Baltimore County panel recommends $1.65 million for Fair Election Fund for FY2026

The Baltimore County Fair Election Planning Commission on Jan. 13 recommended that the county executive include $1,650,000 in the fiscal year 2026 budget for the county's Fair Election Fund, a unanimous recommendation by the commission.

The recommendation follows staff presentations and comparisons with other Maryland counties showing potentially increased demand for public election financing in 2026, when a larger-than-usual number of county council seats will be on the ballot. Shane [last name not specified], a Baltimore County staff member who walked the commission through cost-estimate spreadsheets, said the figure represents half of a larger target the commission calculated to fully fund anticipated participation across primary and general elections.

Why it matters: the commission and staff said 2026 is likely to generate higher demand for the fund because voters added two new council seats and several incumbents have signaled they may run for other offices, creating multiple open seats. Commission members said they preferred putting more money into the fund now rather than risk being underfunded ahead of candidate certification and payment windows.

Staff described the modeling used to set the recommendation. Shane said the commission's earlier method estimated candidate counts per seat, then applied an assumed participation rate (roughly one-third in the examples presented) to estimate total public-financing liability. Using that method with nine council seats, staff calculated a total funding need in the low millions and recommended $1.65 million for FY2026 as a reasonable increment to add to the existing balance.

Commission discussion focused on uncertainty about how many candidates will seek certification and whether incumbents, who often have established fundraising channels, will participate. Commissioner Jamie McGurk and others said they expected many neophyte candidates for open council seats and preferred a conservative (higher) allocation for the coming year.

The commission debated whether to finalize the figure at the Jan. 13 meeting or delay a final vote until the February meeting to allow additional spreadsheet work. The commission settled on the recommendation now but left open additional review: the chair said the commission could revisit allocations as candidate sign-ups and other data become available.

Action taken: a commission member moved the recommendation and a second was received. The commission voted in favor; the chair declared the vote unanimous.

Background and next steps: the commission previously recommended and the county included $1,000,000 in the fund in an earlier budget cycle; adding $1,650,000 would bring the fund to an approximate balance of $2,650,000. Commission staff said they will provide updated candidate-participation data as the 2026 filing and certification windows progress and that the commission can adjust future recommendations. The commission scheduled additional discussion and a February meeting to finalize any further budget adjustments if needed.