Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Senate committee advances bill to curb election deepfakes, split enforcement between state administrator and prosecutor
Loading...
Summary
A bill before the Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee would bar knowingly sharing materially false AI-generated media that misleads voters about election processes; the State Board of Elections would seek injunctions to stop dissemination while the state prosecutor would pursue criminal cases for intent to defraud.
ANNAPOLIS — The Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 141 on artificial-intelligence deepfakes and election misinformation, with sponsors and state officials describing a two-part enforcement scheme to stop misleading content before it spreads and to hold bad actors accountable afterward.
Sponsor Sen. Cory (Senator Hester) told the committee the bill targets “materially false information” about how to register, when and where to vote, how ballots are counted and the duties of election officials, not the speech of candidates. She said the measure is narrowly drawn to reduce risk of constitutional challenge and to protect voters from suppression tactics.
Jared DeMarinis, the State Administrator of Elections, told lawmakers his office would handle prompt corrective action on credible reports, including seeking subpoenas and injunctions to stop false content from circulating. “If a deepfake starts saying general election day is November 4 or November 5, there is no subjectivity,” DeMarinis said, explaining how platform removals and emergency corrections could be pursued.
Sarah David, deputy state prosecutor at the Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor, urged a favorable report and emphasized the bill criminalizes intent rather than mere creation of AI content. “Most importantly, this statute criminalizes the intent, not the creation, of a deepfake,” she said, underscoring the office’s role in prosecuting deliberate, fraudulent schemes that suppress voting.
Committee members pressed officials on how cases would be identified and prioritized. DeMarinis said action would often follow credible reports and described a bifurcated approach: the state administrator seeking injunctive, civil remedies to stop distribution and the prosecutor pursuing criminal accountability where evidence shows intent. “My mission is to make sure the voters vote,” DeMarinis said, explaining the urgency of front-end remedies because an election cannot be redone.
Lawmakers also asked about remedies and costs: the draft authorizes civil actions for court costs and reimbursement related to correcting the record. DeMarinis and David said the State Board and prosecutor’s office plan to coordinate with local boards and law-enforcement forensic resources; David cautioned that the prosecutor’s office generally does not publish details of uncharged investigations but will work on internal lessons learned with the election office.
No formal vote was recorded in the hearing; the sponsor requested a favorable report. Committee members asked whether the June 1 effective date would allow training and readiness before the primary. DeMarinis said the state office expects to manage complaints in that timeframe and the prosecutor’s office expects to handle post‑election analyses if needed.
The bill’s text includes carve-outs for satire, parody and for traditional broadcast and print media with appropriate disclosures. Sen. Hester and witnesses pointed to examples abroad where AI-edited materials were used to disrupt voting and cited that nearly 30 states have enacted laws addressing deceptive election-related media in varied forms.
