[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6635221,"mediaKeyId","2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c","parentId",2644360,"title","Senate advises and consents to most executive nominees; one public nomination fails","audioSeconds",507,"startMs",1553000,"endMs",2060000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c&start=1553&end=2060","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c/thumbnail_1553000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6635221/Maryland/Senate-advises-and-consents-to-most-executive-nominees-one-public-nomination-fails","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635221-da659334403d04dfb49e92bd79087312/orig.mp4?Expires=1774991782&Signature=f0CaVsUFySW-w4-~dVboPWKv-vyTPgHXvJEIVgQ5AriPSaOpjP~M0QeN2I7vNsCPCAkoMYQf3TtxbZtD2C~PNAI-n4C3ZxxPIrAmVDmhP91z9ijyzvJgIFzm17-P4KCjtbmObJuWF-ovU26MwsTFSp0Lv-UDx~5ZhOrLcZsj5rF4L3PR6MeMbakNF-0b-LHqBx3gaKCCsOuyYanmi6PtgIE9yq5i7NC95JLD6g7J8WSa~ZiJzUm48-sA~VUmKJV2USZ~L9AK4NBpxaOUzaMphnP3mXYaeuAc6QdKL7YbUcsSFrwPM1FES0MIFwHsUxI6oO-~qakgxbHOPZ7gd91YJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Senate Sessions","date","2025-03-15T00:51:40.853Z","article","ANNAPOLIS, Md. — In a special order on March 14, the Maryland Senate considered the executive nominations report and voted to advise and consent to the majority of nominees presented by the Governor. The floor approved the full report except for nominees the chair separated for individual consideration.

What happened: The clerk reported a favorable committee report and the body first approved the report as presented (the clerk announced 46 votes in the affirmative on the full report absent the separated nominees). The Senate then took up individual nominees the committee had asked to be separated for standalone votes.

Recorded results included:
- Nominee number 12 — the Senate recorded 36 votes in the affirmative and advised and consented to the appointment.
- Nominees 13 through 18 (grouped) — the Senate recorded 44 votes in the affirmative and advised and consented to the appointments.
- Nominee number 19 — after floor statements both for and against, the nomination failed by recorded vote; the clerk announced that the Senate “does not advise and consent” to nominee 19 (vote recorded as 29 against on the floor record).
- Nominee number 22 — recorded as approved with 34 affirmative votes.
- Nominee number 34 — recorded as approved with 45 affirmative votes.
- Nominees S38 through S40 — recorded as approved with 44 affirmative votes; nominee S47 was special‑ordered for action a week later.

Why it matters: Executive nominations require Senate advice and consent for certain positions. Rejection of nominee 19 followed floor statements recounting that nominee’s prior role in state election administration and concerns raised by senators about management and past problems while the nominee led the State Board of Elections. Other nominees were approved after brief recognition and roll calls.

Evidence: Senate floor transcript, March 14, 2025; clerk roll‑call announcements and individual senators’ remarks during the nominations block.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Floor Session, 3/14/2025 #3","oneSentenceSummary","During a special‑order executive nominations report, the Maryland Senate advised and consented to the bulk of executive nominees presented by the Governor’s office. One nominee (number 19) failed to gain consent after several senators spoke against the appointment; a handful of nominations were separated for individual votes or special orders.","taxTitle","SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15090,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6635226,"Senate debates public health abortion grant program; multiple amendments fail on the floor",7200,1120000,8320000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c&start=1120&end=8320","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c/thumbnail_1120000.jpg","/articles/6635226/Maryland/Senate-debates-public-health-abortion-grant-program-multiple-amendments-fail-on-the-floor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635226-30686b166fdc94782a8586a003c85302/orig.mp4?Expires=1774991782&Signature=NUFRUXTcPjAYHWoU7SAHf5ajBhBkHMmbZz4Tmg33BJR9MhtMbFsoJxxpB0vCVyLRFpvEJWuzkpMitoKWNp25QhWLNAHrSIGiHbdBA~9JQfz4ESprX2pD8NX5PlgxRVTlBk0wv1OEfWPUqunXNV5FVuIsu92YcVrULRVMfNKArJhAiXO3E4kf8BzXUyM9sKlqXnCZI9096zNxAXc77Gs3HiyCdxMjZg27VEMCyKQt2N-YR2bgcOiJZCJO0ZyCv6AezPEXj9~uld~iE7glx4L~KzNjMzHfZm7VzsqstJWvb~oteYDkQJFsSx12k~Djn8FB1ifHdHKbzYYAAossTFo5Vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Senators spent substantial floor time on Senate Bill 448, a measure to establish a public health abortion grant program administered by the Maryland Department of Health and funded by specified transfers. Lawmakers debated several floor amendments seeking additional safeguards or reporting requirements; multiple amendments were rejected by roll call votes.

Why it matters: The bill creates a new grant program to support abortion services and related access. Sponsors said the program will expand access and is structured with specific funding streams; opponents and some senators pressed for additional transparency, parental notification and anti‑coercion materials connected to funded providers.

Key floor actions and votes:
- An amendment by one senator that would have required parental notification for minors in the grant program was moved, debated and defeated on a roll call (the clerk announced the amendment failed with 29 votes in the negative as recorded on the floor).
- A separate amendment requesting that eligible organizations provide annual cost data to the Maryland Department of Health (while protecting privacy) was moved and defeated on a roll call (the clerk announced the amendment failed with 32 votes in the negative as recorded on the floor).
- Another amendment that would have required organizations receiving grant funds to provide informational materials about abortion coercion before services was moved and defeated on a roll call (the clerk announced the amendment failed with 33 votes in the negative as recorded on the floor).

Sponsor and floor leader responses: The bill sponsor and the floor leader opposed the added statutory mandates, saying clinical standards and informed consent are the responsibility of health care professionals and that MDH will set reporting requirements appropriate to grant administration. The floor leader also noted that MDH establishes reporting rules for grant programs and that certain clinical standards are not typically codified in statute.

Outcome: After debate and the failed amendments, the bill remained on the calendar; the Senate ordered the bill printed for third reading and continued floor consideration as part of the evening’s business. (The transcript records the floor debate, amendment introductions, and roll calls as described.)

Evidence: Senate floor transcript, March 14, 2025, roll‑call announcements and clerk statements.","The Senate considered Senate Bill 448, which establishes a public health abortion grant program funded in part through carrier segregated accounts and other transfers. Floor amendments seeking parental notification, reporting on costs and information about coercion were proposed and defeated; the bill advanced after further debate and amendments.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6635231,"Senate passes Voting Rights Act for counties and municipalities after extended floor debate",728,2542000,3270000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c&start=2542&end=3270","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c/thumbnail_2542000.jpg","/articles/6635231/Maryland/Senate-passes-Voting-Rights-Act-for-counties-and-municipalities-after-extended-floor-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635231-a4130459e062422549631b38fc14642a/orig.mp4?Expires=1774991782&Signature=ocY18LYBEWE7mJrShZISlB-jtr7okwcrntvQ-xVVB68VAwHSylavEE8pviH9SQg7y1N~yYx9wivdHC2R4QVTML1gq87dH-KH2nQhn7ttjly~Tti8fWRCzVJEbQDod3KlJdzIGt8Pf6C-Xq0fpHadrQ3SXYmlyK360LYAFyInueCINVWNQwQv8j5UStce6t95aZu2Y4-wIr1xpjbzjIUX78MK437RCgtQoXYfiWWaQD1wm-g3FrDN7IrOxLxLehdxhtxkBPxM1UV-3crcZgmwgwDxO9Ww37QcuP9bLEugZs8y6xYVyiX5GylU-H~cCygDX7X99rUaOMvS0WLVt6VtMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","ANNAPOLIS, Md. — After an extended floor exchange and questions from multiple senators, the Maryland Senate on March 14 approved Senate Bill 342, the Voting Rights Act of 2025 applying to counties and municipal corporations.

The bill passed on third reading; the clerk announced 32 votes in the affirmative and declared the bill received a constitutional majority.

Why it matters: The bill gives standing and remedies at the state level for claims that a county’s or municipal corporation’s method of electing its governing body impairs the ability of members of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice or to influence election outcomes. Proponents said the law fills gaps left by changing federal jurisprudence and creates a state enforcement path; opponents and questioners pressed for clarity on remedies and how the law would interact with existing requirements that districts be substantially equal, compact and contiguous.

What senators said: The floor leader described the bill as a protective measure that allows individuals to seek relief when a method of election results in polarized voting and dilutes the voting strength of a protected class. During back‑and‑forth colloquy, senators asked whether the bill would force particular district configurations and whether remedies could require drawing special “amoeba” districts. The floor leader and the bill sponsor repeatedly said the statute does not prescribe election designs; instead it creates a legal remedy so a court can address disenfranchisement claims and craft appropriate remedies in line with constitutional constraints.

Notable exchanges clarified that:
- The bill does not require a particular electoral design; counties and municipalities retain discretion in how they elect officials.
- Standing and remedies are available if plaintiffs can show polarized voting and dilution of voting strength under criteria listed in the bill.
- The court’s remedies may include injunctions and map adjustments but would be constrained by existing constitutional principles (equal population, compactness and contiguity) that apply to districting.

Background and next steps: The legislation was debated in committee and on the floor. Sponsors referenced a statewide needs assessment and comparisons to other states that have enacted state voting rights acts. The bill passed third reading and will proceed through the legislative process for concurrence and possible enactment.

Evidence: Senate floor transcript, March 14, 2025; roll call announced on the floor.","Senate Bill 342, a state Voting Rights Act covering counties and municipal corporations, passed the Maryland Senate on third reading after an extended floor colloquy explaining remedial scope and how courts would apply remedies to at‑large and district election methods.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":93,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6635235,"Maryland Senate approves scores of bills on third reading; several measures ordered or carried over",3046,224000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c&start=224&end=3270","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2644360-57b2abde443c2e287a0500e56d039b4c/thumbnail_224000.jpg","/articles/6635235/Maryland/Maryland-Senate-approves-scores-of-bills-on-third-reading-several-measures-ordered-or-carried-over","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635235-de8b613b9490722618edbecf93057540/orig.mp4?Expires=1774991782&Signature=EJ19xN7PzHXRJKEP7~AoGG7-~Eh1P7IDnMlxnfCUueLRGRnhTNinkr8636sHEAhtqUkqFNwTpW6WAXvuN~K73-sNLJqSoLyJn9KBKIJP0NCaJKaRTv-dGgprbXElKVTwBwzS1d73hEjg1HxT2rlVAFKNP~QmE-siIT5rg3JEbIwkbgjFR8a~BO16FT0DF2NBnRa6WmNda~LEk204-GX05Ctkx72BSQBxyrBL0o74z-CvVrzAqMFKA-51m6AKMP2ImjZJmBbEa9h3M1ram1evJy96NkuAFUMyGnd6JGErzBc15gqHiDdP8HsdWQ1AGZ8k4kNINSuxwisGCIO416u8tQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Maryland Senate advanced a large number of bills on third reading during its March 14 session, passing measures on renewable energy loans, election audits, public safety, and other policy areas and taking procedural steps on others.

The chamber recorded final passage for bills including: Senate Bill 105 (Green and Renewable Energy for Nonprofit Organizations Loan Program and Fund), Senate Bill 116 (data set impact analysis/report), Senate Bill 186 (invasive blue catfish pilot program), Senate Bill 207 (revocation of driver’s license for drunk/ drug-impaired driving and failure to remain), and many more. Vote tallies were read into the record for each bill; clerks declared each measure that reached a constitutional majority as passed.

Why it matters: The votes move a set of bills to the House for further action or, for measures already passed by both chambers, toward enactment. Several items drew only brief floor attention and were cleared by voice or roll call; a few required additional procedure such as reconsideration, recommitment or being special‑ordered to a later calendar.

What the Senate did (selected results, all tallies as recorded on the floor)
- Senate Bill 105 (Kagan) — Green and renewable energy loan program for nonprofit organizations: recorded as passing with 39 votes in the affirmative; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 116 (Young) — Data set impact analysis/report: recorded as passing with 46 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 186 (Bailey) — Invasive blue catfish pilot program: recorded as passing with 46 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 207 (Judicial Proceedings chair) — Driver’s license revocation for certain impaired‑driving offenses: recorded as passing with 46 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 219 (Finance chair) — Uninsured employers fund assessments and special monitor: recorded as passing with 35 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 278 (Simon Nair) — Tax relief and state personal equity for service members act: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 313 (Washington) — Post‑election tabulation audits / risk‑limiting audits: recorded as passing with 46 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 335 (Bailey) — Canada geese bag limits: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 363 (Bailey) — Oyster shucking house loan program: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 375 (Kramer) — Restrictions on keeping roosters: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 400 (Guile) — Residential childcare programs / transportation regulations: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 432 (President) — Criminal records expungement / Judiciary case search reforms: recorded as passing with 36 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 439 (Lamb) — Higher education / high‑impact economic development alterations: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 544 (Bailey) — Food establishments / portable chemical toilets: the Senate reconsidered the bill, recommitted it to second reading, the sponsor offered and the body adopted a sponsor amendment; the bill was ordered printed for third reading (no final passage recorded tonight).
- Senate Bill 574 (Howard County senators) — Howard County Board of Education terms: motion to recommit to committee carried; bill recommitted to committee.
- Senate Bill 600 (Baltimore City) — Stop sign monitoring systems authorization: recorded as passing with 40 affirmative votes; declared passed (a member later asked to be recorded as voting in the negative on SB 600 and the request was entered).
- Senate Bill 605 (Zucker) — Digital advertising gross revenue tax: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 648 (Muse) — Correctional services medical parole / life imprisonment (special order third reader): recorded as passing with 35 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 342 (Sidnor) — Voting Rights Act of 2025 (counties and municipal corporations): recorded as passing with 32 affirmative votes; declared passed after extended floor colloquy and questions from multiple senators.
- Senate Bill 587 — Maryland Reparations Commission (third reading): recorded as passing with 32 affirmative votes; declared passed.
- Senate Bill 900 (Augustine) — Behavioral Health Crisis Response System / 988 integration: recorded as passing with 47 affirmative votes; declared passed.

Procedural notes: The Senate also considered executive nominations in a special order; the full report was approved with the exception of several nominees that were separated for individual votes. Nominee number 19 (executive nomination) failed on a recorded roll call after several senators spoke for and against the appointment. Other nominees and groups (for example nominees 13–18, and 34, and S38–S40) were approved by recorded votes as announced from the floor.

What’s next: Bills that were passed by the Senate will move to the House of Delegates if not already concurred; special‑ordered measures will return to the Senate calendar at later dates. A number of committee reports and second‑reading items were held over for subsequent floor action.

Sources: Senate floor proceedings, March 14, 2025 (roll‑call tallies and clerk announcements recorded on the floor).","On the evening of March 14, 2025, the Maryland Senate completed a lengthy third‑reading session, voting to pass numerous bills spanning energy, elections, public safety and health. Several measures were recommitted, a few were special‑ordered, and dozens were declared passed by recorded tallies.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate advises and consents to most executive nominees; one public nomination fails

Senate debates public health abortion grant program; multiple amendments fail on the floor

Senate passes Voting Rights Act for counties and municipalities after extended floor debate

Maryland Senate approves scores of bills on third reading; several measures ordered or carried over