Rescue crews continue to search the waters around the site of the Francis Scott Key Bridge following a ship strike that caused the span over the Patapsco River to collapse.

Officials believe multiple people were on the bridge when it was struck by a large container ship just after 1:30 a.m.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott (D) described the scene as something out of a movie.

“This is a tragedy that you could never imagine,” Scott said during a morning news conference. “Never would you think that you would see, physically see, the Key Bridge tumble down like that. It looked like something out of an action movie.”

The strike caused most of the bridge to collapse into the Patapsco River.

Baltimore City Fire Department Chief James Wallace told reporters that at least two people were rescued from the chilly waters that lead to the port.

One individual refused treatment. A second was transported “to a local trauma center” and is in “very serious condition.”

“We are still very much in an active search and rescue posture at this point,” Wallace said. “We will continue to be for some time. We have a large area that we have to search. This includes the surface of the water, subsurface, as well as the deck of the ship itself.”

Wallace said rescue crews “may be looking for upwards of seven people” but stressed that information could change.

Gov. Wes Moore (D), who traveled to Boston Monday night for an event Tuesday, has returned to the state. He is expected to speak to reporters at a news conference scheduled for 9:30 a.m.

The governor has already declared a state of emergency and in a statement said state officials are “working with an interagency team to quickly deploy federal resources from the Biden Administration.”

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said he offered federal support to Baltimore authorities.

Due to the collapse, all traffic is rerouted north to the Harbor and Fort McHenry Tunnels.

The bridge, along Interstate 695 in Baltimore County, opened on March 23, 1977.

Reports came in around 1:40 a.m. Tuesday that a large vessel crashed into a column in the central part of the bridge, catching on fire before causing multiple vehicles to fall into the Patapsco River below.

At least seven vehicles, including at least one tractor-trailer-sized vehicle, fell into the water, Baltimore City Fire spokesperson Kevin Cartwright told WTOP. Maryland Transportation Secretary Paul Wiedefeld said during a news conference shortly after 7 a.m. that road workers were also on the bridge at the time of the collision.

Rescuers were searching for at least seven people in the water.

Petty officer Matthew West from the Coast Guard in Baltimore told WTOP that a container ship flying under a Singapore flag crashed into the bridge. The vessel, called “Dali,” was headed through Baltimore to Colombo, Sri Lanka, as its final destination, according to Marine Traffic and Vessel Finder maps and data.

Moore declared a state of emergency overnight, and said that his office is working with the Biden administration to quickly deploy federal resources.

“We are thankful for the brave men and women who are carrying out efforts to rescue those involved and pray for everyone’s safety,” Moore said in a statement released at 5:45 a.m.

State Sen. Johnny Ray Salling (R-Baltimore County), whose district includes the area around the bridge, said in a statement he was “devastated” by the disaster.

“Having worked in that area most of my life, I understand the bridge’s vital role for Baltimore’s Port and commuters,” he said. “Losing this bridge will devastate the entire area, as well as the entire East Coast. We depend on the Port of Baltimore for transportation, travel, and commerce.”

This breaking news story will be updated.

By Bryan P. Sears. Maryland Matters’  news partner WTOP contributed to this report.

“Crossover Day” in the Maryland General Assembly, a key deadline for legislation to be approved, passed Monday with surprisingly little drama and without the marathon floor sessions the day often requires.

The House of Delegates, which came in for its first of two floor sessions at 10 a.m., finished its second just before 5 p.m. The state Senate, which gaveled in around 2:15 p.m. for its first floor session, finished its second around 8:55 p.m.

Both chambers churned through dozens of bills — the count in the House approached 200. But none of Monday’s action changed the flow or narrative of the legislative session so far.

The fates of some important bills — including a fight between the House and Senate over taxes and new revenue sources — remain to be resolved in the session’s final 21 days, but even those battles may turn out to be mild compared to prior years.

Officially, Crossover Day is the deadline for bills to pass one chamber of the legislature and be guaranteed a hearing and consideration in the other. But it’s not a drop-dead deadline: Legislation can move any time between now and the legislature’s adjournment at midnight on April 8, depending on the will of lawmakers — and especially the marching orders of their presiding officers.

Gov. Wes Moore (D) is already preparing to take a victory lap over the progress of his agenda this session. As of Monday, 15 of his 16 priority bills had passed at least one chamber, and administration officials were expressing confidence that the last item, a planning and zoning bill that’s part of his affordable housing initiative, will pass soon. Debates over housing measures took up significant floor time in the House of Delegates Monday.

Moore’s other initiatives are meant to address economic development and innovation, child poverty, mental health, military families, and safety for elections officials and highway construction workers.

“We are feeling great,” Eric Luedtke, the governor’s chief legislative officer said in a statement Monday.

Legal liability cap vexes Senate

The Senate’s evening session was dominated by debate over a bill that would almost double the liability cap on noneconomic damages a plaintiff can collect in civil lawsuits. It was a rare instance where some powerful Democrats teamed with Republicans to oppose the bill — but not enough to kill it.

The current limit on those caps, which cover hard-to-measure losses like pain and suffering, is $935,000 — a figure that goes up by $15,000 every year.

Economic damages collected from a lawsuit — the loss of income, or to seek reimbursements for medical payments caused by an accident — are not subject to a cap in Maryland.

The bill as originally written by Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery) would have lifted the caps for noneconomic damages altogether. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, where Waldstreicher is vice chair, amended the bill late last week, so that the cap would rise to $1.75 million, and the annual “escalator” would increase to $20,000.

On the Senate floor Monday night, Waldstreicher repeatedly described the legislation as an equity measure, designed to help women and people of color who by tradition might not be able to collect economic damages at the same rate as white males. The bill is designed “to better compensate people for the pain and suffering they are experiencing,” he said.

But Senate Finance Committee Chair Pam Beidle (D-Anne Arundel) warned that the bill, if passed, would inevitably lead to higher insurance rates for consumers — who might hold state lawmakers accountable.

“If we pass the bill, be prepared,” she said.

Beidle and Senate Minority Leader Stephen S. Hershey Jr. (R-Upper Shore) noted that an array of business groups testified against the bill, while only the Maryland Association for Justice — the trial lawyers’ organization — testified for it.

“I think it’s pretty clear why we just saw one group of people testifying in favor of this bill,” Hershey said.

Eventually, the bill passed, 27-18, with a handful of Democrats joining Republicans in opposition.

The House equivalent, sponsored by Del. Natalie Ziegler (D-Howard and Montgomery), has yet to be voted out of the Judiciary Committee.

Asked late last week whether the House panel would be willing to accept any compromise that emerged from the Senate, Judiciary Vice Chair J. Sandy Bartlett (D-Anne Arundel) thought for a moment and replied, “Probably.”

Vanquishing vapes

The final bill passed in the Senate on Crossover Day aims to curb the sale of vaping products for minors and those under the age of 21.

Sen. Benjamin F. Kramer (D-Montgomery) sponsored SB 1056, which he says “takes a significant step toward improving the lives of our children by limiting their access to tobacco, including vape products.”

The bill increases the fee on licenses to sell tobacco products. The increased funds would then go towards enforcement of federal and state laws that prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing tobacco products. The House version, HB 1180, has not received a vote out of the Economic Matters Committee.

The biggest point of contention in the bill is a measure that would restrict the sale of electronic smoking devices, also known as “vaping products,” only to vape stores, meaning that gas stations and convenience stores would no longer be able to sell vape products, even though they could continue selling tobacco products.

Hershey argued that the legislation creates a “monopoly” for vape stores, as the bill would clear out the competition from gas stations and other electronic smoking devices retailers.

He also asked if there was a possibility that because gas stations and convenience stores are more numerous than vape shops, that more Marylanders will turn to cigarette smoking when it’s harder to access vaping products.

“I think there’s a concern about changing too much that this goes the opposite way,” Hershey said.

Republican senators offered amendments to loosen the restrictions proposed within the bill, but none passed.

As Monday afternoon turned to early evening, Kramer expressed frustration with the discussion.

“Colleagues. My apologies that we have to continue this conversation,” he said in response to one of Hershey’s proposed amendments, which would have negated the restriction of vape product sales to only vape stores. “We have an epidemic of youth vaping in our state.”

“I really hoped we were going to come here tonight and just do the right things. That we would value our children and our families to a greater extent than the big tobacco industries,” he continued. “That’s what I was hoping. Maybe I was naïve.”

The debate lasted for almost 50 minutes before senators took a break for dinner. When they returned for the second session of the day shortly after 7 p.m., the Senate passed HB 1056 on a 32-13 vote, ending official business on Crossover Day.

Waving the white flag

One issue losing steam this session is an effort to expand the authority of a state board tasked with constraining the costs of prescription drug prices, known as the Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB).

The board is currently authorized to look for ways to reduce drug costs on the state health care plan through a variety of means, including setting what are called “upper payment limits.”

SB 388 and HB 340 would have allowed PDAB to issue upper payment limits or consider other methods that may work to reduce drug prices for those not on the state plan.

Despite receiving support from the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus and endorsements from various medical advocacy groups, bill sponsors and advocates suggest that the 2025 session will be a more advantageous year for the legislation, according to a Monday news release from Maryland Health Care for All, an advocacy group that is one of the most vocal supporters of the legislation.

“The General Assembly will wait until 2025 to consider this legislation, which gives the Board time to finalize action on upper payment limits for drugs purchased by state and local governments,” said Sen. Dawn Gile (D-Anne Arundel), sponsor of the Senate bill, said in a written statement.

“There is widespread agreement in the General Assembly that we need to help bring down the costs of expensive prescription drugs. Waiting until next year is the right decision and gives the Board time to fulfill its existing mandate,” she said.

Vincent DeMarco,  president of Maryland Health Care for All, says that the organization looks forward to working with the legislature next year on the issue.

“Although we are disappointed that the General Assembly did not expand the Board’s authority this year, after the Board makes high cost drugs more affordable for state and local governments in the next few months, we will work hard to ensure that the Maryland General Assembly will in 2025 expand the Board’s authority to allow it to make high cost drugs more affordable for all Marylanders,” he said.

By Josh Kurtz and Danielle J. Brown

Democrats in the House are pressing a nearly $1.2 billion package they say will pay for both a multi-billion expansion of education funding and a multi-billion projected shortfall in the state’s Transportation Trust Fund.

The package highlighted Friday by House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D-Baltimore County) and three committee chairs is unlikely to be warmly received in the Senate. Democrats in that chamber, including Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City), continue to reject any call for new gaming or broad tax increases.

Jones and her lieutenants told reporters that the state cannot wait to solve what they described as the state’s urgent fiscal woes.

“For months, the House has been talking about the fiscal realities Maryland is facing,” Jones said. “We are here today to say that we are ready and willing to meet the challenges head on. We can no longer rely on quick fixes for short-term approaches. They will only land us right back in the same place next year. At this point, we know what the solution is. And it’s finally time that we just say the answer is revenues.”

Budget troubles 

The legislature opened this year in the shadow of billions of dollars of projected deficits driven by the costs of the education plan known as the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.

Next year, the deficit is projected to reach $1 billion, according to legislative analysts. In fiscal 2027, the last year of Gov. Wes Moore’s term, it would grow to $1.3 billion. A year later, it would more than double to $3 billion — about 12% of the general fund revenues projected for that year.

Not included in the analysts’ January projection is a separate $3.1 billion gap in the state’s Transportation Trust Fund over the next five years. Moore and Transportation Secretary Paul Wiedefeld warned of draconian cuts to every jurisdiction in the state without increased funding.

The deficit projections are the largest since the Great Recession, those analysts said in January.

House Ways and Means Chair Vanessa Atterbeary (D-Howard) said that without more money, the result would be walking back portions of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. That option, she said, was not acceptable.

“As a mother and as legislator, I cannot turn my back on that commitment,” she said. “Neither can Madam Speaker, neither can [House Appropriations] Chair [Ben] Barnes, [House Environment and Transportation] Chair [Marc] Korman and all of my colleagues. This is why the Ways and Means Committee passed combined reporting and iGaming to fund the Blueprint.”

The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee finalized its version of Moore’s proposed $63 billion fiscal 2025 budget earlier this week.

The Senate version relies on balance transfers, about $800 million in one-time cash, and tapping both the state’s rainy day fund as well as an account used to offset volatile capital gains revenues.

Senate Budget and Taxation Chair Guy Guzzone (D-Howard) said the Senate version of the budget ensures the state can pay for education in fiscal 2025 and 2026 and at least part of fiscal 2027.

“We’ve got at least one more year where we have the funding that we need to keep moving forward,” he said. “I appreciate the fact that the House is looking forward. We’re looking forward also. It’s just a matter of timing. That’s all and we’ll have that discussion.”

An ‘unsustainable’ budget narrative

The House, meanwhile, continues its work on the Senate version.

“I want to talk a little bit about a narrative that’s developed that we have a balanced budget and so everything’s fine. There’s not a real problem,” said Barnes. “I think that narrative ignores how the Senate has balanced the budget.”

Barnes said those budget maneuvers are “not sustainable.”

The House plan announced Friday focuses on finding money for both expanded education spending and a transportation fund shortfall.

To that end, the House Ways and Means Committee has approved an iGaming bill and the closure of corporate reporting tax loopholes that are part of the Fair Share Act.

Revenues from both total nearly $500 million. All would be earmarked for the costs of the Blueprint.

It’s not just taxes to which the Senate is opposed. The chamber has also rejected expanding gambling into iGaming — casino-style games on phones, computers and other electronic devices.

Other opponents to gaming expansion include organized labor and House Republicans, an unusual alliance.

Del. Kathy Szeliga (R-Baltimore County) called expanded gaming “a bad bet for Maryland.” She said passage of the bill would cost the state over $100 million from lost jobs and expressed skepticism that more gaming was a balm for the state’s education funding ills.

“How many times have we been promised that these funding sources will solve education, you know, slots for tots,” said Szeliga. “We don’t forget that when gambling was brought to Maryland, we were promised it would solve education funding issues.”

Additionally, the House is proposing a package of tax and fee and toll increases totaling $675 million for transportation projects.

The package is cobbled together from more than a half-dozen bills already introduced.

“I think the speaker has been clear, we’re not going to take a number that doesn’t solve a problem,” said Barnes. “So, we want to solve the problem. If they have a number that we believe solves the problem, we’re all open to it, but we need to solve the problem.”

Without the additional revenues, projects would have to be cut, said Barnes.

The legislature last year established the 31-member Transportation Revenue and Infrastructure Needs Commission. That panel was charged with recommending ways to modernize how the state pays for road and transit projects.

In an interim set of recommendations, the panel called for new registration fees for electric and hybrid vehicles to make up for revenue lost from gas taxes. The panel also recommended increased tolls which could then, in part, be used to backfill the Transportation Trust Fund.

The House and Senate both have bills incorporating those recommendations.

The Senate has preliminarily approved a bill that would increase vehicle registration fees for owners of electric cars and plug-in hybrids.

The average Maryland driver pays $226 annually in gas taxes.

Under the Senate plan, owners of an all-electric vehicle would pay $300 every two years. Gas-electric hybrid owners would pay $245 every two years.

The fees could be paid in installments over time.

The House version calls for a $125 per year for zero-emission vehicles. The two-year registration fee of $250 could be paid in installments.

Heading to conference

House leaders will wrap all the proposals into a budget reconciliation bill. The tactic will force a discussion in a conference committee with senators rather than allowing the Senate to unilaterally dismiss the House proposals.

But the House proposals appear doomed.

Ferguson on Friday reiterated his long-repeated insistence that his chamber has no interest in considering tax hikes this session.

“I don’t think there’s much room for compromise and this is what we’ve been saying for months,” he said during a Friday meeting with reporters. That meeting was held at the same time as the news conference hosted by Jones and her leadership team.

Ferguson said Senate and House leaders share priorities. He also did not rule out the possibility of considering a revenue package next year.

“Just like we do every single year, we’ll adjust and adapt to the circumstances,” he said.

‘The high bar’

Moore, for his part, is attempting to walk a line that neither supports nor opposes taxes. He had repeatedly said any increase would have to meet a high bar. The exact standard has not been defined.

“We are facing shortfalls in our transportation trust fund that are not sustainable. So we believe we’ve met the high bar,” said Barnes. “Second, I think the governor and the Senate share our values, which are the values of the people of the state of Maryland. I think that because we share these values that in the end, we will all come together for real solutions.”

In an appearance on “The Politics Hour” on WAMU Radio Friday, the governor cited concerns about the state’s lagging economy.

“For the past five years, Maryland’s economy has grown by .2%. The average state has grown by 7.5. So, we’ve got to get this economy moving,” Moore said, adding: “There is a way that we can continue growing, be bold, and also know that any conversations around taxes are going to have a very high bar.”

In a statement shortly after the House leaders’ news conference, Carter Elliott IV, a spokesperson for Moore, emphasized the governor’s reluctance to consider tax increases.

“The governor has been clear on this issue since day one — he introduced a budget that included record funding for public education, child care and to our local law enforcement offices all without raising taxes,” Elliott said.

“Any conversation with the General Assembly around taxes is going to have a very high bar for the governor, and any of those conversations will focus on creating fiscally disciplined ways of making Maryland’s economy grow.”

But when asked if Moore felt the House had met the “high bar” standard, the spokesperson referred a reporter back to the last sentence of the statement.

Two weeks ago, following the announcement of a $250 million downward revision of revenue projections, Moore seemed to be leaning in opposition.

“We’re always going to continue really digging into the numbers and digging into the data,” Moore told reporters on March 1. “We’re always going to make the decisions that are going to be both fiscally responsible and also address the moment and I just do not believe right now that raising taxes is something we have to do.”

“I have not seen anything yet in the way that the budget has rolled out that would move me from that position,” he said.

By Bryan P. Sears. Josh Kurtz contributed to this report.

 

The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee said she expects her committee will cobble together a revenue package meant to help the state cover billions in looming deficits and ensure the legislature can continue to pay for an education reform plan.

The effort by the House panel comes days before a key deadline in the 2024 legislative session. Moving such a package would keep the idea of tax increases on the table even though Senate leaders have declared them dead this year.

“We should know by the end of the week what proposals we want to move forward,” House Ways and Means Chair Vanessa Atterbeary (D-Howard) said.

The Maryland Senate is expected Wednesday to debate its version of a $63 billion budget proposed in January by Gov. Wes Moore (D). Final approval is expected this week.

Senate Budget and Taxation Chair Guy Guzzone (D-Howard) said the effort this year sets the state’s fiscal course for the near future.

“We start with a budget of $63 billion. We end with a budget of $63 billion,” Guzzone said. “We’ve handled a half a billion dollars worth of problems that came up along the way. So we use the governor’s budget. There was a lot of great stuff in the budget. We started in that place, and we ended up, I think, in a solid place as we move forward.”

Legislative budget analysts in January warned lawmakers of operating budget deficits of $3 billion in a few years. The gap is driven by implementation of the most expensive portions of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future K-12 education reforms.

A more than $3 billion shortfall over five years in the Transportation Trust Fund is not included in the operating budget estimate.

“We do have out into the future, some significant issues to deal with,” Guzzone said. “I know we’ll also figure out ways to deal with them in due time.”

He and other Senate leaders do not believe that the time is now.

Guzzone said lawmakers have been diligent in the last two years to double the size of the state’s rainy day cash reserves as well as pump $1 billion each year into the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future education reform plan.

“As we came into this year, we knew that [fiscal] ’25 and ’26 for sure, and maybe even going into ’27, we were in good financial shape, because we had those extra revenues plus the extra revenues that we put in the Blueprint,” he said.

House Democrats continue to express concern about the looming fiscal picture.

Atterbeary said she expects her committee to send a package that is “a mix” of tax proposals.

There’s no shortage of proposals. Some impose new taxes. Others increase or expand existing ones. Still others seek to “modernize” how the state taxes residents and businesses.

Atterbeary’s committee held a hearing Monday on a late-introduced proposal to collect nearly $3 billion in new sales taxes.

House Bill 1515, sponsored by House Majority Leader David Moon (D-Montgomery), would collect $4 billion in new sales tax revenue once fully phased in.

Currently, the sales tax in Maryland only applies to consumer goods. The new revenue would come from expanding sales taxes to a broad array of services.

Moon’s bill also proposes decreasing the overall sales tax rate by a penny to 5-cents on the dollar. The reduction offsets the initial $4 billion in new tax collections by about $1 billion.

The result would net the state roughly $3 billion once fully phased in.

“It is intended to put on the table among your revenue options. A different approach to at least provide a point of reference and contrast, and that is to attempt to address our healthcare deficits and blueprint funding issues with a single vote,” Moon said. “That is in contrast to the other road ahead of us, which is attempting to cobble together a revenue package out of many disparate options until we get to the desired number.”

The bill is “a bit of a conversation starter,” he said.

“I do not believe it’s fiscally prudent for us to delay vetting all of the options,” Moon said. “I believe we need to start that process. Now. No matter what our partners in government think that timeline should be.”

Opponents included business owners in nearly every service industry in the state.

Mike O’Halloran, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said “there is not a single aspect of Marylanders’ laws this tax hike wouldn’t touch. Things like cutting grass, cutting hair, even the clown sculpting balloon animals at the county fair is getting hit by this. These things do not happen in a vacuum. It will lead to increased costs not only on the backs of Maryland small businesses, but also their clients and customers.”

Those increased costs would put them at a competitive disadvantage with larger businesses, O’Halloran said.

Moon’s bill is similar to one proposed in the pandemic-shortened 2020 session. The House Ways and Means Committee rejected House Bill 1628 that year.

The bill sponsored by Moon has no companion proposal in the Senate. Leaders in that chamber remain steadfast in opposition to tax increases this year.

Moon’s proposed expansion of the sales tax is not the only option.

Also on the table is a $1.6 billion proposal that would close corporate tax loopholes, increase taxes on the wealthiest Marylanders and provide a tax credit to some working families. A Senate version of the legislation was considered a non-starter almost from the beginning.

Several lawmakers have proposed more incremental approaches including House Bill 1072 and House Bill 1073.

The bills call for an increase of the current per pack tax on cigarettes by 75 cents to $4.75 or increasing the sales tax on alcohol by a penny to 10 cents on the dollar — an amount that would be 4 cents on the dollar more than the general sales tax.

Moon said he understands that even if the House passes his bill, it faces a tough go in the Senate.

“I can’t control what other people do. I can only do what makes sense, in my opinion for Maryland and the House,” said Moon, “Again, we just had another write down in our projected revenues. Our books are off by another quarter of a billion dollars but it’s actually half a billion we’ve got to make up just this year. And that’s a change that happened from December to now.”

By Bryan P. Sears

Now that Maryland lawmakers have overwhelmingly approved juvenile justice reform measures, members of each chamber must determine how to resolve differences in separate bills.

House Bill 814 and Senate Bill 744 have similar provisions such as requiring the state Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) to offer programs for youth at the highest risk of being a victim or perpetrator of gun violence.

Both versions also require a juvenile services intake officer to make an inquiry within 15 business days to decide whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction over a youth offender’s case and if judicial action “is in the best interests of the public or the child.” The current law allows 25 days.

Each also requires a Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging and Best Practices to conduct its first meeting by July 1 and convene at least six times a year. It must complete tasks such as reviewing the department’s education and diversionary programs, researching evidence-based programs and reviewing deaths that involve children under the supervision of DJS.

The House voted 126-6 on its measure Friday and the Senate 43-2 on its measure Monday night. Senators Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore City) and Charles E. Sydnor III (D-Baltimore County), also voted against advancing the bill during a committee session last week.

Some high-profile juvenile crimes became major topics last year and elected officials and community leaders hosted public forums statewide on how to combat juvenile crime. The House Judiciary Committee held three briefings in the fall.

Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), chair of the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday his committee may hold a hearing on the Senate version after, March 18, the crossover date.

Crossover marks the deadline to guarantee a bill approved in one chamber of the General Assembly will be considered in the other chamber during the final three weeks of the legislative session, which ends April 8.

“I don’t know that the bills are too far apart from each other that we shouldn’t be able to work something out quickly,” Clippinger said. “We tried to get a bill that addressed some of the concerns that we were hearing from constituents and from all sides and figure out what would be the best solution. We probably won’t make everybody happy, but we’ll continue to talk to people and take as much advice as we can get.”

Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee that will review the House version, agreed.

“We all agree that we want safer communities, but we also want supports for the youth that are involved in [juvenile crime],” he said Monday after the Senate vote. The criminal justice system is premised on accountability and rehabilitation, with a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation. I think all of us understand and the product that we produced I think moves us in that direction.”

In the meantime, here’s a quick breakdown of a few differences in the bills. The chambers must resolve any discrepancies between the bills and approve the legislation before Gov. Wes Moore (D) can sign it into law.

House version

• Requires the 23 county and Baltimore City school boards to offer alternatives to a public school education for a youth registered as a juvenile sex offender. This stems from a Fox-45 that a 15-year-old pleaded to second-degree rape and was able to attend a public high school in Baltimore.
• Requires children ages 10 to 12 to enter a mandatory diversion program if a first-time arrest involves a car theft or certain firearm offenses.
• Permits a “good cause” provision for a child on probation to have two unexcused absences from a rehabilitation program.
• Requires that the commission include seven people from the general public, one local school superintendent and one school principal.
• Legislation would go into effect Jan. 1, 2025 (however, the commission would be formed in time to hold its first meeting by July 1).

Senate version

• Requires children ages 10 to 12 who are charged with the crime of motor vehicle theft to be the subject of a Children in Need of Supervision petition, also known as CINS. Requires a law enforcement officer to submit a CINS petition so that the youth and youth’s family can qualify for a variety of services.
• Requires the state Board of Victim Services to distribute information about CINS.
• Requires the court to receive a progress report for a child on probation who has four or more unexcused absences from a “treatment program” that was ordered by the court.
• Requires that the commission include five people from the general public, a representative from the state Department of Education and two from the Consortium on Coordinated Community Supports, which is responsible for developing a statewide framework to expand access for behavioral health services for Maryland students.
• Legislation would go into effect Oct. 1 (however, the commission would be formed in time to hold its first meeting by July 1).

‘Not drivers of crime’

In a DJS report released in September, the agency noted that “the share of overall and violent crime arrests in Maryland of juveniles is much lower than the adult share of such arrests, and similar to national rates and historical trends within Maryland.”

Sen. President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore) has said that juvenile crime represents a “small portion” of overall crime in the state and the report reflects that. The DJS report also states that, in 2021, 93% of homicide arrests were of adults.

Both the House and Senate bills include a provision that some criminal justice advocates and a few lawmakers don’t support: expanding DJS jurisdiction to include children ages 10 to 12 years old. Among offenses for which those youth could be sent to juvenile court are third-degree sex offenses and certain firearm offenses such as possession of a ghost gun and using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Advocates such as Alice Wilkerson, representing Maryland Youth Justice Coalition, have asked for data that focused on children ages 10 to 12.

“We question the focus on 10-to 12-year-olds when most of the data shows us that adults are the ones that are responsible for increases in crime and that youth who are committing crimes are older teenagers,” she said Tuesday. “Children are not the drivers of crime.”

By William J. Ford

The Maryland House of Delegates gave overwhelming final approval Friday to its version of a juvenile justice reform measure that aims to combine accountability and rehabilitation.

The vote on House Bill 814 was 126-6, with all the dissenting votes coming from liberal Black Democrats.

The bill would require the state Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) to complete a three-year plan that includes programs for youth who are “at the highest risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of gun violence.” The bill designates that those programs would be targeted for youth ages 10 to 14.

The bill would also require children ages 10 to 12 to enter a mandatory diversion program if a first-time arrest involves a car theft or certain firearm offenses.

A Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging and Best Practices must complete tasks such as reviewing the department’s education and diversionary programs, researching evidence-based programs and reviewing deaths that involve children under the supervision of DJS.

“We better be committed to what that commission is supposed to do,” said Del. Cheryl Pasteur (D-Baltimore County), who voted for the bill.

Del. Ric Metzgar (R-Baltimore County) referenced food to describe his support of the bill.

“I’d rather have a piece of pie than no pie at all. This [bill] doesn’t go all the way but it’s a great start,” he said. “We need to protect our young people.”

The six lawmakers who voted against the measure were Dels. Gabriel Acevero (D-Montgomery), Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George’s), Debra Davis (D-Charles), Ashanti Martinez (D-Prince George’s), Jamila Woods (Prince George’s) and Caylin Young (D-Baltimore City).

Young said the bill doesn’t come from a restorative, just approach.

“We know the population that’s going to be most impacted is young, Black boys,” he said.

A racial equity impact note states the bill would create both positive and negative impacts on juvenile services intakes and “likely affect Black youth to the greatest extent as they are significantly overrepresented in DJS custody.”

Davis said she stands with criminal justice advocates who also don’t support the measure, such as the ACLU of Maryland, which released a highly critical statement after the vote.

“We applaud the six brave delegates who resisted a bill that has been driven by media propaganda and not rooted in best practices or actual data,” said Yanet Amanuel, public policy director for the ACLU. “We need our elected leaders to center the humanity of Black children and prioritize care over cages.”

The House version heads over to the Senate, which could grant final approval on its version of the legislation on Monday night.

Aid-in-dying dead

During a briefing Friday with reporters, Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) said the highly controversial medical aid-in-dying legislation will not come up for a vote this year.

“It does not appear we have the votes to pass it in the Senate,” he said. “I know it will be disappointing to a number of folks, but if the votes aren’t there, the votes aren’t there. We will continue in the education process and take it up at a different time when we think there’s a better chance for its passage.”

Senate Bill 443 (End of Life Option Act) sponsored by Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery) was bottled up in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. He serves as the committee’s vice chair.

Committee Chair William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), who joined Ferguson at the the briefing, said it was about one or two votes shy of passing in Judicial Proceedings.

“As folks got closer to the vote and had more in-depth discussions with their constituents, folks expressed unreadiness to move on it at this time,” he said. “I’m actually very disappointed, but have to respect the decisions of the individual senators who are listening to their constituents and listening to their conscience.”

Del. Joseline A. Peña-Melnyk (D-Prince George’s and Anne Arundel), chair of the House Health and Government Operations Committee, has said the House version won’t receive a vote unless the Senate bill advances.

The legislation’s most successful run came five years ago when the House voted for it 74-66. However, it was tied 23-23 in the Senate after former Sen. Obie Patterson from Prince George’s County withheld his vote.

Conversations around medical aid-in-dying legislation are sensitive and highly emotional.

“On issues like this that it’s a vote of conscience and so personal,” Smith said.

Two affiliated advocacy groups, Compassion & Choices and Compassion & Choices Action Network, released a statement Friday afternoon urging the committee to vote.

“We cannot express how disappointed we are that the legislature once again may not pass the End-of-Life Option Act because of one senator,” said Donna Smith, Maryland campaign director for Compassion & Choices Action Network. “It has been nine years since this bill was first introduced in 2015. Every year, I attend funerals of terminally ill advocates who desperately plead with lawmakers to pass this compassionate legislation and then they die in needless agony because they didn’t pass it.”

SB 1 gets first vote

The Maryland Senate is moving closer to updating the state’s quarter-century-old rules governing the competitive marketplace for retail electricity.

After two days of discussion, the Senate Committee on Education, Energy and the Environment voted 8-2 late Friday to advance Senate Bill 1 to the Senate floor.

The General Assembly in 1999 passed a law that enables energy suppliers to compete with monopoly utilities for the right to sell electricity to ratepayers. The utilities continue to distribute the energy, regardless of its origin.

Under that law, the utilities become the default energy supplier unless the state’s electric customers choose to buy power from suppliers. But the marketplace, fairly or not, has largely been defined by aggressive and sometimes predatory sales pitches that especially target low-income ratepayers with offers that can sound too good to be true and often result in higher rates than if the customers had stuck with utilities as suppliers. So powerful lawmakers have vowed to finally do something about it this year.

SB 1 would change the state’s current regulatory scheme in several meaningful ways. It would require people who sell electricity service to obtain a state license, good for three years, and lays out guidelines for qualifying for the license and metes out punishment for those who break the rules.

However, one of the amendments that the Senate committee adopted this week strips fines away from individual salespeople and instead levies fines for violating the law on the companies that hire them.

“The amendments really refine where we started,” the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Malcolm Augustine (D-Prince George’s), told his colleagues Friday. “It really does protect Marylanders. But it also lays a foundation for a green energy market to grow.”

Just as the bill is likely to move in the Senate next week, its House companion, HB 267, is also like to get a favorable reception in the House Economic Matters Committee, whose vice chair, Del. Brian Crosby (D-St. Mary’s), is the chief sponsor.

But energy suppliers are already prepared to attack. No sooner did the Senate committee vote Friday then the Choose Who You Use Coalition, funded by NRG and other big companies, starting tweeting its thanks or condemnation of the committee members, depending on how they voted. The two “nay” votes, by the way, were from the two committee Republicans present, Sen. Mary Beth Carozza (Lower Shore) and Sen. Jason C. Gallion (Harford and Cecil).

This story has been corrected to reflect that a quote about the juvenile justice bill was made by Del. Ric Metzgar (R-Baltimore County).

By William J. Ford and Josh Kurtz

One day after the Maryland House of Delegates granted preliminary approval to a juvenile justice reform bill, the Senate did the same on Thursday.

Senate Bill 744 contains 12 amendments adopted by the Judicial Proceedings Committee earlier this week, with many matching the House version.

One amendment would require that if a child between the ages of 10 to 12 is referred to an at-risk youth and prevention program, it must be a program managed by a law enforcement agency or local state’s attorney’s office, a local care team, or community-based service provider.

The changes also would require a law enforcement officer who arrests a youth to file a written report with the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) detailing whether the young person was referred to a program or not.

Both chambers’ bills would require DJS to complete a three-year plan that includes programs for youth who are “at the highest risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of gun violence. However, the House bill designates that the programs would be targeted for youth ages 10 to 14.

Although both bills require the Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging and Best Practices to conduct its first meeting by July 1, the bills differ in who would serve on the commission.

The Senate amendment would require that two commission members be from the Consortium on Coordinated Community Supports, which is responsible for developing a statewide framework to expand access for behavioral health services for Maryland students.

While both versions would require that a repr— with relevant education experience serve on the commission, the House version also would require that one local school superintendent and one school principal serve.

Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, acknowledged that the bill does not include certain measures which some advocates, state’s attorneys and public defenders wanted.

“If [the bill’s] at a place where no one is quite happy, then maybe you’ve done right thing,” he said to reporters after the Senate session.

Three amendments were accepted from the Senate floor including one from Sen. Clarence K. Lam (D-Howard and Anne Arundel). Lam’s amendment would require that the state Board of Victim Services distribute information about the Children in Need of Supervision petition, also known as CINS.

The Senate rejected, in a 29-17 vote, an amendment offered by Sen. Mary Beth Carozza (R-Lower Shore). Her amendment would have permitted a law enforcement officer to question a child — after giving reasonable notice to a parent, guardian, or custodian — if a crime of violence was committed.

She said the Child Interrogation Protection Act passed two years ago has made it harder for law enforcement agencies and local state’s attorneys to investigate and prosecute crimes.

After the session, Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready (R-Frederick and Carroll) said he would have liked to have seen a stronger bill.

“The idea that you can’t ever question a child without a lawyer present, as long as an adult is present, I don’t agree with that,” Ready said.

During the debate, Smith said current law protects a child’s constitutional rights and allows a child to receive legal advice from an attorney.

“The law as it stands does not hamstring law enforcement’s ability to make inquiries and do their job,” he said. “The law protects public safety. The law as it stands now protects constitutional rights regardless of your age.”

The Senate could give final approval to the bill as early as Monday, while the House may do that Friday.

By William J. Ford

Two Maryland General Assembly committees dissected bills on Tuesday focused on reforming state laws for juvenile offenders, one of the hot topics of this year’s 90-day session.

Legislative leaders want to alter what offenses constitute juvenile crimes, the age range of those who can be kept in custody for certain offenses, and what kind of rehabilitative services youthful offenders are eligible for. It’s a major undertaking, and both legislative chambers are starting to stake out their top priorities.

The Senate Judicial Proceedings and House Judiciary committees marked up their bills Tuesday, adding separate amendments to the legislation. Floor debates are expected Wednesday in the House and later this week in the Senate.

The Judicial Proceedings Committee was first to meet Tuesday, voting 9-2 to advance Senate Bill 744 to the full body. But committee members added an amendment that stretches for a few pages.

As summarized by the committee’s chair, Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), part of the amendment removes several criminal offenses by children ages 10 to 12 from the jurisdiction of the state Department of Juvenile Services (DJS).

For instance, the committee deleted a “false statement on an application” for a gun as one of the crimes eligible for state supervision because a child isn’t old enough to apply for a firearm permit.

Senators also removed an offense for a crime against an animal from the bill.

The committee did, however, keep in the bill third-degree sex offenses and various firearm offenses such as possession of a ghost gun and using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

The Senate version and House Bill 814 would require a DJS intake officer to make an inquiry within 15 business days to decide whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction over a youth offender’s case and whether judicial action “is in the best interests of the public or the child.” The current law is 25 days.

A Senate amendment added Tuesday says that if a law enforcement officer requests an intake officer as a condition for a child to be in pretrial detention and the intake officer doesn’t authorize it, then a DJS employee would have two days to make that decision.

“It expedites the process,” Smith said.

Sen. Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore) and Sen. Charles E. Sydnor III (D-Baltimore County) voted against advancing the bill, in part, they said, because it would allow juvenile services to send children ages 10 to 12 to juvenile court if arrested for various offenses.

“I’m still having trouble putting 10-, 11- and 12-year-olds in the jurisdiction of DJS,” Sydnor said. “I just need a little more time to figure that one piece out.”

Meanwhile, the committee accepted an amendment from Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George’s) that if a youth under DJS supervision records four unexcused absences from a particular rehabilitation program, then the court would be notified. No one could say what would happen when a court is notified.

The committee also placed the crime of motor vehicle theft within the Children in Need of Supervision petition, also known as CINS, designating that a young offender is in need of guidance, treatment, or rehabilitation. If a child is arrested for that particular offense, then a law enforcement officer would be required to fill out a CINS form so that the youth and the youth’s family can qualify for a variety of services.

The language mirrors part of Senate Bill 2, which Carter sponsored. The bill is named after NyKayla Strawder, a 15-year-old girl shot in August 2022 by a 9-year-old boy. The shooting took place in Carter’s district.

The measure would require a police officer to file a complaint to the juvenile services department if a child under 13 commits a crime “that results in the death of a victim.”

In addition, it would make it mandatory for an intake officer with the department to file a CINS petition that enables not only law enforcement personnel, but social service representatives, educators and residents to fill out a form.

Those referrals, which are managed by the department, have increased, but referrals are not being made in some jurisdictions.

The committee voted unanimously Tuesday to advance Carter’s bill to the full Senate. All committee members except Sen. William G. Folden (R-Frederick) chose to sign on as co-sponsor.

‘Not entirely clear’

After the House Judiciary Committee held bill hearings for about seven hours, the committee on Tuesday night approved several amendments to its version of the juvenile justice measure.

Instead of the bill taking effect on Oct. 1, the committee approved by a 17-5 vote a proposal to push the bill’s effective date another three months to Jan. 1, 2025.

Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore), chair of the committee, said it would give law enforcement, DJS and other officials additional time to incorporate necessary changes.

The House committee accepted an amendment that the department must provide a copy of its treatment plans for youths to the Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging and Best Practices. The commission would complete several tasks such as reviewing the department’s education and diversionary programs, researching evidence-based programs and reviewing fatalities that involve children under the supervision of DJS.

Similar to what the Senate committee did earlier Tuesday, the House panel removed firearm-related offenses such as a child filling a false firearm application and straw purchases. Animal cruelty remains in the House version.

The committee also added a provision for youths to enter a mandatory diversion program if a first-time arrest involves a car theft or certain firearm offenses.

“Quite frankly, we avoid a CINS process that is not entirely clear,” Clippinger said. “While at the same time, making sure that the kids don’t go into the DJS system without going through a diversionary program first.”

By William J. Ford