Legislative Report

ACLU of Maryland 2014 General Assembly Report 

The ACLU of Maryland is a non-partisan organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights. We advance civil liberties and civil rights through litigation, lobbying and education. In the legislature we lobby on free speech, privacy and technology, reproductive freedom, lgbt, religious freedom, drug policies, police practices, voting rights, women's rights, racial justice, equal protection, prisoner rights, death penalty, criminal justice, immigrant rights and national security issues.    

Here is our report on the ACLU priorities for the 2014 General Assembly session:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

Marijuana Policy Reform - VICTORY!

Decriminalization

This past summer the ACLU of Maryland helped to convene the Marijuana Policy Coalition of Maryland, a coalition of organizations including the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, the League of Women Voters, the Marijuana Policy Project, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and others, to work on reforming Maryland's laws on marijuana. In addition, the ACLU issued a report in the fall showing that in every county in Maryland, Blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at rates disproportionate to Whites, despite comparable rates of use.  That coalition and that report were instrumental in supporting SB 364, a bill to decriminalize possession of 10g or less of marijuana.

Last year, SB 297, a bill to make possession of a minor amount of marijuana a civil offense rather than an arrestable offense, passed the Senate but stalled in the House.  This year, legislators and advocates pulled off an amazing 11th-hour victory to pass SB 364, despite the opposition by House Judiciary Chairman Joseph Vallario (D-Prince George's).  In so doing, Maryland joins the other 17 states and the District of Columbia, which have decriminalized possession of minor amounts of marijuana.

Read our testimony on SB 364.

Read the report, "The Maryland War on Marijuana in Black and White"

See the coalition website here: www.marijuanapolicyinmd.org

Taxation and Regulation

The ACLU of Maryland and the coalition also supported HB 880/ SB 658 - the Marijuana Taxation and Regulation Act of 2014, which stalled in committee.  These bills would have moved Maryland to regulate marijuana like alcohol, similar to what Colorado and Washington State have done.

Read our testimony on SB 658. 

Medical Marijuana

The ACLU of Maryland also supported revisions to the medical marijuana law that passed the General Assembly in 2013.  Medical marijuana has shown to be effective in treating the effects of cancer treatment, such as nausea and loss of appetite; forms of epilepsy and seizures; and extreme pain, among other conditions.

Criminal Record Shielding and Expungement

This legislative session we worked within a broad-based coalition to give persons with a criminal record a second chance at employment, education, and other opportunities for economic stability and re-entry into society.  The Maryland Second Chance Act of 2014 (HB 1166/ SB 1056) would have shielded certain non-violent misdemeanor convictions three to five years after the defendant had completed mandatory supervision.  This bill would have opened up a world of opportunities for convicted persons, disproportionately persons of color, seeking to re-enter society, find gainful employment, stable housing, and contribute meaningfully to our economy.  Unfortunately, the bill did not pass this year, but we remain hopeful that the groundwork was laid for the passage of similar legislation in 2015.

The ACLU also supported five similar bills introduced with the goal of reducing the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction through shielding or expungement.

Read our testimony on the Maryland Second Chance Act of 2014. 

Pretrial Reform

In 2012 and 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that defendants were entitled to an attorney at the initial appearance before a court commissioner.  The ACLU participated in a Task Force that gave recommendations to the General Assembly regarding reforms to our pretrial justice system that would not only put the state in compliance with the Court's decision, but would also strengthen the system.  Despite a number of bills, including one that was supported by the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention, the Office of the Public Defender, States Attorneys, the ACLU and law enforcement, the General Assembly adjourned without passing a bill.

Christopher's Law

Christopher's Law-named for the teenage boy who was choked to death at the hands of an off-duty Baltimore County police officer and whose mother led the charge for passage of this important reform-provides that all police officers should receive training regarding the use of force, recognizing disabilities, cultural and gender diversity, and key lifesaving techniques.  The ACLU joined the broad coalition seeking passage of this law because we routinely hear from individuals and families who have suffered real harms in their interactions with police, from in-custody deaths to racial slurs, to the tasering of individuals with disabilities. We are pleased to report that this bill was successfully passed.  The new law will help ensure that law enforcement officers are equipped with the tools they need to do their jobs safely and effectively.

Read our testimony on HB 294/ SB 542.

Parole Reform

The ACLU has long supported reform to our parole system, which is one of only three in the United States where the Governor has to approve the recommendations of the Parole Commission before an individual may be paroled.  This injects politics into the parole system, and has resulted in a lack of paroles during the last eight years.  This year, we supported HB 388/ SB 953, which would eliminate the need for the Governor's approval of parole for two categories of persons serving parole-eligible life sentences-persons who were minors at the time of their sentence and persons who were not the principal actors in the commission of the offense.  Unfortunately, this bill died in committee.

Graduated Sanctions Pilot Program

Supporters may recall that the ACLU helped to pass the Graduated Sanctions Pilot Program in 2011.  Approximately one-third of people admitted to prison are there for technical parole and probation violations, including missed appointments with parole officers or failed drug tests.  Many of these individuals are not a danger to our community and yet they are taking up already-scarce space in our overcrowded and overstrained prisons and costing us a large amount of money to incarcerate.  The program gives parole officers options when addressing violations - they can judge if a violation is extreme enough to warrant revocation, or choose another option to allow the parolee to continue on parole.  The review of the pilot program by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services concluded that it was effective in preventing individuals from violating the terms of their parole. SB 608, which passed, expands the program beyond the Glen Burnie, Annapolis and Easton Community Supervision Offices, into Baltimore City.

Local DNA Databanks

In 2009, the General Assembly passed a bill that expanded DNA collection to include people arrested for certain crimes.  The Legislative Black Caucus, the Office of the Public Defender and the ACLU were able to insert several protections into the bill.  Subsequently, it came to light that local jurisdictions have their own databanks of DNA, including the DNA of victims, and that these jurisdictions are not following the State law.  The ACLU supported HB 680, which would have required local jurisdictions to follow the State law on what DNA could be collected, and how it would be used, stored and expunged. Unfortunately, HB 680 did not receive a vote from the House Judiciary Committee. 

Isolated Confinement

This session, we supported HB 787/ SB 861, which would have created a study to look at the use of isolated confinement in Maryland.  Isolated or solitary confinement is an extreme and inhumane form of punishment that is not evidence-based, wastes taxpayers' money and jeopardizes public safety.  Maryland uses isolated confinement at a much higher rate than other states, and thus it is an area that is ripe for reform.  Unfortunately, this bill died in committee.

PRIVACY

Read our Privacy and Technology report. 

Location Tracking - VICTORY!

For four years, the ACLU has advocated for a bill to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant prior to tracking people using their cell phone or other electronic device.  When turned on, a cell phone sends off a signal several times a minute.  That signal reaches the closest cell towers, which then bounce the signal back, giving the phone the strongest signal from which to operate.  Cell phone companies keep this information anywhere from 6 months to several years.  When considered in the aggregate, this information can give a detailed picture of where a person is or has been over a period of time. 

Currently, law enforcement in Maryland are able to obtain that location information if it is ‘relevant to a criminal investigation.'  This session we were able to pass SB 698/ HB 1161, which will require law enforcement to obtain a warrant, based upon probable cause that the target of the information either is committing or has committed a crime, or that the location information itself is evidence of or will lead to evidence of the crime being investigated, prior to conducting real-time tracking of an individual.  While the bill that passed relates only to real-time tracking, we anticipate seeking an inclusion of "historical" tracking at a later date, as where you have been is no less private than where you are right now.

Read our testimony on SB 698.

Communications Content Privacy - VICTORY!

When our privacy and technology law was originally passed in the 1980s, mobile phones and email did not exist. Now, law enforcement only has to obtain a search warrant to read peoples' emails that are less than 6 months old. Any email, tweets, texts or Facebook posts older than 6 months, as well as other online content, may be read by law enforcement if it is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation.  This session, we brought our law up to 21st century technology and passed SB 924/ HB 912, requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause any time they want to read the content of someone's electronic communications.

Read our testimony on SB 924.

Automatic License Plate Reader Systems (ALPRs) - Partial Victory

ALPRs are high-speed cameras that capture photographs of every passing car, date and stamp that photograph, and automatically check that plate against a number of state, local and federal databases of "hot lists" of plates.  Maryland has 411 of these readers across the state:  307 are mounted on police cars and 104 are fixed cameras.  This information is held for varying amounts of time, and is used by law enforcement for other purposes as well, including investigating cases.  As a result of the massive amount of information generated by ALPRs, Maryland has a database of millions of Marylanders' location and travel habits.  In a five-month period in 2012, Maryland's plate reader system had over 29 million license plate scans.  Of those, only 0.2 percent were associated with any wrongdoing, and 97 percent of those were for suspended or revoked registration or an emissions violation.

In its original form, SB 699/ HB 289 would have placed limits on the length of time that law enforcement could keep the ALPR data.  Such limits would have minimized the invasion of privacy that comes with ALPRs and the government's ability to keep a database on our movements just in case we do something wrong.  However, due to objection by law enforcement, the bill was amended: now, ALPRs will be used only for a "legitimate law enforcement purpose" and any agency using an ALPR must create procedures for who can access the data and an audit process to ensure the system is only being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The law also will require law enforcement to report to the legislature how many readers they use, the number of requests they get for that information, and any data breaches.

Read our testimony on SB 699.

Drones

The ACLU of Maryland supported a bill that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant prior to using a drone to gather evidence.  Though the bill did not make it out of committee, it successfully raised awareness in the legislature of the proliferation of drones and the privacy concerns posed by their unregulated use.

Read our testimony on SB 926.

Patient Privacy - VICTORY!

The ACLU of Maryland supported SB 790, which would have required the Maryland Insurance Administration to create a form allowing individuals to keep certain medical information private under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).  The bill passed!

Read our testimony on SB 790.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014 - VICTORY!

We are thrilled to be a part of the coalition that helped propel the Fairness for All Marylanders Act to passage.  This important and long-fought for bill places gender identity in our anti-discrimination laws, ensuring that transgender individuals are not discriminated against in public accommodations, housing or unemployment.

Read our testimony on SB 212.

EDUCATION REFORM

Adequacy in Funding for Public Schools 

While public education was funded according to the required "Thornton" formula, funding remained mostly flat this year (.5 percent added for inflation). This will cause school districts to make difficult budget decisions in an effort to keep pace with rising costs.  The ACLU successfully supported $800,000 allocated for the long-awaited "adequacy" study, which will be a comprehensive reexamination of the state's education funding formula over the next two years.  ACLU's Education Reform Project also supported a bill to fund a small expansion of Pre-Kindergarten programs across the state.  SB332 allows private providers and local school systems to request funding from the Maryland Department of Education to add half-day seats for families up to 300 percent of the poverty line, to expand current half-day programs to full-day, or to create new Judy Centers which offer wrap-around services to Pre-K families. 

Private and Religious School Funding

The ACLU successfully opposed the Maryland Education Credit Act, HB 1262/SB 633, which would have siphoned money from public schools that desperately need it, while funneling money to private schools that do not have to abide by the same prohibitions on discrimination that public schools do. Funding to upgrade private school buildings -- $3.5 million -- stayed in the budget, however, despite hundreds of emails from ACLU members objecting to the allocation. 

Improving Decrepit School Facility Conditions

The legislature heard a report about the progress of the $1 billion school construction program for Baltimore City, one year after the ACLU led the Transform Baltimore campaign (www.transformbaltimore.org) with the Baltimore Education Coalition to win the funding in the 2013 General Assembly session.  The program is on track with over 20 schools currently in the design phase.

FIRST AMENDMENT

Revenge Pornography

Three pieces of legislation were introduced to curb the recent, and troubling, trend known as "revenge pornography"- the online posting of an ex-partner's intimate photos in an act of revenge against the ex-partner.  The ACLU recognizes the harmful consequences this can bear for the subjects of these images, and especially women.  However, care must be taken to ensure that these bills are narrowly tailored so as not to run afoul of the First Amendment and have unintended consequences for free speech online.  We gave written and oral testimony on all three bills. One bill eventually passed, HB 43, which was narrowed in important ways. But we remain concerned that criminal liability for the sharing of images may extend to persons beyond the intimate relationship.

Read our testimony on HB 43.

FOURTH AMENDMENT

Texting while Driving 

As introduced, HB 1212/ SB 348 would have required persons involved in traffic accidents to turn over their phone number, phone carrier, and any email accounts associated with the device.  We voiced our concerns about the requirement that persons turn over this personal information, pointing to existing mechanisms available for law enforcement to obtain this information-such as court orders, warrants, and subpoenas.  We also worked closely with the bill's House sponsor, who agreed that law enforcement and prosecutors already have the means to obtain this data and he removed that language from the bill before it was ultimately passed.

IMMIGRATION

Local Police Enforcement of Civil Detainers

The ACLU played a lead role in introducing and advocating for SB554/HB 29, the Maryland Law Enforcement Trust Act, which would have clarified the parameters of state and local participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts. By drawing a bright line between state or local law enforcement officials and federal immigration enforcement agents, the bill would have improved community trust in the police, promoted public safety, and eliminated the wasteful practice of spending unreimbursed state and local resources to advance federal immigration enforcement efforts. While the bill did not make it out of committee, it raised awareness about this important problem and helped set the stage for a renewed effort next year.

OPEN GOVERNMENT/ ACCOUNTABILITY

Body Cams

This session three bills addressed law enforcement wearing body cameras.  Although the ACLU generally takes a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against abuse of power by law enforcement.  Cameras have the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police officers against false accusations of abuse.  All three bills failed, but the chairs of both the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention asking them to bring together the relevant parties to discuss the issue and make recommendations.

Open Government

We testified on several bills this session that dealt with open government issues.  Four of them addressed the Open Meetings Act:  two would have added subcommittees to the definition of a public body, and two others would have added an agenda to part of the notice required for meetings.  Neither of those bills passed.  Thankfully another bill, which did pass, will create a study about how to improve the process for resolving appeals under the Maryland Public Information Act.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Freedom from State-Sponsored Religion

This session SJ 5 was introduced to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the addition of "Under God" to the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.  When it was originally composed in 1892, it contained no such reference. The ACLU offered testimony opposing the bill, drawing attention to Maryland's religious diversity and the right of Marylanders to be free from state-sponsored religion.  Fortunately, the bill died in the Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee.

VOTING/ ELECTIONS

Public Campaign Financing 

This legislative session, three bills were introduced to move Maryland in the direction of public campaign financing. The ACLU is well aware of the toxic influence money can have on the electoral process.  Public financing presents an opportunity to hold candidates and officials accountable to the electorate, freeing them from the stronghold of big financial donors.  Public financing also allows elected officials to focus their time and energies on responding to constituent needs, instead of raising money.  The first, HB 418/ SB 691, would have established a system of public campaign financing for certain candidates running for the General Assembly. Unfortunately, the legislation was not voted out of the House Ways and Means Committee or the Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee this year.  Read our testimony on HB 418/ SB 691.

We also supported HB 1269, Maryland Small Donor Incentive Act, which also failed in committee. Read our testimony on HB 1269. 

The third public financing bill the ACLU supported was introduced in the Montgomery County Council, which would establish a system of public financing for candidates for County Executive and County Council of Montgomery County.  It is still pending. Read our testimony on Bill Number 16-14.

Voter Protection in Municipal Elections - VICTORY!

The ACLU joined Common Cause Maryland in supporting SB 269, which extends to municipal elections the offenses and penalties that currently exist under state law for voting fraud.  Without SB 269, there is no protection under municipal law against attempts to influence a voter's decision through fraudulent activity.  This bill was successfully passed.

Read our joint testimony with Common Cause Maryland on SB 269.

Voter ID

Once again, a group of Maryland legislators introduced a bill to require voters to show ID at the polls. Once again we opposed it and once again the bill failed.  Voter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem and would have had a negative impact on the right to vote of minorities, the elderly, and the impoverished. 

Read our testimony on HB 1094.

Voter Rights Protection Act

We offered testimony in support of HB 224, the Voter's Rights Protection Act of 2014, which would have allowed for timely access to recourse in the Circuit Court during an election for allegations of violations of Maryland's law governing campaign materials.  Unfortunately, the bill was not voted out of the House Ways and Means Committee.    

Read our testimony in support of HB 224.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS/ REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

Shackling of Pregnant Inmates and Detainees - VICTORY!

After years of advocacy to outlaw the shackling of pregnant inmates and detainees, we are proud to report a victory.  The ACLU worked closely with Delegate Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City) and Senator Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery), the lead sponsors of HB 27/ SB 656, the Healthy Births for Incarcerated Women Act.  Although SB 656 got held up in the House Rules and Executive Nominations Committee, HB 27 was successfully passed.  Under the bill, physical restraints may not be used during labor and delivery, unless ordered by the treating medical professional.  During pregnancy and postpartum recovery, restraints may only be used if there is an individualized determination of safety or flight risk.  In these instances, the use of restraints must be recorded, restraints must be the least restrictive, and restraints may not include leg or waist restraints.  Additionally, the bill requires the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) and local facilities to develop a policy to require that restraints used on pregnant inmates be the least restrictive.  DPSCS and local facilities must also develop a method for reporting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates, referencing the circumstances that necessitated the use of restraints.  This bill is a long overdue step away from the dangerous and inhumane practice of shackling pregnant women.

Read our testimony on HB 27.

20-Week Abortion Ban - VICTORY!

Thankfully, a 20-week abortion ban was soundly defeated.  The most powerful testimony came from a woman who found out after 20 weeks about a fatal deformity.  She and her husband decided to terminate her pregnancy, but would not have had that option if Maryland enacted a 20-week abortion ban, which are being increasingly considered across the country.

Read our testimony on HB 283/SB 34.

Mandatory Ultrasounds - VICTORY!

As in 2013, the 2014 legislative session saw the introduction of a bill to require that doctors show women who were seeking an abortion an ultrasound of their pregnancy.  Again, the Committee hearing the bill wisely decided to leave medical decisions related to pregnancies to women and their medical professionals.

Read our testimony on SB 85.

WORKERS' RIGHTS

Earned Sick Leave

The ACLU supported two bills that would have created an avenue for Maryland's workers to earn paid sick leave, HB 527 and HB 968/ SB 753.  More than 700,000 people in our state cannot earn paid sick days to use when they or a loved one is ill.  What is worse, the lack of paid sick leave carries a disproportionate burden for the working poor, who are disproportionately persons of color, and women.  The working poor are least able to absorb a job loss or cut in income due to illness.  Women are negatively impacted because they tend to shoulder the burden of caring for children and aging parents.  Although these bills were unsuccessful this year, we will continue to support measures to protect the job security and economic stability of workers, and especially those who have been historically marginalized.

Read our testimony on HB 968/SB 753.

Unpaid Parental leave - VICTORY!

When Delegate Ariana Kelly (D-Montgomery) called on the ACLU to offer support for HB 1026/SB 737, we did so enthusiastically. The legislation will create a reasonable unpaid leave policy for the birth or adoption of an employee's child.  The ACLU believes that no employee should be forced to sacrifice job stability to care for a new child.  This is a time in a family's life when expenses are high and financial stability is crucial.  We are pleased that the legislature recognized the importance of such protections and passed the bill.

Read our testimony on HB 1026/SB 737.

Employee Anti-Discrimination

HB 1350/ SB 688, the Fair Employment Preservation Act of 2014, was introduced in response to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Vance v. Ball State University.  That decision eroded important protections for employees against discrimination by holding that an employer is only responsible for the harassment perpetrated by an employee if the employee had the power to make tangible decisions concerning the victim's employment, such as hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, or transferring.  This bill would have made clear that persons who direct, supervise, or evaluate the work activities of another employee may be acting discriminatorily and the employer should be liable for that discrimination.  Unfortunately, the bill failed to receive a vote from the House Health and Government Operations Committee. 

Read our testimony on the Fair Employment Preservation Act of 2014.

YOUTH RIGHTS

Student Privacy

We supported HB 607, which would have required educational institutions that use a cloud computing service to include a clause in their contract that would limit commercial use of student data by providers.  While this bill passed the House, it died in the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee.

Read our testimony on HB 607.

Youth charged as Adults - VICTORY!

The ACLU supported HB 1295/ SB 515, under which more youth will be eligible to have their cases transferred from adult court to juvenile court.  The collateral consequences of an adult criminal record can be severely damaging and may obstruct a young person's ability to succeed.  Moreover, young people of color are disproportionately adjudicated in adult courts.  This bill is an important step toward investing in our youth and we are glad the legislature saw the wisdom in passing it.

Read our testimony on HB 1295/ SB 515.

Date

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Show related content

Tweet Text

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

• Read more about 2014 General Assembly Report

ACLU of Maryland 2018 General Assembly Report 

This year, as with most, was a mixed bag for civil rights and civil liberties in Maryland, with both huge victories and disappointing losses. Over the 90-day legislative session, the ACLU of Maryland gave testimony on over 200 bills and held countless meetings with legislators and partners in an effort to safeguard and advance fundamental freedoms in our state. This report is a non-exhaustive summary of the civil rights and civil liberties successes and setbacks of the 2018 legislative session.

I. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

This legislative session, we spent a great deal of time and resources on criminal justice reform-both defending against regressive bills and supporting progressive measures.

  1. Sentencing & Penalties 

As is typical in an election year, we saw an onslaught of "tough on crime" bills this legislative session. Several bills were introduced to restore the death penalty in Maryland-HB 887 Criminal Law - Death Penalty - Murder of Specific Individuals or Mass Murder; HB 1411/ SB 346 Criminal Law - Death Penalty - Reinstatement; and SB 816 Criminal Law - Death Penalty - Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders. As one of the lead advocates in repealing the death penalty, ACLU opposed these regressive bills and fortunately, they all failed.

We were also successful in fending off other regressive criminal justice bills, including HB 678 Career Criminal Truth in Sentencing Act, which would have prevented courts from suspending sentences when appropriate and prevented certain persons from earning diminution credits. We also successfully opposed HB 1309, the perennial stand your ground legislation.

A number of bills were introduced to address assault against transportation workers. While the ACLU appreciates the dangers and vulnerabilities faced by transportation workers, there are already existing penalties to address these concerns. Fortunately, an amended version of HB 312 was passed, which made a more moderate increase to the existing criminal penalty statute. The other bills on this issue were HB 28, HB 1305, and HB 683.

Without a doubt, the most intense fight of the legislative sessions centered on Governor Hogan's package of backsliding crime bills - HB 100/ SB 199 violent offenders - penalties, HB 101/ SB 197 Crimes - Firearms - Penalties, and HB 102/ SB 198 Criminal Gangs. These bills included mandatory minimum sentences, which have never been shown to improve public safety and worse have had a disproportionate impact on persons of color, in addition to swelling our prisons and wasting taxpayer dollars. 

The Governor also proposed higher prison sentences for certain gun-related offenses, despite evidence showing that longer sentences have negative public safety effects; the longer people spend in prison, the more likely they are to recidivate.

Perhaps the most offensive of all these proposals came in HB 102/ SB 198, which included unconstitutionally vague definitions of gangs and required that more children be charged as adults.

None of Hogan's bills passed, but their regressive provisions were amended by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee into a separate, unrelated bill, SB 122 Criminal Law - Obstructing Justice - Penalties. SB 122 ballooned from a simple 4-page bill into a 43-page package, a conglomeration of Governor Hogan's bills, with a few glimmers of hope in the form of funding for proven crime prevention programs and benefits for immigrant victims of crime.

SB 122 passed out of the Senate and House Judiciary committee by a slim margin and with fierce opposition from progressive delegates. The bill's funding provisions brought it within the purview of the House Appropriations committee, which voted it unfavorably.

Unfortunately, the House Judiciary committee had found yet another avenue to pass Hogan's crime bills-the provisions were resurrected (yet again) as amendments to SB 101 and SB 1137. These bills were voted favorably by the House Judiciary Committee and the House chamber.

In a nutshell, the three bills introduced by Governor Hogan did not themselves pass, but many of their failed tough on crime policies were amended into unrelated legislation, which did pass.

We are disappointed that the General Assembly passed these enhanced criminal penalties in the face of evidence demonstrating that they will not actually make Marylanders safer. Moreover, the legislative stealth undertaken to circumvent public transparency and accountability is disheartening.

Amid the morass of regressive legislation, a few progressive bills were introduced, including SB 628, which would have decriminalized certain consensual adult non-violent behavior, including certain alcohol consumption and gambling offenses. We also supported HB 1334, which would have reduced the penalty for certain drivers' license offenses. Unfortunately, neither of these forward-thinking bills passed.

II. FIRST AMENDMENT

This session, the ACLU successfully opposed several bills that would have curtailed the fundamental rights of Marylanders to freely express themselves. HB 1306/ SB 613 would have unconstitutionally allowed prayer during mandatory school-sponsored events. The Supreme Court has consistently found that official prayer in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause and is therefore, unconstitutional. This bill died.

SB 726 would have vastly expanded the types, forms and medium of speech that constitute criminal acts under Maryland's criminal harassment statute. We believe that the underlying criminal law is unconstitutional and a challenge to the law is currently being considered by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. That is why we find any expansion to the law inappropriate and unconstitutional. We worked with an attorney who filed the constitutional challenge to the current law, as well as an attorney from the NAACP's Montgomery County Branch who had to tragically defend a middle school child who was falsely accused of violating the current criminal law in racially-motivated claims made by the child's school principal. SB 726 is a perfect example of how criminalizing behavior and speech leads to devastating disproportionate impacts on children of color. While this bill made it through the Senate, we were able to block efforts to pass it in the House.

Another bill, SB 725, which purported to provide a civil remedy for harassment by a student, would have further perpetuated the school-to-prison pipeline and trample on students' constitutional rights. The original bill would have authorized unconstitutional injunctions on protected speech and allowed school employees to report a student to law enforcement with complete impunity from consequences for false claims or discriminatory behavior. With a groundswell of opposition from our partners, such as Maryland PTA, Maryland Education Coalition, Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, Public Justice Center ,and others, the bill was significantly amended to remove any unconstitutional injunctions or immunity provisions. While the bill sadly leaves in a provision that could report children to the police, we were successful in our efforts to remove explicit constitutional infirmities.

Another bill, SB 769, rewrote the criminal law on "revenge porn" and "sextortion" in way that offended the First Amendment as introduced. We were particularly concerned with a provision that would have had dangerous consequences for the media. We were able to successfully advocate for amendments that protected free speech and freedom of the press.

III. FOURTH AMENDMENT

We were successful in protecting Fourth Amendment rights for Marylanders this session, particularly for individuals who suffer from mental health disorders or who are civilly committed.

Working with our partners at the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD), we successfully advocated in support of HB 1392/SB 864, which ensures that OPD has timely access to their clients' medical files so that they can provide effective assistance of counsel for patients at involuntary commitment and competency hearings. We also successfully supported HB 111/SB 233, which helps ensure that the state meets its constitutional obligation to provide inmates with adequate and timely medical care. We also were able to defeat competing proposals that would have allowed unreasonable leeway in the provision of medical services to defendants with mental illness. HB 385 introduced an unacceptably broad definition of ‘facility' for treating persons found incompetent to stand trial (IST). The bill would have defined ‘facility' to include any institution that provides or purports to provide treatment or other services for individuals who have mental disorders, which could include correctional facilities. Thankfully, this bill died.

HB 499 would have allowed for the involuntary, civil commitment of an overdose survivor. Indefinite civil commitment is unconstitutional, extremely costly, and unnecessary to protect society against substance use disorder. Fortunately, this bill was withdrawn.

IV. IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS

We supported several pieces of legislation that would have improved the lives of Maryland's immigrant communities. HB 1626 would have required that the Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") obtain a valid warrant from a federal or Maryland State court before receiving personal information about individuals from the Motor Vehicle Association. SB 344 would have allowed Lawful Permanent Residents ("LPR") who have been honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces to serve as police officers in Maryland. We supported the increased opportunity for employment given to LPR veterans, but believe this opportunity should be extended to all LPRs, regardless of military service. SB 526/HB 1493 would have protected internationally recruited workers in Maryland from labor exploitation and trafficking. HB 503 would have resourced crucial translation services for non-English speaking families of students. But unfortunately, none of these bills passed.

We also supported HB 1536/SB 546 which would have allowed more individuals to qualify for in-state tuition under the Maryland Dream Act, which was passed by referendum in 2012. Specifically, the bill would have removed certain unnecessary barriers to obtain in-state tuition as well as provided greater protections for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") during this time of uncertainty for the DACA program at the federal level. The House version passed its chamber of origin, but neither version made it onto the Senate floor. The Maryland Dream Act has been pivotal to undocumented students' access to an education beyond high school and we will continue to work with our partners to expand opportunities to empower young inspirational individuals to pursue their dreams and enter the Maryland workforce prepared for whatever they may face.

We also supported HB 461 and SB 581, which would have allowed a victim or relative of a victim to be granted a U Nonimmigrant Status ("U Visa") if the person was considered to be helpful to a criminal investigation. Oddly, an amended version of HB 461 was added to the omnibus crime bill (SB 122), but did not ultimately pass.

We were also actively involved in the passage of HB 1613/SB 1239, which will allow noncitizen parents to appoint a standby guardian to protect their children in the event of an adverse immigration action. We supported this legislation with amendments as an important tool for parents facing potentially deportation or detention proceedings.

We also successfully opposed multiple anti-immigrant measures. For instance, HB 1308 would have required state and local correctional facilities to transfer undocumented individuals to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on request. We will continue to oppose measures that attempt to make local jurisdictions act as surrogates for the federal government in their overzealous and inhumane immigration enforcement efforts.

V. NON-DISCRIMINATION

We continued to support legislation that sought to align the policies of private schools that receive taxpayer funded vouchers with the strong anti-discrimination laws governing Maryland's public schools, SB 1060/HB 1565. For yet another year, these bills were held up in their respective committees.

We also fought hard against continued taxpayer subsidies for private and religious schools as part of the "BOOST" program. Governor Hogan sought to bump up the funding in the budget for the program from $5 million to almost $9 million. Along with a coalition of disability rights, LGBT rights, and education advocacy groups, we were able to hold funding to $7 million. We were also able to add to requirements of the program in budget language much stronger transparency and accountability protections. These include a mandate that BOOST schools submit student handbook or other written policies related to student admission to the Maryland State Board of Education, in order to help determine if discrimination based on sexual orientation or disability is taking place. Also, BOOST schools must now administer national, norm-referenced standardized assessments, and the results of these assessments must be publicly reported by MSDE. Next year we hope to significantly reduce funding for the program, especially because BOOST does not provide adequate protections and accommodations for students with disabilities.

On another front, we worked hard on HB 1603/SB 1109, a simple but significant measure that, as amended, would have required the Justice Reinvestment Oversight Board to develop best practices for the collection of data on race and ethnicity by Maryland state agencies. Currently in Maryland, there is no uniform collection of race and ethnicity data across state and local agencies, making data-based claims unreliable. This measure is critically important considering the State's data often improperly categorizes individuals who would otherwise be categorized as Lantinx instead as "white." Maryland's inconsistent, inaccurate and uncomprehensive data collection significantly impedes civil rights legislation and litigation that rely on data to inform policy decisions. Unfortunately, while this bill passed the House, it tragically got killed in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee for trivial non-substantive political reasons.

Additionally, we were unsuccessful in passing SB 953 Maryland Medical Assistance Program and Health Insurance - Coverage - 3 Hepatitis C Drugs, which would have prohibited the Maryland Department of Health from continuing to deny curative treatment to Medicaid beneficiaries suffering from Hepatitis C (HCV) until they have suffered a certain amount of liver damage. We believe the current policy is immoral, with disastrous public health consequences, medically and fiscally unjustifiable, and illegal. Because this bill did not pass, we will seek other legal means of addressing this dangerous practice.

VI. LGBT RIGHTS

In a huge victory for Maryland's LGBT youth, HB 902/ SB 1028 passed, which bans the dangerous and discredited practice of so-called "conversion therapy." We supported our partners at Free State Justice, the lead advocates for this effort, as well as clinical practitioners and other advocates, to successfully pass this critical measure for LGBT rights.

We also joined Free State Justice in successfully opposing HB 136, which was a nefarious and surreptitious attempt by County Commissioners of St. Mary's County to outlaw LGBT-themed books and programming in the St. Mary's County public libraries. 

VII. OPEN GOVERNMENT

 1. Transparency 

A number of bills were introduced to increase transparency in our government. HB 704 would have required that the Maryland General Assembly make available to the public live and archived video streaming of meetings of the Senate, House of Delegates, and standing committees. HB 1788 would have provided an added layer of protection for certain state employees who experience discrimination in employment decisions and would have added more robust penalties for ethics violations. These bills unfortunately did not pass. 

There were also a number of bills that would have jeopardized open government principles and we successfully defeated those efforts. For instance, we once again defeated dangerous attempts to call for a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. While bills are introduced every year that call for a constitutional convention on such issues as limiting federal powers or restricting money in politics, this year one of those bills, HB 11/SB 7, got further than ever before, passing the House. Thankfully, we were able to kill it in the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. Every civil right and liberty that the ACLU works tirelessly to protect would be threatened by a constitutional convention.

We were also able to successfully defend against efforts to make dangerous reforms to Maryland's Public Information Act (PIA). SB 1054 would have required denials of any part of a 9-1-1 communications that may be "gory" or "gruesome" or convey scenes of murder or suicide. This would have impermissibly denied disclosure of police misconduct that results in the injury or murder of a Marylander and may be gory or gruesome. The public has a right to know the gross misconduct perpetuated by the state. We also successfully defended against a bill, SB 788, that would have rolled back efforts to increase transparency in law enforcement by limiting footage from body worn cameras (see section below on "Police Accountability"). As an organization that advocates for transparency and open government, we are deeply troubled by the persistent and dogged attempts of local governments-year after year-to carve out exceptions to disclosure of public information, very often without any actual examples of prior improper disclosures. 

  2. Access to Justice

We once again supported a bill, HB 1270/ SB 1042, that would have authorized a court to award plaintiffs attorneys' fees in cases that result in the enforcement of the Maryland Constitution or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. This bill would have helped Marylanders whose constitutional and civil rights were violated, but may have a hard time finding an attorney to represent them. Unfortunately, this bill did not get a vote in committee, but the ACLU will continue to fight alongside our partners for this bill next year.

VIII. POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

There was little appetite for police accountability in the General Assembly this session. Several progressive bills were introduced, but none passed.

We supported two bills introduced to address the militarization of policing - HB240/ SB 661 Law Enforcement - Federal Surplus Program - Equipment Acquisition sought to establish limits and transparency in the acquisition of military equipment by Maryland agencies. HB 920/ SB 705 Public Safety - SWAT Team Activation and Deployment - Reports would have re-instated reporting on the use of SWAT teams across the state.

We also spent a great deal of time addressing the use of technology by law enforcement. We supported HB 453/ SB 209 Baltimore County - Uniformed Off-Duty Law Enforcement Officer - Body Camera which sought to equip off duty officers with body cameras; and HB 578 Task Force to Study Law Enforcement Surveillance Technologies, which would have established oversight of the acquisition of technologies by law enforcement agencies.

We were successful in fending off two regressive policing bills this session-HB 1142/ SB 720 Interception of Oral Communication - Law Enforcement Officer would have codified in statute existing but unhelpful case law holding that without a statutory exclusion, evidence obtained by a body camera is admissible in court even when they officer fails to notify the person that they are being recorded. We also successfully opposed HB 1638/ SB 788 Public Information Act - Revisions, which would have created categorical bans on body camera footage being disclosed to the public. Despite our best efforts to negotiate in good faith, we were not able to reach an agreement with the proponent law enforcement agencies and local governments.

We also supported measures to improve police interactions during traffic stops. HB 1133 Criminal Procedure - Law Enforcement Procedures - Consent Search of Motor Vehicle would have banned consent searches during traffic stops. Similar measures in other jurisdictions have been shown to alleviate racial disparities in searches. Also, HB 1375 Driver Education Curriculum - Rights of Drivers Involved in Traffic Stops would have added a ‘know your rights' component to the drivers education curriculum.

Finally, we supported HB 1649 Public Safety - Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Actions - Settlement Database, which would have required public reporting on settlements made by local jurisdictions in civil rights cases and HB 522/ SB 582 Public Safety - Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission - Sexual Assault Investigation Training, which would have improved training for law enforcement in the investigation of sexual assault.

IX. PRISONERS' RIGHTS

  1. Solitary Confinement

We renewed our advocacy this session to limit the use of solitary confinement inside Maryland's facilities. Unfortunately, HB 786/ SB 539 Correctional Services - Restrictive Housing - Limitations which would have set time limits on the use of solitary confinement and set basic protections for vulnerable persons, was watered down to a single meaningless discretionary line requiring the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to limit the use of solitary confinement "to the extent reasonably possible." The revised bill's fiscal note is telling-according to the analysis, "The bill codifies existing practice." We know that the state's existing practice placed 73% of all inmates in solitary confinement, many of whom suffered from serious mental illness. We could not stand behind the bill and decided with our partners to abandon the effort and return next legislative session with the hope of passing meaningful reform. 

  2. Accountability Behind Bars

Unfortunately, two important bills that would have increased transparency into the treatment of incarcerated persons both failed. HB 628 Correctional Services - Inmates - Labor was a modest measure to shed light on the working conditions and wages of inmates. HB 1256 Public Safety - Deaths Involving a Correctional Officer - Reports would have required reporting on deaths that occur inside correctional facilities.

  3. Meaningful Opportunities for Release

We continued to advocate for legislation to remove the political taint from the parole process for persons sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Unfortunately, the bill (HB 846/ SB 249 Inmates - Life Imprisonment - Parole Reform) did not pass this year but we know this is a long-term fight and will continue to tackle this issue.

We were successful in fending off legislation that would have rolled back existing opportunities for persons to earn their release through good behavior. HB 963 Correctional Services - Eligibility for Parole - Violent Crime; HB 579/ SB 210 Correctional Services - Murder - Diminution Credits; and SB 225 Correctional Services - Eligibility for Parole - Life Imprisonment all failed.

 4. Pretrial Reform

In 2017, 11 jurisdictions had pretrial services and 13 did not. The data produced by the Judiciary in the 6 months since the Court's bail reform rule's implementation (July 1 - November 1, 2017) demonstrated that pretrial services are sorely needed across the state. Specifically, the data showed that more persons are being released without financial conditions, but also more persons are being held without bond. This is exactly the result that one would expect if pretrial services are insufficient. The Court 2016 rule, which we supported, discouraged courts from setting financial conditions of release, and in jurisdictions with no pretrial services or inadequate pretrial services, courts have few (if any) good alternatives to setting bail, and they are forced to either release defendants without conditions of release or hold defendants without bond. The solution to this dilemma is to develop, expand and improve pretrial services across the state.

We were successful in getting a $1 million grant allocated in the budget to fund, establish, expand, and improve pretrial services across the state. The grant fund will be governed by HB 447 Pretrial Services Program Grant Fund - Establishment, which we supported and passed into law. We were also successful in getting another round of data from the Judiciary, which will allow us to continue monitoring the progress of the court rule.

  5. Re-Entry

We continued to support efforts to allow for more effective re-entry of persons disentangling themselves from the criminal justice system. The milestone re-entry bill HB 1383/ SB 1212 Redeem Act of 2018 did not make it out of committee, but two other critical pieces of legislation did pass-HB 382 clarifies that certain civil offenses may be expunged and HB 1597 requires reports on the denials of occupational licenses based on criminal records.

  6. Drug Policy Reform

We supported a number of bills that would have built on past accomplishments to move away from a criminal justice approach and toward a health-based approach to substance use. We supported HB 325 Criminal Law - Use or Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance - De Minimis Quantity, which would have decriminalized CDS possession in small quantities. SB 127 Criminal Law - Possession of Marijuana - Criminal Threshold would have raised the civil possession amount from 10 grams to one ounce of marijuana, bringing Maryland into line with the majority of states that have decriminalized simple possession. We also supported SB 128 Criminal Law - Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana - Presumption, which sought to address an increasing trend in which persons in possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana are nonetheless charged with possession with the intent to distribution. Unfortunately, none of these bills made it across the finish line.

We also supported HB 1264/ SB 1039 marijuana legalization with an amendment to ensure that tax revenues are directed to support communities-Black and Brown-that have been disproportionately criminalized by the war on drugs. This bill also failed this year.

X. PRIVACY

Several bills were introduced this session to safeguard Marylanders' privacy rights, especially in the context of new and developing technologies.

We were the lead advocate in passing HB 1101/SB 944, which prohibits the government or employers from requiring or coercing any individual to undergo the implantation of an identification device. New technologies, like microchips, are giving the employers unprecedented abilities to monitor and watch their workers. Further, six state governments, including California, microchip their inmates in order to track them. This bill will protect all Marylanders from being forced to undergo this invasive practice.

We also supported a number of other progressive bills that had been introduced in previous years. HB 510 would have required that a law enforcement officer obtain a warrant before obtaining historical electronic device location information, and HB 1274 would have required that utility companies give prior written notice of the deployment of "smart meters" to each customer in the affected service area. Additionally, we supported HB 56, which would prohibit a law enforcement officer from obtaining utility data recorded by a "smart meter" without a warrant. Unfortunately, none of these measures passed this year.

While a bill to protect net neutrality in Maryland, SB 287, did not pass, we were excited by the enthusiasm around this legislation. We worked in collaboration with the national ACLU, as well as other national partners, to show the groundswell of support around this issue. We will continue to advocate for robust net neutrality measures in the future.

We also successfully in blocked numerous bills that would have compromised Marylanders' privacy rights. In particular, we successfully killed two attempts to expand the ability of law enforcement to obtain warrantless, non-consensual blood draws from people involved in serious car accidents, SB 1150 and SB 722.

XI. RACIAL JUSTICE

Multiple bills were introduced this session to advance racial justice in Maryland. We supported SB 929/HB 1623, which would require certain departments of state government to develop and implement procedures for identifying the disparate impact of policies, guidelines, and regulations on communities of color. The importance of using a race equity lens to policymaking cannot be overstated, especially in the case of the criminal justice system. This bill passed the Senate, but did not get a vote in the House Health and Government Operations Committee. We will continue to advocate for a more complete demonstration of how policies have direct consequences on Marylanders of color. 

XII. VOTING & ELECTIONS

The ACLU was actively involved in the passage of two huge victories for voting rights in Maryland: SB 1048 establishes an automatic voter registration system in the state, and HB 532/SB 594 is a constitutional amendment that will allow eligible individuals to register to vote at the same time and at the same place as they cast their ballot on election day. This constitutional amendment will be a question on the ballot in the November election, so Marylanders will finally have the ability to bring Election Day Registration to Maryland once and for all.

We also supported a number of other bills that would expand voting rights. HB 829/SB 730 passed, which prevents a municipality from requiring a voter to provide a reason as to why he or she wishes to vote by absentee ballot. Additionally, there were a handful of voting rights measures that we supported but didn't pass: HB 5 and HB 55 would have required landlords and housing realtors, respectively, to provide individuals with a voter registration application and voter registration information; SB 129 would have created convenient access for polling in colleges in Baltimore County; and SB 592 would have created joint committee on election oversight in an effort to improve elections and campaign finance regulations in the state. We also supported HB 542 Election Law - Eligible Detainees - Information on Voting Rights, which would have made sure eligible incarcerated voters-persons held pretrial or detained on misdemeanor convictions-knew about their right to vote. Unfortunately, this bill failed.

On the fair elections front, we supported HB 227, HB 785, SB 374 and SB 375, which would have established systems of public campaign financing. Unfortunately, none of these initiatives passed this year.

We also successfully defeated a number of bills that would have rolled back voting rights and fair election protections. SB 357 was a discriminatory measure that would have required the jury commissioner to provide citizenship information to the State Board of Elections. And HB 1326, HB 1563 and SB 591 would have created onerous and illegal voter ID requirements for persons seeking to exercise the right to vote.

XIV. WOMEN'S RIGHTS

A number of bills were introduced to address women's rights in Maryland.

We supported HB 1342, which creates, among other things, a process by which individuals can bring claims of sexual harassment by a member of the Maryland General Assembly. We worked with the bill's sponsor and other advocates to amend the bill to ensure it was constitutional while still providing much-needed remedies for individuals who experience sexual harassment by members of our legislature. After a truly collaborative effort by advocates and legislators alike, we are happy this bill passed.

We also supported HB 1160, which would have required the Commissioner of Correction to operate a prerelease unit for women within the Division of Correction. This bill did not get a vote in committee.

We opposed a number of bills that threatened women's rights in Maryland. For instance, HB 1744 requires health care practitioners to report women to the local social service department if a newborn was showing symptoms of withdrawal, even if the mother was using a controlled substance given to her by her health care provider. We worked with health care providers, mental health advocates and others to successfully craft amendments that significantly improve the bill. The amended bill passed, and we will continue to monitor implementation of this complicated law. 

As in previous years, we saw the introduction of numerous bills that would infringe on reproductive rights and freedom in Maryland. We successfully blocked all of these bills from getting a vote. HB 1424 would have unconstitutionally banned abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy. HB 748/SB 533 was an attempt to expand fetal rights for the purposes of so-called "fetal homicide." HB 1335 would have created a logistical and dangerous hurdle for minors by requiring them to get parental consent before obtaining an abortion. SB 449 would have given the legislature the ability to determine viability when this determination should be a medical decision between and woman and her provider. And HB 1355/SB 1067 would have unconstitutionally banned the safest and most common method of later abortion known as "dilation and evacuation."

Conversely, we supported a number of measures to advance reproductive rights in Maryland. Two bills passed that advanced women's health services in correctional facilities: SB 598/HB 797 will ensure that women in prison are afforded the basic menstrual health supplies they need, and SB 629/HB 787 will require all corrections facilities to develop written policies regarding medical care for pregnant inmates. We also supported HB 1111/SB 969, which did not pass but would have increased access to emergency contraception on college campuses.

XV. WORKPLACE FAIRNESS

This legislative session started by successfully overriding Governor Hogan's veto of the earned paid sick leave legislation that passed in the 2017 legislative session. We were also active in the coalition that successfully defeated any legislative attempts to rollback this landmark piece of legislation for workplace fairness.

Additionally, we supported the passage of SB 859/HB 775, which provides paid parental leave to employees in the Legislative or Executive branches of State government.

In 2013, the ACLU led the advocacy efforts to pass a law requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations to women in their place of employment for conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. This year HB 1109 was introduced, which would have clarified and strengthened that law. While the bill didn't pass this year, we will continue to support efforts to advance fairness in the workplace for all women.

XVI. YOUTH JUSTICE

We supported three bills that sought to establish greater oversight of the juvenile justice system. Ultimately, HB 1607 Education - Juvenile Services Education Programs - Management and Operation prevailed. This bill will establish a juvenile services education county pilot program and a workgroup to study and make recommendations regarding the adequacy of educational services for children in the juvenile justice system.

We again renewed our support for HB 1550/ SB 861 Juvenile Law - Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, which would have reduced the number of children who are charged as adults in Maryland's criminal justice system. This bill failed. Meanwhile, a regressive measure that we opposed-HB 1023 Juvenile Law - Witnesses - Body Attachment did pass. HB 1023 authorizes the juvenile court to issue body attachments to coerce witnesses to appear in court in the prosecution of children.

XVII. EDUCATION REFORM

Given that the education formula rewrite via the "Kirwan" Commission was delayed until 2019, here are the issues we moved forward this legislative session for education:

  1. "Kirwan" Commission

HB1415, which we supported, passed and establishes initiatives to implement several of the Commission's preliminary recommendations. Overall, the bill encourages and helps the best high school students to become teachers; provides more resources for schools serving concentrations of students living in poverty; promotes high quality, innovative Career and Technical Education; supports early childhood education; studies the cost of adequacy for special education; and establishes a special fund revenue to be used to implement the final recommendations of the Commission in 2019.

  2. Funding for Education

The legislature passed SB1122, the "Casino Lockbox" Constitutional Amendment, which we supported. This bill takes an important step to permanently close the Education Trust Fund loophole and ensures that casino revenues supplement rather than supplant education funding. To ensure that the additional $500 million goes to education on top of other education dollars, voters in November will need to vote to support the Constitutional Amendment.

The legislature amended the budget (SB185) to restore funding the Governor had cut to after-school and summer programs and to a program to prepare low-income students for college. We have made progress in the last couple of years in highlighting the huge education funding "adequacy gaps" caused by the cutbacks to the original Thornton formula.

  3. Funding for School Buildings

The heating emergency in Baltimore schools and the recommendations of the state's 21st Century School Facilities Commission ("Knott" Commission) to overhaul the state's school construction program got a lot of attention this winter. We supported the passage of SB611, which provides funding for emergency health and safety issues, and HB1783, which enhances the efficiency of the state's school construction program and increases funding to meet the growing infrastructure needs. However, there is a shortfall of billions needed for school construction statewide, including $1 billion in deferred maintenance for HVAC needs in Baltimore City alone.

  4. School Climate

This year, the legislature passed HB1254, which we supported, to enhance data collection analysis and allow a better understanding of school system practices. The bill expands the reporting requirements and for the first time requires data collection on the use of alternative discipline measures.

  5. School Safety

The legislature passed SB1265, the Safe to Learn Act, legislation expected to change the interaction between school systems and local law enforcement. Most troubling, the bill requires each school district to demonstrate that a school resource officer is assigned or that there is "adequate law enforcement coverage" for the upcoming 2018-2019 school year. We are deeply concerned about the implications of heightened student-police contact for all students, especially Black and Brown children and students with disabilities, who disproportionately experience student arrest and police referrals, even for the same or similar incidents as their white counterparts. Although we fought to get specialized training and school resource officer certification requirements, implementation will occur after additional police are introduced to the school setting.

Date

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Show related content

Tweet Text

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Show list numbers

• Read more about 2018 General Assembly Report

ACLU of Maryland 2015 General Assembly Report 

The ACLU of Maryland is a non-partisan organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of civil liberties and civil rights. We advance civil liberties and civil rights through litigation, lobbying and education. In the legislature we lobby on free speech, privacy and technology, reproductive freedom, lgbt, religious freedom, drug policies, police practices, voting rights, women's rights, racial justice, equal protection, prisoner rights, death penalty, criminal justice, immigrant rights and national security issues.    

Here is our report on the ACLU priorities for the 2015 General Assembly session:

POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

This session there were no less than 17 bills relating to police practices and accountability.  Maryland residents are extremely concerned about mass criminalization of communities of color, the use of excessive force by police and deaths as a result of police encounters.  People want to know that police are playing by the same rules as everyone else, and when they break the law, they will be held accountable.

This session we supported bills that would reform the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR), to ensure greater accountability and transparency.  LEOBR relates to internal investigations of police misconduct, and has certain provisions that are barriers to accountability.  For example, individuals have only 90 days in which to file a claim of police brutality and there are restrictions on who and how a complaint may be filed.  Unfortunately, none of those bills received a committee vote.  We also supported bills that would enable the State Prosecutor to be the prosecuting authority in police misconduct cases.  States' Attorneys, traditionally the prosecuting authority in these cases, work closely with police every day, whereas the State Prosecutor is an independent entity whose mandate is to investigate elected officials.

Our testimony on HB 968/SB 566.

We supported three different police reporting bills this session.  The first was a continuation of the "driving while black" case we brought in the 1990s.  HB 339/SB 413 requires police to continue to report on the race and ethnicity of drivers they pull over.  This bill passed.  HB 338/SB 173 would have required police departments to continue to report on the deployment of their SWAT teams.  Even though some departments continue to report voluntarily, this bill failed.  Finally, we supported HB 954, which would require police departments to report on civilian deaths as a result of a police encounter, and deaths of officers in the line of duty.  An ACLU of Maryland briefing paper found that between 2010 and 2014, at least 109 people died in Maryland as a result of a police encounter.  Requiring law enforcement to report on these deaths shows that these lives matter, and will help show whether there is a pattern or practice by police that needs to be changed.  This bill passed.

Our testimony on HB 339/SB 413; HB 338/SB 173; and HB 954.

We also worked extremely hard on a bill that would place basic parameters around law enforcement's use of body-worn cameras.  Used properly, body-worn cameras can be a win-win for police and citizens, providing an independent account of an encounter.  Unfortunately, the General Assembly passed a bill that did not include basic parameters of when the cameras should be turned on or off, and did not include basic privacy protections.

Our testimony on HB 627.

Another bill relating to police practices that we supported was HB 360/SB 528, making changes to Maryland's civil asset forfeiture law.  Originally intended to cripple drug kingpins by seizing their money, civil asset forfeiture laws have become an incentive for police to take citizens' money and property with little to no proof that it was connected to drugs. The bill requires notification to the owner of the seized property; places restrictions on when property can be turned over to federal law enforcement, and requires the state to prove that the money or property was drug-related.  This bill passed.

Our testimony on HB 360/SB 528.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

This legislative session, the ACLU of Maryland supported a number of bills to increase access to justice.  We supported three bills to raise the amount of damages that victims could collect for claims against government officials, including police.  HB 113 and HB 114-both of which passed-raised the local and state tort claims caps.  We are hopeful that the higher threshold of potential financial liability will have a deterrent effect on state and local officials' wrongdoing.  We also supported HB 728, which would have increased local and state liability for claims of excessive force or misuse of force by law enforcement.  This bill did not pass.

Our testimony on HB 113 and 114.

The ACLU of Maryland joined forces with other civil rights and civil liberties advocates to support HB 283/ SB 319, which would have allowed courts to award attorneys' fees for prevailing plaintiffs in Maryland constitutional claims.  This legislation would have greatly incentivized private attorneys to take state constitutional claims to protect the rights of Marylanders:  these cases are complex and often yield only injunctive relief, making it unlikely that victims of constitutional violations are able to secure counsel to pursue these claims.  Unfortunately this bill did not pass.

Our testimony on HB 283.

We also supported two bills to increase and improve the right to counsel in civil and criminal cases.   HB 348/ SB 468 would have established a workgroup to oversee the legal representation of income-eligible Marylanders in protective order and contested custody cases-this bill was unsuccessful.  HB 1119/ SB 646 would have established caseload standards for the Office of the Public Defender-this bill also failed.

Our testimony on HB 348 and on HB 1119.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

Re-entry

As in 2014, we again supported a number of bills to shield or expunge criminal records and allow individuals to access employment, educational, and housing opportunities.  Fortunately, three bills were successful this year.  HB 244/ SB 526-The Second Chance Act-will allow individuals to petition to have the police and court records of certain convictions shielded after three years have lapsed since the completion of the sentence with no further infractions.  The bill was amended in a number of ways, including an added limitation allowing individuals to shield records in only a single county.  Nonetheless, this is important legislation and we were glad to support this effort and will continue to work alongside our allies to improve re-entry conditions.

Our testimony on HB 244/SB 526.

We also supported passage of HB 124/ SB 651, which allows for the expungement of criminal records for offenses that are no longer crimes and HB 304/ SB 652, which eliminates the rule that bars individuals from expunging certain records if they are subsequently convicted of a crime.

Our testimony on HB124/SB 651.

Pretrial Reform

On the heels of the 2013 Richmond v. DeWolf decision, a number of bills were introduced to manage the right to counsel at bail hearings.  We were successful in opposing a bill that would have terminated representation by the Office of the Public Defender after the bail hearing, thereby disrupting the constitutional right to counsel for indigent defendants.  Other bills would have required more onerous income verification for indigent defendants being represented by the Office of the Public Defender and establish a separate corporation for representing indigent defendants at bail hearings.  These bills were also unsuccessful.

Perhaps the most problematic of all these bills was SB 942, which would have amended the Maryland Constitution, the basis on which Richmond was decided, to explicitly deny representation by counsel at an arrestee's initial appearance before a District Court Commissioner.  Fortunately, this bill failed.

Our testimony on SB 942.

HB 397 would have established a study of the correlation of bail setting with certain other factors, including defendants' race, age, gender, socioeconomic level, and offense.  The use of cash bail as a means by which to secure an individual's freedom after arrest is of concern to the ACLU of Maryland because it means that those with financial means are released, while those without are detained, without a determination of the individual's likelihood of flight or threat to public safety.  Because detention of even 24 hours can result in someone losing their job, the cash bail system can have a disproportionate impact on poorer communities-as we know does the criminal justice system as a whole.  HB 397 would have allowed the legislature to identify any disparities in the existing bail system; unfortunately, it did not pass.

Prisoners' Rights

The ACLU of Maryland supported various pieces of legislation to improve the conditions of Maryland's incarcerated population.  We supported HB 301/ SB 414-a bill to require the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to report on its use of segregated confinement-including the bases for segregating inmates, the length of time for which inmates are segregated, and the mental health status of those put in segregation.  A recent report showed that Maryland uses segregated confinement (holding people in a cell for 22-24 hours a day) more than other states, and for more minor infractions.  HB 301/ SB 414 would have been the next step to understand Maryland's use of segregated confinement so as to inform the public and the legislature of appropriate policy responses.  Unfortunately, this bill did not pass, but we will be working alongside our allies to push for greater transparency and reform in the future. 

Our testimony on HB 301.

We also supported bills to increase the release of sick and aging prisoners, see our testimony on SB 336.

Sentencing Reform

The ACLU of Maryland also targeted criminal justice reform at the sentencing stage.  We supported HB 303/ SB 111, which would have removed the Governor from the parole process for individuals serving a sentence of life with the possibility of parole.  Our advocacy on this issue was driven in large part by the report we recently released with the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, Still Blocking the Exit.  The report documents the many injustices in the current system and sheds light on the personal accounts of those sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.  Unfortunately, neither bill was voted out of committee.

See our testimony on HB 303 and the report, Still Blocking the Exit.

We opposed SB 849, a bill that would have repealed the separate jury sentencing phase for defendants to be sentenced to life without parole.  The repeal of the death penalty left life without parole as the harshest sentence available, which the statutory language indicates must be handed down by a separate unanimous jury decision.

Our testimony on SB 849.

The ACLU of Maryland supported HB 121, which added a safety valve to some mandatory minimum sentences.  HB 121 would allow judges to depart from the requirement that they sentence someone to a certain length of time, if the judge finds that the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence would result in substantial injustice to the defendant and it is not necessary for the protection of the public.  Mandatory minimum sentences take flexibility and discretion away from judges and require them to mete out harsh sentences, even when the nature of the crime, the history and the character of the defendant, and the defendant's chances of rehabilitation indicate a shorter sentence should be imposed.

Our testimony on HB 121.

We also supported HB 1009/SB 654, which expanded Maryland's current Good Samaritan law.  HB 1009/SB 654 provides immunity from criminal prosecution to an individual who seeks medical assistance for someone who they reasonably believe is experiencing a medical emergency after ingesting drugs or alcohol.  The underlying importance of Good Samaritan laws cannot be overstated:  it is more important to save a life than to make an arrest.

Our testimony on HB 1009/SB 654.

YOUTH JUSTICE REFORM

The ACLU of Maryland supported a number of bills to reform the treatment of youth in the criminal justice system.  HB 337/ SB 366 would have abolished the practice of sentencing youth to life without parole.  Unfortunately, the bill did not pass this year, but we will continue working with local and national allies to push for this much needed and way overdue reform.

Our testimony on HB 337.

We also supported HB 618/ SB 172, which requires that children be placed in juvenile facilities, instead of adult facilities, while the decision is being made whether to adjudicate the child's case in adult or juvenile court. We are glad that the legislature saw the wisdom in passing this bill-it will save a number of youth from the harms, often irreversible, that come with stays in adult facilities.

Our testimony on HB 618.

MARIJUANA POLICY REFORM

This session saw many bills on the issue of marijuana policy reform:  bills to decriminalize possession of paraphernalia (HB 105 and SB 517); bills to create a system of control, taxation and regulation of marijuana (HB 911/SB 531); a bill to prohibit probation or parole revocation if someone is cited for marijuana possession (HB 615); a bill to criminalize possession of marijuana in a car (HB 393); a bill that would have made several changes to the current decrim law, including changing a code violation to a finding of "guilty" (HB 495); and a bill to remove medical marijuana from the criminal code (SB 456).  We weighed in on all of these bills, encouraging the legislature to move to a saner drug policy, one based in health, personal integrity and good public policy.  The legislature ultimately passed SB 517, which decriminalized possession of marijuana paraphernalia and instituted a stiff fine of $500 for smoking in public.

Our testimony on SB 517 (passed); and HB 911/SB 531.

Date

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Show related content

Tweet Text

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

• Read more about 2015 General Assembly Report