating the overall contribution to any out-of-pocket maximum or a cost- sharing requirement, to include any payments made by, or on behalf of, the insured, subscribers, or member.

Step Therapy Protocol

Senator Benson and Delegate Young also sponsored Senate Bill 952/House Bill 1359, which would have repealed current prohibitions against carriers imposing step therapy or fail-first protocols while establishing new requirements. Had this legislation passed a carrier, including a “utilization review organization,” would be required to establish a “step therapy protocol” by using clinical review criteria based on clinical practice guidelines, as specified. Carriers and utilization review organizations would establish a process for requesting an exception to a step therapy protocol that is clearly described, easily accessible by a patient and prescribing provider, and posted on the carrier’s website.

Reverse Auction for State Pharmacy Benefit Managers

In an attempt to ensure the most efficient access to pharmaceuticals for state employees, Delegate Shane Pendergrass (D – Howard County) introduced House Bill 1150, which requires the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to use a “reverse auction” to select a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) for the Maryland Rx Program under the State Employee and Retiree Health and Welfare Benefits Program. At least three months before a PBM reverse auction is scheduled to be completed, DBM must procure a technology platform (as well as any associated professional services) to evaluate the qualifications of prospective PBMs, automatically adjudicate prescription drug claims, and collect data on pharmacy reimbursement. DBM may perform annual market checks of PBM services during the term of a PBM contract to ensure continuing competitiveness of prescription drug pricing over the life of the contract. A market check must include an evaluation of the effect of alternative drug-pricing metrics. HB1150 passed both chambers unanimously on Sine Die and takes effect June 1, 2020.

Health Occupations

Athletic Trainers

Senator Clarence Lam (D – Baltimore and Howard Counties) and Delegate Karen Lewis Young (D – Frederick County) reintroduced Senate Bill 732/House Bill 576, which attempted to make changes to the Athletic Training Practice Act in Maryland. As amended, the bill altered the definition of “practice

26 athletic training,” defines “athletic individual,” and repealed limitations on the settings in which athletic trainers may practice. Stakeholders worked diligently throughout much of the session in order to find middle ground on this piece of legislation. With all parties in agreement, the bill easily passed both chambers and will become law October 1, 2020.

Medical Directors of Outpatient Mental Health Clinics

Current Maryland regulations require nursing homes, ambulatory care surgical centers, medical laboratories, emergency medical services, and clinics that perform abortions to have a "medical director" who is a licensed physician with experience in the field. Outpatient mental health centers are required to have either a medical director, formerly a physician, or both a medical director and a program director, a non-physician. In 2019, the MGA passed House Bill 1122 to allow nurse practitioners (NP) to hold the title of medical director, a title traditionally reserved for physicians. House Bill 1461 introduced this session by Delegate Terri Hill (D – Howard County) was submitted to not rescind House Bill 1122 in its entirety but to clarify that a NP may not hold the title of "medical director" if he/she is not a licensed physician. Proponents of the bill contend that it served to ensure that clinics have access to, and hire, individuals best qualified to serve seriously mentally ill people with complex medical conditions. Opponents of the bill pointed to a perceived lack of psychiatrists, particularly in rural areas, as why this shift to non-physician medical directors was needed. This contentious bill had a hearing right up against the crossover deadline and ultimately did not get a vote in its committee of origin.

Pharmacists - Maintenance Injectable Medications

Senator Ron Young (D – Frederick County) and Delegate Karen Lewis Young (D – Frederick County) presented Senate Bill 545/House Bill 656 to allow a licensed pharmacist to administer a maintenance injectable medication: (1) if the maintenance injectable medication was prescribed by an authorized prescriber and the prescriber had not ordered the initial dose be administered by a prescriber; (2) in accordance with a standing order issued by an authorized public health official; or (3) in accordance with a drug therapy management protocol. “Maintenance injectable medication” was defined in the bill as a medication that is administered by injection other than intravenously and treats a chronic need, condition, or disorder. “Maintenance injectable medication” included a medication for the treatment of a psychiatric or substance use disorder, contraception, and vitamins. The House Bill was passed unanimously after compromise amendments between all the stakeholders. The bill languished in the Senate and failed to move before session adjourned.

Pharmacists – Smoking Cessation Aids

Reintroduced from the 2019 Session, Senator Antonio Hayes (D – Baltimore City) alongside Delegate Ariana Kelly (D – Montgomery County) sponsored Senate Bill 440/House Bill 1594. As amended by the Senate, this legislation would have expanded the scope of practice for a licensed pharmacist, who meets specified requirements, to include prescribing and dispensing nicotine replacement therapy medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an aid for the cessation of the use of tobacco products (tobacco cessation aids). By September 1, 2021, the State Board of Pharmacy must adopt specified regulations. After being amended and passed by the Senate, the legislation failed to progress in the House Health and Government Operations Committee, possibly attributable to the lack of time in the abbreviated session.

Limited Prescriptive Authority for Dental Hygienists

House Bill 749, sponsored by Delegate Nic Kipke (R – Anne Arundel County), authorizes a licensed dental hygienist who complies with specified requirements to prescribe or administer certain medications. Under the amended bill, an authorized hygienist may prescribe: (1) topical and systemic fluoride treatment; (2) topical antimicrobial medications; and (3) ibuprofen up to 600 mg/every 6 hours, for up to three days. Additionally, an authorized hygienist may administer certain medications under a standing order from a licensed dentist. These medications cannot be controlled dangerous substances, regulated by a federal Drug Enforcement Agency, or administered by intramuscular, subcutaneous, intravenous, or intradermal injection.

The State Board of Dental Examiners must adopt regulations and requirements for dental hygienists to prescribe or administer medication. Before prescribing or administering medication, a dental hygienist must complete any educational requirements established by the Board. A dental hygienist prescribing or administering medication must do so under the general supervision of a licensed dentist and in compliance with regulations adopted by the Board and applicable provisions of law regarding prescription packaging, labeling, and record keeping. The legislation had broad support from the Maryland Dental Hygienist Association, the Maryland State Dental Association, the Maryland Pharmacist Association, and the Maryland Dental Action Coalition, and passed unanimously on Sine Die.

Doulas – Certification and Coverage

Senator Arthur Ellis (D – Charles County) sponsored Senate Bill 110, which would have mandated Medicaid coverage of doula services in Maryland. During the Senate Finance Committee hearing on the bill, there were concerns from the maternal health community about the limited “certification” requirements established by the bill, although there was also general support for increasing access to doula services for women in Maryland. In response to those concerns, Senator Clarence Lam (D – Baltimore and Howard Counties) and Delegate Jheanelle Wilkins (D – Montgomery County) sponsored Senate Bill Senate Bill 914/House Bill 1067, to establish a Doula Technical Advisory Group and Certification. While the MGA was reluctant to establish another state-staffed task force or commission, the House Health and Government Operations Committee did send a letter to the Maryland Department of Health asking that they study the issue and make recommendations on certification and coverage requirements for doulas in the State.

Real Property

Clean Buildings Jobs Act of 2020

Delegate Vaughn Stewart (D – Montgomery County) introduced the Clean Building and Jobs Act of 2020, House Bill 1490, which would have required the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), in consultation with the Maryland Department of Labor and the Maryland Energy Administration, to adopt regulations on monitoring, reporting, and then ultimately reducing the emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) from “covered buildings.” The “covered buildings” targeted in the bill were buildings that have a gross floor area that exceeds 24,999 square feet, excluding the parking garage area. Had the bill passed, the owner of a covered building would have been required to: (1) beginning January 1, 2021, monitor GHG emissions from the covered building and (2) by July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter, report to MDE on the level of GHG emissions from the covered building during the immediately preceding calendar year. By October 1, 2024, MDE must establish regulations based on the GHG monitoring reports submitted by covered building owners. The regulations would establish: (1) baselines of the current average median GHG emissions levels for different categories of buildings, including commercial,

28 industrial, and residential; (2) five-year GHG emissions reduction targets for different sizes and categories of buildings; and (3) building energy performance standards for different sizes and categories of buildings, as necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reduction targets, as specified. The goals of the GHG emissions reduction targets for covered buildings would have been a 40% reduction in GHG emissions from covered buildings from 2006 levels by 2030 and an 80% reduction in GHG emissions from covered buildings by 2050.

Housing Opportunities Made Equal

Housing Opportunities Made Equal, traditionally referred to as the HOME Act has been debated in Annapolis for well over a decade. This Legislative Session, Senator Will Smith (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Brooke Lierman (D – Baltimore City) succeeded in passing this bill through both chambers of the MGA and to the Governor’s desk. The HOME Act designates a person’s source of income as a protected class and shields it from discriminatory practices in residential real estate transactions and the sale or rental of a dwelling. Under the bill, a “source of income” is any lawful source of money paid directly or indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income from: (1) any lawful profession, occupation, or job; (2) any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including low-income housing assistance certificates and vouchers; (3) any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration or benefit; and (4) any sale or pledge of property or an interest in property. The bill neither prevents a person from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity nor prohibits a person from determining the ability of a potential buyer or renter to pay by verifying, in a commercially reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner, the source and amount of income or creditworthiness of the potential buyer or renter. The bill also does not prohibit a person from determining, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, the ability of a potential buyer to repay a mortgage loan. The bill does not limit the rights or remedies that are otherwise available to a landlord or tenant under any other law. A person who discriminates on a person’s source of income is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to: (1) imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both; (2) if the violation results in bodily injury, imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000 or both; or (3) if the violation results in death, imprisonment not exceeding life.

Annual Eviction Moratorium

Delegate Mark Chang (D – Anne Arundel County) introduced House Bill 20 to prohibit a landlord from executing a judgment for possession or a warrant of restitution, which serves as an eviction order, against a residential rental property that serves as the tenant’s primary residence between December 18th and January 8th. The bill would have also suspended statutory time requirements for enforcement of the judgment or warrant during this period. Delegate Chang argued that the bill would serve as a hard pause for three weeks during the holiday season to give those going through tough times a little extra dignity. Chang contended that the eviction process is a long and time-consuming process and the additional three weeks added onto the process by the bill was insignificant especially when balanced with the good will it sought to extend. Industry groups representing landlords and property managers pushed back against the legislation contending that the eviction process is already too long, and that eviction is not the goal of landlords, who are in the rental business not the vacancy business. In addition, evictions are costly to rental providers who must reinvest significant money and time at turnover to rehabilitate and remarket the unit. Ultimately, the bill received an unfavorable report from the House Environment and Transportation Committee.

Residential Leases - Repair of Dangerous Defects and Failure to Pay Rent

Delegate Melissa Wells (D – Baltimore City) introduced legislation that would have made multiple changes to the statute related to the repair of dangerous defects in residential rental dwelling units, as well as to failure to pay rent actions in court. House Bill 1372 would have established that, by offering a residential dwelling unit for rent, the landlord is deemed to warrant that the unit is fit for human habitation and holds the obligation to repair and eliminate conditions and defects that constitute, or if not promptly corrected will constitute, a fire hazard or a serious and substantial threat to the life, health, or safety of occupants. The bill would have also expanded the remedies available to a tenant based on the failure of a landlord to make the aforementioned repairs or corrections by authorizing a tenant to bring an action for money damages for breach of the warranty of habitability. Relief for breach of the warranty of habitability was not conditioned on the tenant’s payment of periodic rent into court. In a claim for breach of the warranty of habitability made, the tenant was afforded the ability to calculate the damages retroactively starting on the date on which the landlord actually knew or should have known of the breach of warranty and calculated as the total of the rent paid by the tenant during the time that dangerous conditions or defects continued, less the reasonable rental value of the dwelling unit in its deteriorated condition and the cost, if any, incurred and demonstrated by the tenant, of repairs to correct the alleged conditions or defects, relocation from the leased property proximately caused by the alleged conditions or defects and other economic losses proximately caused by the alleged conditions or defects. In addition to monetary damages, the bill also allowed a court to award to the tenant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. HB1372 failed to progress after its initial hearing in the House.

Tenant Protection Act

Delegate Vaughn Stewart (D – Montgomery County) sponsored House Bill 744 which would have required landlords that own residential properties with a ratio utility billing system (RUBS) to disclose this information to prospective tenants. Landlords that failed to disclose this information would have been required to deem that portion of the lease unenforceable. While HB 744 passed unanimously in the House it did not receive action from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

Amendments to Declarations and Governing Documents

First proposed during the 2019 Session, Senator Chris West (R - Baltimore County) and Delegate Marvin Holmes (D - Prince George’s County) reintroduced House Bill 25/Senate Bill 293. This legislation establishes that if a declaration of a condominium or the governing document of a homeowner’s association (HOA) contains a provision requiring any action on the part of the holder of a mortgage or deed of trust (DOT) on a unit in the condominium or a lot in the HOA, in order to amend the declaration or governing document, the provision must be deemed satisfied if certain procedures are followed. The bill’s requirements did not apply to an amendment that: (1) alters the priority of the lien of the mortgage or DOT; (2) materially impairs or affects the unit or lot as collateral; or (3) materially impairs or affects the right of the holder of the mortgage or DOT to exercise any rights under the mortgage, DOT, or applicable law. The bill passed both chambers unanimously and has an effective date of October 1, 2020.

Disclosures to Condominium Unit Owners and Prohibited Provisions in Instruments

Senator Katie Fry Hester (D - Carroll and Howard Counties) and Delegate Courtney Watson (D - Howard County) introduced Senate Bill 471/House Bill 30 to create transparency between condominium owners and the board of directors that supervise their respective units. In general, any meeting of the governing body of a condominium must be open and held at a time and location as provided in the notice or bylaws. However, statutory provisions authorize a board of directors to meet in a closed session under specific

30 circumstances, including to: (1) consult with counsel on legal matters; (2) investigate proceedings concerning possible or actual misconduct; and (3) consider the terms or conditions of a business transaction in the negotiation stage if the disclosure could adversely affect the economic interests of the council of unit owners (COU). Originally entitled the “Sunset Island Act” but later amended, the legislation clarified that the provisions regarding closed meetings may not be interpreted to authorize the board to withhold or agree to withhold from the unit owners the terms of any legal agreement to which the COU is a party.

The bill would have deemed any provision of an instrument, such as a declaration, bylaw, or contract for the initial sale of a condominium unit, made by a developer or vendor in accordance with the Maryland Condominium Act unenforceable, if the provision related to the right to bring specified claims under applicable law and has specified effects. Current law provides that a provision is unenforceable if it:

• Shortens the statute of limitations applicable to any claim. • Waives the application of the discovery rule or other accrual data applicable to a claim. • Requires a unit owner or the COU to assert a claim subject to arbitration within a period that is shorter than the statute of limitations applicable to the claim. • Operates to prevent a unit owner or the COU from filing a lawsuit, initiating arbitration proceedings for a claim subject to arbitration, or otherwise asserting a claim within the statute of limitations applicable to the claim.

The legislation required that any provision in an agreement, other than an agreement related to a personnel matter or an individual owner assessment account, is unenforceable if it prohibits the disclosure to the unit owners or to a specified purchaser of any term of the agreement. The bill ultimately died in the House Environment and Transportation Committee for lack of action.

Reserve Studies

The Prince George’s County Delegation introduced House Bill 254 which requires a study every five years of the reserves needed for future major repairs and replacement of the common elements of a cooperative housing corporation (CHC) or condominium, or the common areas of an HOA in Prince George’s County. The bill applies only to a CHC or condominium in Prince George’s County or an HOA in Prince George’s County that has responsibility under its declaration for maintaining and repairing common areas. The bill does not apply to an HOA that issues bonds to meet capital expenditures. This legislation also authorizes electronic transmission of notice regarding specified expenditures for HOAs. The bill passed both chambers and has an effective date of October 1, 2020. Senator Joanne Benson (D - Prince George’s County) and Delegate Marvin Holmes (D – Prince George’s County) reintroduced similar legislation to be applied statewide, Senate Bill 386/House Bill 58, that failed to pass.

Responsibility for Property Insurance Deductibles

Previously introduced during the 2019 Session, Senator Chris West (R - Baltimore County) and Delegate Dana Stein (D - Baltimore County) introduced House Bill 108/Senate Bill 175 specifying that a COUs’ property insurance deductible is a common expense, if the cause of any damage to the condominium originates from an event outside of the condominium units and common elements. This legislation increases the maximum amount for the COUs’ property insurance deductible from $5,000 to $10,000, if the unit owner is found responsible for the damages. Passing both chambers unanimously, the bill becomes law on October 1, 2020.

Electric Vehicle Recharging Equipment and Reserved Parking Spaces

Once again, legislation was introduced in both the Senate and House concerning the authorization and installation of electric vehicle recharging equipment and the reserving of parking spaces by Senator Clarence Lam (D - Baltimore and Howard Counties) and Delegates Kumar Barve (D – Montgomery County), Marc Korman (D – Montgomery County) and Mary A. Lehman (D – Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties). While Delegate Korman’s House Bill 111 which, among other things, would have established standards relating to the installation and use of electric vehicle recharging equipment in condominiums and HOAs passed out of the House to the Senate, it and along with all other legislation concerning this subject matter failed to pass in the 2020 Legislative Session.

Homeowners Associations - Number of Declarant Votes

Delegate Marvin Holmes (D – Prince George’s County) introduced House Bill 240 which aimed to alter the number of votes that a declarant is entitled to when voting on an HOA matter. This would occur before and after a lot has been subdivided within a designated development and recorded with the land records in the county of the HOA. Similarly, Delegate Bonnie Cullison (D - Montgomery County) reintroduced House Bill 444 which would have made multiple changes to the Maryland Homeowners Association Act significantly expanding provisions related to boards of directors, meetings, voting, recordation, and rules of an HOA. HB 444 would have also increased the maximum fee that an HOA may charge for certain inspections from $50 to $100. Both bills died in the House Environment and Transportation Committee for lack of action.

Gaming & Horse Racing

Sports Gaming

For the third year in a row, legislation was introduced to enable sports gaming in Maryland. Senate Bill 4, as introduced by Senator Craig Zucker (D – Montgomery County) would have, subject to approval by statewide referendum, authorized Maryland’s six video lottery terminal (VLT) licensees to obtain a “sports wagering license” from the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission (SLGCC). The bill laid out a comprehensive implementation plan for Maryland’s sports gaming program and served as an initial basis for legislative discussion about the scope and requirements for that program.

Both the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee held multiple workgroups to discuss the details of Maryland’s proposed sports gaming program including: (1) the expansion of access to sports wagering licenses to other entities like racetracks, off-track betting facilities, and professional sports stadiums; (2) the amount of the license application fees for different licensees; (3) tax rates for revenue from sports gaming; (4) the scope and impact of online sports gaming; (5) minority business participation in the gaming industry, particularly in sport wagering; and (6) the specific language to be put before voters in the referendum.

Ultimately, due to the abbreviated session and the ongoing debate about what implementation should look like, SB 4 was amended to put the matter of expanding gaming in Maryland to include sports wagering up for referendum and mandate a disparity study relating to the sports and event wagering industry. The bill does not specify or limit the referendum to any particular existing licensees, in order to keep the industry open, at least initially, to new licensees and/or partners from the minority business community. SB 4 passed the full General Assembly in the amended posture on Sine Die.

Video Lottery Terminal Licensees – Renewal and Taxation

In anticipation of the first round of renewals for the VLT licenses issued after Maryland enacted a gaming program in 2007, legislation was sponsored to set requirements for that renewal process. Senate Bill 552, sponsored by Senator Nancy King (D - Montgomery County), would have required the SLGCC to renew a video lottery operation license upon proper application for license renewal and payment of the license renewal fee unless SLGCC finds that the licensee is no longer qualified to hold a license. Within one year of filing a notice of intent to reapply for a license, a video lottery operation licensee may file an application to renew a video lottery operation license that includes payment of the renewal fee. The SLGCC must establish an application process to renew a video lottery operation license. Before denying an application, the SLGCC must provide the video lottery operation licensee an opportunity for a hearing. SB 552 passed quickly out of the Senate, but due to the abbreviated session, failed to progress beyond initial introduction in the House Ways and Means Committee.

Senator George Edwards (R – Allegany, Garrett & Washington Counties) and the Allegany County House Delegation, once again, sponsored legislation to extend the timeline on the tax rate for the VLT facility at Rocky Gap in Western Maryland. Senate Bill 338/House Bill 435 would have altered the distribution of VLT proceeds from the video lottery facility in Allegany County. Of VLT revenues from the video lottery facility in Allegany County, 5.5% must be distributed as local impact grants and 0.75% must be distributed to the Purse Dedication Account (PDA). The bill eliminated the scheduled change in distribution of Allegany County VLT revenues after the first 10 years of operations as provided under current law. The bill passed successfully out of the Senate but failed to progress in the House Ways and Means Committee prior to the early end of the Session. The Rocky Gap facility’s current tax rate remains in effect until 2023, so it is expected that similar legislation will be reintroduced in future sessions and may play a role in a more comprehensive rewrite of the State’s broader VLT tax regime.

Racing and Community Benefit Act of 2020

Senate Bill 987, introduced by the chairman of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, Guy Guzzone (D – Howard County), provides for the redevelopment of both Pimlico Racecourse in Baltimore City and Laurel Park in Anne Arundel County. The bill also provides for bond issuances, funding mechanisms and fund transfers to the ownership and management of those racing facilities, as well as tax incentives. As a result of this legislation, two new racing facilities will be built at Laurel Park and Pimlico, which will enable Baltimore City to retain the Preakness Stakes. This is a significant victory for Baltimore City. The Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) will oversee the construction of both facilities ensuring they stay on time and budget. Redevelopment of Pimlico is estimated at $180 million, while Laurel Park rehabilitation is estimated to cost $150 million. Additionally, the MSA shall manage, operate, maintain and secure the Pimlico Clubhouse and Events Facility, grounds, and any facility not designated for Maryland Jockey Club’s year-round use. HJM worked successfully to defeat last year’s effort to move the Preakness out of Baltimore City in cooperation with many partners and is very proud of this historic piece of legislation. The Governor’s office has not indicated whether it will allow this legislation to become law or veto the bill.

Worker’s Compensation

As always, a variety of legislation impacting workers’ compensation claims was introduced in the 2020 Legislative Session. Additionally, the General Assembly passed corrective legislation to allow the Injured Workers Insurance Fund (IWIF) to continue to fully function and provide workers’ compensation insurance functions for the State and to address insolvency concerns with the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF).

Legal Fees

Senator Katherine Klausmeier (D – Baltimore County) and Delegate Kris Valderrama (D - Prince George’s County), the chairs of the respective Senate and House Workers’ Compensation Subcommittees, introduced Senate Bill 619/House Bill 767 to establish a new legal fee structure for medical claims made before the Workers’ Compensation Commission (WCC). As introduced, the bill would have authorized the WCC to order a fee up to $2,000 be paid for legal services rendered on behalf of a covered employee if no compensation is payable to the covered employee. WCC could have ordered the fee to be paid by: (1) the covered employee; (2) the employer or its insurer; (3) a self-insured employer; or (4) the UEF. This legislation failed to progress after initial hearings in the Senate and House.

Hernia Claims

Senator Klausmeier also sponsored Senate Bill 784 to increase the time limit, from 30 days to 45 days, within which an employee has to report an accidental personal injury or strain that causes or exacerbates a preexisting hernia in order to ensure receipt of workers’ compensation benefits for the hernia. The bill also allows an employee to file a workers’ compensation claim for a hernia up to two years after the injury or strain occurred unless the employer or its insurer has been prejudiced by the failure to do so. The bill applies prospectively and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on or application to any claim arising from events occurring before the bill’s October 1, 2020 effective date. The bill passed the MGA on the last day of the Legislative Session. . Injured Workers Insurance Fund – Revisions

Senator Klausmeier and Delegate Dereck Davis (D – Prince George’s County) sponsored Senate Bill 616/House Bill 99 requiring IWIF to be the third-party administrator for the State's Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Program for State Employees. Under this state contract, IWIF would be authorized to use nonsupervisory employees of the Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company (CEIC) to perform the required functions of the IWIF. The legislation was introduced in response to concerns from the State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS) about potential review of the participation of IWIF employees in a public pension program from the Internal Revenue Service, and was supported both by IWIF, CEIC, and the SRPS. The bill unanimously passed both the House and Senate without amendments.

Uninsured Employers’ Fund – Revisions

In response to concerns raised in the 2019 Legislative Session about potential insolvency in the UEF, departmental legislation was put forward to alter the assessment that funds the UEF. As amended by the Senate, Senate Bill 8 alters the assessment on certain workers’ compensation awards and settlements that fund the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) and the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) by decreasing SIF’s share by 1% and increasing UEF’s share by 1%. The bill takes effect July 1, 2020 and terminates June 30, 2021.

Consumer Protection & Privacy

The 2020 Legislative Session saw the introduction of several pieces of legislation dealing with the protection of consumer data and privacy, particularly data collected via the internet or other technology. These bills included specific protections for different types of personal information, including biometrics and facial recognition, genetic information, geolocation, etc. Senator Susan Lee (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Ned Carey (D – Anne Arundel County), as the MGA’s representatives to the Maryland Cyber Security Council (the Council), sponsored the very broad and comprehensive Senate Bill

957/House Bill 784, the Online Consumer Protection Act. As introduced, this legislation was primarily based on similar privacy legislation recently implemented in California. There was significant concern about the initial bill from several different industries who rely on the collection of certain data, including health and property insurers, financial institutions, data brokers, internet service providers, media outlets, automobile manufacturers, and others.

In light of this widespread opposition, Delegate Carey hosted several stakeholder workgroups on the legislation during the Session, and ultimately amended his bill into an interim study directing the Council to continue work on the matter and develop more palatable legislation for the 2021 Legislative Session. The Senate Finance Committee did not move forward with the study bill or other significant privacy legislation, but it is likely that the Council will still proceed in that direction and that there will be reworked comprehensive privacy legislation before the legislature next year.

Due to the continuing work on the omnibus privacy bill, the MGA failed to move forward on other data protection legislation sponsored by Senator Lee and Delegate Carey, including Senate Bill 201/House Bill 237 dealing with the Maryland Personal Information Protection Act and requirements for data breaches, and Senate Bill 443/House Bill 888, setting requirements for connected devices.

Other bills that did not pass include House Bills 307 and 1389, sponsored by Delegate Sara Love (D – Montgomery County) regulating the collection of biometric and geolocation data and House Bill 249 and House Bill 1656, sponsored by Delegate Courtney Watson (D – Howard County) and Delegate Susan McComas (R – Harford County) respectively, which provided broad opt-out ability for consumers whose information is collected.

The House Economic Matters Committee also voted unfavorably on Senate Bill 34/House Bill 752, sponsored by Senator Cheryl Kagan (D - Montgomery County) and Delegate Brian Crosby (D - St. Mary’s County), which would have prohibited the collection of personal data through ID swiping.

Facial Recognition Data

There were also several pieces of legislation introduced to specifically address concerns about the use of facial recognition data by private businesses, law enforcement, and other government agencies. Newly appointed Senator Charles Sydnor (D – Baltimore County) and Delegate Jazz Lewis (D – Prince George’s County) sponsored Senate Bill 476/House Bill 1578, which would have established a regulatory framework for the use of facial recognition by both public and private entities. While this bill did not progress, the General Assembly did pass a more limited House Bill 1202, sponsored by Delegate Mark Fisher (R - Calvert County), which prohibited the gathering and use of this data, specifically during a job interview. It is expected that all of these different privacy bills will serve as a basis for the ongoing development of a comprehensive privacy policy by the Council.

Net Neutrality

Senator Brian Feldman (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Kirill Reznik (D – Montgomery County) reintroduced legislation to mandate “net neutrality” in the State, Senate Bill 1005/House Bill 957 would have established a framework for “net neutrality” in the State by generally prohibiting fixed and mobile Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or devices. Among other things, the bill also: (1) prohibited ISPs from impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic; (2) established that state funds may be used only to procure Internet access from an ISP that complies with the bill; and (3) expressed legislative intent that, if the State, a county, or a municipality provides

35 broadband Internet access service, it may not impose use restrictions that prohibit the exercise of free speech.

A hearing was held in the House Economic Matters Committee where legislators voiced concerns about the legality of the legislation, in light of litigation pending against similar policies implemented in other states. The Senate bill was introduced late and neither bill progressed beyond introduction.

Cannabis

The Fakiza Rahman Act

Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D – Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties) introduced House Bill 870. This bill was intended to address the fact that the Compassionate Use Fund, which was established as a part of the medical cannabis program as a way to provide free or reduced cost medication to Medicaid recipients and veterans, has never been funded. As originally drafted, the bill would have put the onus of providing and paying for these discounts solely on the licensed dispensaries. The bill’s sponsor worked with growers, processors, dispensaries, and the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission (MMCC) to develop a strategy for determining a more equitable funding formula that would ultimately allow dispensaries to be reimbursed for the discounts that they provide to the aforementioned populations. The bill passed in the final days of session. As required by the law, the MMCC will convene a workgroup of stakeholders during the interim to begin working on a funding formula using the parameters in the bill as a guide.

Physician Assistants as Certifying Providers

Senator Chris West (R – Baltimore County) and Delegate Nic Kipke (R – Anne Arundel County) introduced legislation that will add physician assistants as certifying providers of medical cannabis. Senate Bill 304/House Bill 378 easily passed and will become law October 1, 2020.

Medical Cannabis Administration to School Students

School-aged children who are qualifying patients that can receive medical cannabis have been unable to access their medication while at school. With two talented young people taking the lead on advocating for these important issues, the House Health and Government Operations Committee and the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee considered two separate bills on this issue together and worked to develop one workable solution. In the end, Senate Bill 605/House Bill 331, entitled “Connor’s Courage,” introduced by Senator Brian Feldman (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Mary Anne Lisanti (D – Harford County) and Senate Bill 604/House Bill, “Connor and Raina’s Law”, introduced by Senator Brian Feldman and Delegate Steve Johnson (D – Baltimore County) were combined and passed. Under the amended bills, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and the MMCC will jointly develop guidelines for public schools allowing the administration of medical cannabis to qualifying patient students during school hours, school-sponsored activities, and while on a school bus. This new law is expected to have a significant positive impact for young qualifying patients who depend on medical cannabis and their families.

Medical Cannabis Licenses

Several bills were also introduced to change the rules around medical cannabis program licenses. Senator Joanne Benson (D – Prince George’s County) and Delegate Julian Ivey (D – Prince George’s County) introduced Senate Bill 953/House Bill 1317 which would have established a new license, so that

36 unaffiliated dispensaries who meet certain criteria could apply for and obtain a license to grow and process medical cannabis. Similarly, Senate Bill 821/House Bill 1369 introduced by Senator Kathy Klausmeier (D – Baltimore County) and Delegate Terri Hill (D – Howard County), would have established ten boutique grower licenses and would have required licensees to submit an application to the Maryland Department of Agriculture for approval to use a pesticide in the production of medical cannabis. Finally, Senate Bill 1012/House Bill 1449 introduced by Senator Jill Carter (D – Baltimore City) and Delegate Darryl Barnes (D – Prince George’s County), would have eliminated caps on grower and processor licenses altogether. In the end, none of these bills moved beyond the committees to which they were originally assigned.

Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission Interim Promises

During the 2020 Legislative Session, the MMCC submitted a letter to the chair of the House Health and Government Operations Committee outlining work they intend to undertake during the interim. Specifically, the MMCC will conduct an assessment of the: (1) current and future size of the medical cannabis market; (2) health, public safety and economic impact of legalizing adult-use cannabis in Maryland; and (3) impact of legalization of adult-use cannabis on medical cannabis patients and the Maryland Medical Cannabis Program. The results of these assessments will be important not only as the State continues to consider an adult-use program but also as changes are contemplated for the medical program.

Family Law

Removal of Barriers to Remarry

Originally introduced more than a decade ago, the issue this legislation attempts to address is not a new one to the MGA. Based on a longstanding New York law, this bill adopts a simple remedy to a complex problem. In Judaism, marriage between living spouses is terminated through a special divorce ceremony, whereby the husband gives his wife a document of divorce known as a “get” in the presence of witnesses. Written by a scribe, the get is prepared and given under the guidance of a beit din (Jewish ecclesiastical court). Jewish women who have not received this document are in Hebrew called agunot, or “chained,” because they are still technically married, unable to remarry and therefore caught in a state of limbo. While most men do give their wives a get, there are some, unfortunately, who refuse. Senate Bill 536/House Bill 833, sponsored by Senator Cheryl Kagan (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Dalya Attar (D – Baltimore City), attempted to resolve this issue by requiring a party seeking divorce to attest that he or she has removed all barriers to remarriage by the other party. The bill is a secular, neutral remedy that would have brought meaningful and desperately needed relief to these “chained” women. Unfortunately, the bills failed to move beyond the committees to which they were initially assigned.

Environment

Environmental and Natural Resources Ombudsman

Senator Sarah Elfreth (D - Anne Arundel County) and Delegate Brooke Lierman (D – Baltimore City) introduced Senate Bill 460/House Bill 614 which would have established an “Office of the Environmental and Natural Resources Ombudsman” within the Office of the Attorney General. The ombudsman would have been responsible for several tasks related to complaints that involved suspected environmental and natural resources violations. The ombudsman would have been charged with: (1) maintaining records of complaints; (2) consulting with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), the Department of

Natural Resources, and the Maryland Department of Agriculture to maintain complaint data; and (3) developing and maintaining a website with related information and data on environmental and natural resources violations and complaints to establish a new state office and position. The proposed Office of the Environmental and Natural Resources Ombudsman would have been staffed by an appointed ombudsman who would have the ability to analyze environmental and natural resource-related data and communicate this information to state agencies and the general public. While SB 460 passed the Senate, it and HB614 died as a result of no action in the House Environment and Transportation Committee.

Refuse Disposal Systems - Incinerators, Scrap Tires, and Local Authority

Delegate Stephanie Smith (D - Baltimore City) introduced House Bill 1032 prohibiting the Secretary of the Environment from issuing a permit to install, materially alter, or materially extend an incinerator for disposal of a solid waste stream. The bill would have prohibited a person from incinerating and/or storing scrap tires in the State to be used as fuel in an approved resource recovery incinerator or as a tire-derived fuel in an approved facility. This legislation also required the Maryland Environmental Service (MES) to modify its scrap tire recycling system to prioritize entities that use scrap tires for retreading and prohibited MES from including approved facilities that use tires as a fuel substitute or as a tire-derived fuel in its scrap tire recycling system.

HB1032 did, however, authorize a political subdivision to adopt an ordinance, resolution, law, or rule to regulate refuse disposal systems or solid waste, if such rules are as stringent as those developed by MDE under provisions that govern the regulation of water, ice, and sanitary facilities, as amended by the bill. HB1032 died due to lack of action in the House Environment and Transportation Committee.

Zombie Permit Elimination Act

House Bill 1297, introduced by Delegate Mary Lehman (D - Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties), intended to perfect MDE’s accounting of valid and outstanding surface water discharge permits. The bill would have required MDE to study and make recommendations concerning it's permit process for surface water discharge permits within the State. This legislation also died due to lack of action in the House Environment and Transportation Committee.

Elections and Campaign Finance

As always, the 2020 Legislative Session included a myriad of bills aimed at modernizing, securing, and improving our election and campaign finance system.

Campaign Contributions by Foreign-Influenced Entities

Senator Clarence Lam (D - Baltimore and Howard Counties) and Delegate Julie Palakovich-Carr (D - Montgomery County) sponsored Senate Bill 87/House Bill 34 to prohibit “foreign-influenced” entities, as defined in the bill, from making any campaign finance-related contributions, expenditures, communications, or donations. The bill also required a corporation that makes a specified campaign finance-related contribution, expenditure, communication, or donation to subsequently file a statement with the State Board of Elections (SBE) certifying that it was not a foreign-influenced corporation when the contribution, expenditure, communication, or donation was made.

Hearings on the bill were held early in the Session, in both the Senate and House, and significant questions were raised about the broad definition of “foreign-influence entities” in the bill and whether it would encompass all corporate entities. There were also concerns about the practical impact of the bill,

38 given the constantly changing ownership make-up of publicly traded companies. Due to these concerns, the bill failed to progress beyond initial hearings.

Mail-in Voting and Prepaid Postage

As introduced, Senate Bill 145/House Bill 37, sponsored by Senator Katie Fry Hester (D - Carroll and Howard Counties) and Delegate Palakovich-Carr (D – Montgomery County), would have altered references to “absentee ballots” in public communications and require, instead, references to “mail-in ballots” and “mail-in voting”. The legislation is aimed at normalizing the practice of mail-in voting and removing stigma associated with “absentee voting”, a practice more commonly used by vulnerable populations.

In keeping with efforts to remove barriers for individuals who choose to vote by mail, Senate Bill 33/House Bill 881, sponsored by Senate Cheryl Kagan (D - Montgomery County) and Delegate Stephanie Smith (D - Baltimore City), would have established pre-paid postage for absentee, or mail-in ballots in the State. As the Session progressed and the COVID – 19 pandemic increased emphasis on the potential for widespread use of mail for election purposes, these two proposals were amended together as part of a comprehensive vote-by-mail policy. Ultimately, SB145/HB37 were both passed by the full General Assembly with both the “mail-in” references and prepaid postage provisions.

Study on Vote by Mail Elections

Senator Ben Kramer (D - Montgomery County) and Delegate Nick Mosby (D - Baltimore City) sponsored broader legislation, Senate Bill 408/House Bill 426, directing the Department of Legislative Services, in consultation with the SBE, to study and make recommendations to the General Assembly on voting by mail. Due to concerns about mandating state resources for a study, SB 408 received an unfavorable report from the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, but it is likely that SBE will continue to study the matter in the interim without the legislation, particularly in light of the impact on state elections of the ongoing pandemic.