[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6616655,"mediaKeyId","2851599-97738679ec6d19686574f434b326d544","parentId",2851599,"title","Votes at a glance: dozens of House and Senate bills cleared the Senate on April 2","audioSeconds",1731,"startMs",2049000,"endMs",3780000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2851599-97738679ec6d19686574f434b326d544&start=2049&end=3780","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2851599-97738679ec6d19686574f434b326d544/thumbnail_2049000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6616655/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-dozens-of-House-and-Senate-bills-cleared-the-Senate-on-April-2","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616655-101130c5aa4947f8b9db0e49a9a91e80/orig.mp4?Expires=1776218075&Signature=jL-8Ka2NdUuJ96XnWN2odzVMeV5yAuMHC6fFBjNoyOCO6S1CLB-EHR1uSj7EbQwLUD67ie2BtIjC1ug~~vlxnkowN7SmgZ3S~9KFA3ihiuoTtTGkOEx8hGA0FgMwnk~FkmdTe39VfIelO6Qls430XNC-q2Rzl8ZUn5Vk9dPUhfYx00wBszFpc1SYDHaFRWYFcvKHqqOTd0iShrlgPKI2FXvetTBS86Lgie~iVUaNEUEEH5YtatuxThMv950NRJWN61KYNKJPMYreKKOFfMHrdMcQO1I1XdD2TnCOYqFoiA5d7sXcND6h6lQvvIJXwgpSyiqQ8~9KupqByEPHUJMt-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Senate Sessions","date","2025-04-02T18:11:23.34Z","article","The Maryland Senate completed an extensive third‑reading and consent‑calendar workload on April 2, approving a wide set of House bills and several Senate bills. Most measures on the calendar were unamended and carried by roll call or voice vote; a number of local bills and departmental changes advanced as consent items. Below are the bills that the clerk recorded as passed on April 2, with the outcome and any vote tallies announced on the floor.

(Selected, chronological list from the floor journal excerpts — clerk announcements reproduced as reported on the floor.)

- House Bill 258 (Delegate Wells) — Economic Development, West North Avenue Development Authority, alterations. Special‑ordered earlier and then passed on third reading (clerk: passed; later special order satisfied; final passage announced).

- House Bill 512 (Frederick County delegation) — Frederick County beer & wine license for barbershops/beauty salons. Passed (clerk announced 46 affirmative votes).

- House Bill 761 (Speaker) — Maryland Uniform Disposition of Abandoned Property Act revisions. Passed (46 affirmative votes announced by clerk).

- House Bill 1141 (Baltimore County delegation) — Baltimore County alcoholic beverages change of location. Passed (46 affirmative votes announced by clerk).

- House Bill 1 (Delegate Ebersaw) — Department of Transportation, Human Trafficking Awareness/Training and response (See Someone, Save Someone Act). Passed (46 affirmative votes announced).

- House Bill 123 (Judiciary) — Maryland Correctional Training Commission membership changes. Passed (46 affirmative votes announced).

- House Bill 315 — Task force on fiduciary education. Passed (clerk announced 46 affirmative votes earlier; later clerk recorded 46/47 depending on the roll call block).

- House Bill 349 (Prince George's delegation) — Prince George's County speed monitoring systems (PG 306‑25). Passed (clerk announced 37 affirmative votes when recorded publicly for that item).

- House Bill 528 (Baltimore County) — Vehicle laws for private roadways. Passed (47 affirmative announced for some items; clerk recorded 46–47 across varying roll calls depending on attendance).

- House Bill 616 — Criminal law, destroying funerary objects and cemetery elements. Passed (clerk announced 47 affirmative votes).

- House Bill 809 — Out‑of‑home placement providers and students enrolled in higher education/vocational programs. Passed (clerk announced 47 affirmative votes).

- House Bill 1152 (Real property, residential rental pet policy transparency) — Passed (clerk announced 40 affirmative votes).

- Select House bills on Special Order and Third Reading calendars — Many bills passed without floor debate (consent calendars). The clerk announced that House bills on multiple consent calendars (numerous local and departmental measures) received constitutional majorities and were declared passed; the counts varied by bill and committee but the clerk repeated affirmative tallies in the 33–47 range depending on the roll call.

- Senate bills on third reading that passed: Senate Bill 96 (water bottle filling stations requirement) — passed (clerk announced 33 affirmative votes); Senate Bill 118 (motor vehicle speed monitoring penalties) — passed (37 affirmative votes); Senate Bill 428 (Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act) — passed (47 affirmative votes); Senate Bill 930 (managed aquifer recharge pilot program) — passed (45 affirmative votes); Senate Bill 979 (hotel/rental collection revisions) — passed (46 affirmative votes).

- At the end of the floor session the clerk read and recorded the passage of additional bills on calendars 12–20 and consent calendars 8–16; the clerk repeatedly announced that “House bills on consent calendar [N] have received a constitutional majority and are declared passed.”

How to read the roll calls

- The clerk’s announcements as captured in the transcript give the numeric tallies reported for each roll call where recorded. Many consent‑calendar items were passed en bloc with a single roll call reported as the clerk read the calendar and the Senate returned a single roll call covering the listed bills.

Where to find the full record

This roundup is a concise summary of floor activity captured in the transcript. The official, itemized journal entry for April 2 contains the full roll‑call detail and the complete list of bills acted on (including bill text cross‑files, exact vote tallies per bill, and any recorded vote changes that senators entered on the floor). For reporters or stakeholders tracking a particular bill, the Senate floor journal and the clerk’s certified roll‑call record are the authoritative sources.

Provenance: This list reflects clerk roll‑call announcements and third‑reading entries recorded on the April 2 Senate floor (see multiple roll‑call announcements in the session transcript).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Floor Session, 4/2/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate disposed of a long third‑reading calendar and multiple consent calendars, passing dozens of House cross‑filed bills on a range of subjects — from consumer protection and health to local licensing and environmental programs. This roundup lists floor actions recorded during the April 2 session and vote outcomes as announced by the clerk.","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},6616660,"Senate advances ‘Second Look’ post‑conviction bill after floor amendments; lawmakers carve out exceptions for first‑responder homicides",1663,3710000,5373000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2851599-97738679ec6d19686574f434b326d544&start=3710&end=5373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2851599-97738679ec6d19686574f434b326d544/thumbnail_3710000.jpg","/articles/6616660/Maryland/Senate-advances-Second-Look-postconviction-bill-after-floor-amendments-lawmakers-carve-out-exceptions-for-firstresponder-homicides","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616660-07c982b040d01a01bf5c8243cbc8e873/orig.mp4?Expires=1776218075&Signature=J1mKxgiEhzpFzw9i5n0LdGLyhCBHgc5oOjFl8fCHytDKTHWQcTqOjkscBJnTHjTKzh5KKkT9F03xK5~X-6OfkYJMY1fHYeCULxciHQRBj7vUwvV8TU-Z72-lYcEJQ8pLHJF3VPdUkeVF~LT0ghW~xXLVWXCLURsF0ylcBhKrjMJYgoHXSX55Gi2GK0L-4km5rGjKYkmANNQj0OQcAj4ieSpQn7huINe8-R-b-VY9fXMz5NhO5UUNA1iDykxoI19bVIqKdATfpY87HfxLtTFt5cqeGFZqK6719oNCEAchMPl4wtub1E2nnfG78YdipXu5WJBYNNE3l8p81Jug1-P2Dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On April 2 the Maryland Senate took up House Bill 853, known as the Maryland Second Look Act, a bill that would permit courts to reduce the duration of some sentences after a formal post‑conviction review. Senators debated several floor amendments that would broaden or narrow eligibility and voted on multiple roll calls.

The bill’s floor discussion centered on the balance between rehabilitation and public safety. The floor leader summarized the statutory test judges would use, emphasizing that the court “may reduce the duration of the sentence if the court determines that the individual is not a danger to the public and in the interest of justice will be better served by a reduced sentence,” and noting a list of factors—age at offense, nature of offense, institutional record, completion of programs, victim statements and health evaluations—that courts must consider before granting relief.

Floor amendments and votes

- Amendment barring second‑look relief where the victim was under age 13 (moved by a senator who said families of child victims should not have to relive the loss): failed on roll call; the clerk announced, “With 26 votes in the negative the senator’s amendment fails.”

- Amendment adding homicide of a first responder to the list of crimes that are ineligible for second‑look relief (moved by a senator who described fallen officers and families’ losses): adopted on roll call (clerk: “With 24 votes in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted”). The amendment makes people convicted of killing a first responder while the responder was performing duties ineligible for the Second Look procedure.

- Amendment to make a person who murdered a probation or parole officer ineligible for second‑look relief: failed on roll call (clerk: “With 24 votes in the negative, the senator’s amendment fails”).

After debate and amendments, the Senate ordered House Bill 853 passed to third reading for final consideration later in the legislative process.

Why senators debated exclusions

Pro‑reform senators and the bill’s proponents said the Second Look procedure is narrow and designed to give courts a structured, fact‑based opportunity to review long sentences for people who demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation. They noted the bill includes detailed factors for courts to weigh and is not an automatic early release mechanism.

Opponents and amendment sponsors argued that certain crimes—particularly those that kill or seriously harm first responders or very young children—should be exempt from second‑look consideration out of concern for public safety and to avoid re‑traumatizing victims’ families.

Provenance

- topicintro: transcript excerpt (floor leader reading the standard for reduction, 01:01:50–01:02:27): “the court may reduce the duration of the sentence if the court determines that the individual is not a danger to the public and in the interest of justice will be better served by a reduced sentence.”
- topfinish: transcript excerpt (clerk, after final amendment votes, 01:04:45–01:05:05): “With 24 votes in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted.”","The Senate debated House Bill 853 (Maryland Second Look Act), considered multiple amendments and adopted a floor change making people convicted of killing first responders ineligible for the post‑conviction reduction procedure; other proposed exclusions (victims under 13; probation officers) failed and the bill was ordered to third reading.",{"_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},6616664,"Senate moves late ethics bill on fundraising but refuses to bypass Rules Committee",829,1157000,1986000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2851599-97738679ec6d19686574f434b326d544&start=1157&end=1986","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2851599-97738679ec6d19686574f434b326d544/thumbnail_1157000.jpg","/articles/6616664/Maryland/Senate-moves-late-ethics-bill-on-fundraising-but-refuses-to-bypass-Rules-Committee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616664-857978b4f7fe2bea11f5be7b541a9077/orig.mp4?Expires=1776218075&Signature=AmhqrmveJzRAW0srnOojqInSSiNjJFAriK7ZQyLATHqexxmhyxTJsTPDNE5A8qS-UCYDoGH3WRJzTecyrcTa9-Ud4lzOeXh31yzp0y-Y8rVlHzxrMJzpkToLxKg~Eio9yzQcRIV7SmKLGPKwZSIYAZNner0wXfW3NXTs2otIb2xqP4OyKGhI3O4W08zvzf5nwYqeImxQeURRdshbRlcJxUemOIzslZtNhEcud86UI2DvUv6UXyTWWrTwWHy3ojhSvdnjkuPFiPAqaF-AkGcsOsoDwCw5bVrG0zcPJ3~hjGC4sMGql5AKj8CDBXdPIIELoCxd1Dn9g~lit-13-N3PoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On April 2 the Maryland Senate considered emergency legislation, Senate Bill 1047, intended to tighten state restrictions on elected officials fundraising during the General Assembly session. Senators approved the late introduction of the bill but voted not to suspend the rules to send it directly to a standing committee; the measure was referred to the Rules Committee for further review.

Senator Gallien sponsored the measure, which the floor mover described as an effort to “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” while the General Assembly is in session. The sponsor and several other senators said they were prompted by a fundraising event involving a political action committee tied to the governor that was scheduled for the same day in Annapolis. The floor mover said he did not have details—“I must admit, I do not know the location here, what time it starts, where it is being held, or what the ticket price is”—but argued the timing created an appearance problem during late-session budget and policy negotiations.

After the clerk read the bill as Senate Bill 1047 (Election Law: elected officials fundraising activities during General Assembly session rules), senators first moved and approved suspending the rules for the bill’s late introduction. Later a separate motion sought to suspend the rules a second time to bypass the Rules Committee and send the bill directly to the appropriate standing committee. That second motion failed: the clerk recorded that the motion did not carry and announced, “With 34 votes in the negative, the rules are not suspended, and the bill will be referred to the rules committee.”

Supporters said a quick hearing was appropriate because the fundraising event occurred during the last week of session and because the bill responds to a “dark money loophole.” Dissenting senators urged following the ordinary committee process even under tight time pressures so the Rules Committee could consider jurisdiction and scheduling. Multiple senators asked the Rules Committee to convene quickly so the bill could be heard before session ends.

What happens next: Because the Senate declined to bypass procedure, Senate Bill 1047 will proceed to the Rules Committee, which will decide whether and how to schedule a hearing and whether to forward a committee report back to the floor. The bill’s sponsor and several colleagues urged expedited handling; opponents said the normal committee review is the better way to ensure thorough vetting.

Votes and formal actions

- Motion to suspend the rules for late introduction (Senate Bill 1047): carried (no roll‑call recorded; “hearing no objections, the motion passes”).
- Motion to suspend the rules to send the bill directly to a standing committee (bypass Rules Committee): failed on roll call (tally reported by the clerk: yes 13, no 34); outcome: bill referred to Rules Committee.

Why it matters

Senators framed the issue as an ethics and public‑trust question about fundraising while lawmakers are actively debating budgets and other major public policies. Supporters described the bill as narrowing a “gray area” that could undercut public confidence; opponents said the Rules Committee should review the measure and that the ordinary committee process is the proper forum.

Provenance

- topicintro: transcript excerpt (Senator from the 30 Fifth, 00:18:59–00:19:33): “We want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”
- topfinish: transcript excerpt (clerk announcement, 00:32:54–00:33:06): “With 34 votes in the negative, the rules are not suspended, and the bill will be referred to the rules committee.”","Senators introduced emergency legislation to close a perceived loophole that would allow fundraising during the 90‑day General Assembly session. Lawmakers approved late introduction but rejected a motion to suspend rules and send the bill directly to a standing committee; the measure was referred to the Rules Committee.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: dozens of House and Senate bills cleared the Senate on April 2

Senate advances ‘Second Look’ post‑conviction bill after floor amendments; lawmakers carve out exceptions for first‑responder homicides

Senate moves late ethics bill on fundraising but refuses to bypass Rules Committee