Delegate Linda Foley and a coalition of press-association and local-government witnesses asked the House Judiciary Committee to support House Bill 74, a measure to allow required legal notices and advertisements to be published in qualifying digital news outlets as well as in print newspapers of general circulation.

Foley, a former journalist, said Maryland’s legal-notice statutory framework reflects a different media era and noted a University of Maryland Merrill School study attached to her written testimony showing growth in digital-only local outlets even as legacy print operations shrink. “This bill would allow notices to be published in either print or digital formats, providing access to the widest possible audience and at the same time providing some cost savings for some municipalities and counties,” Foley said. The bill would require digital publications that run legal notices to maintain a public archive and employ at least one staff member focused on local reporting.

Rebecca Snyder, executive director of the Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association, told the committee the bill is a limited fix addressing timing and access: it would let official publication deadlines start at the moment a qualifying outlet posts a notice online rather than only when a physical paper prints. Don Butchka of the Maryland Association of Counties said the measure will help local governments and urged a favorable report. The city of Gaithersburg testified in support with suggested language tightening the definition of qualifying publication; Gaithersburg said its annual print-notice cost exceeds $15,000 and that online options can reach audiences more effectively.

Several small and regional publishers, including Lorenzo Bellamy (Veil Record) and other publishers, testified in favor. Committee members pressed witnesses on how the statute would define “newspaper of general circulation,” how to avoid gaming of the system, and whether the change would reduce print publication revenue. Snyder summarized the existing statutory standard (periodical with a distinct audience, at least six months in operation, regular frequency and place of business) and said the bill’s safeguards — archive requirement and a newsroom staff test — are intended to ensure the outlet is a functioning local news organization rather than a short-lived site seeking notice revenue.

Members asked whether the Dorchester County pilot enacted last year had produced problems; witnesses said the county’s test had not produced significant unanticipated consequences since its Oct. 1 implementation. Gaithersburg sought an amendment to specify that qualifying publications employ at least one full-time employee who lives within 50 miles of the coverage area; Vice Chair Bartlett and others pressed witnesses about that residency proposal and the definition of “engaged in reporting.” Supporters said the bill does not remove print as an option and is tailored to notices placed by government entities.

Questions from delegates covered pricing for notices (witnesses said local publications often charge below-market rates for statutorily required notices), how many outlets in Maryland would qualify (Merrill’s study found roughly 156 local news outlets with 131 having digital components), and whether the change would impose new costs on local governments or publishers. No formal committee vote or amendment was recorded in the hearing transcript.