Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Notice Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland proposal would allow qualifying digital outlets to publish legal notices; press group opposes
Summary
House Bill 10 would permit qualified digital news organizations to publish government legal notices to modernize distribution and reduce costs; supporters say it expands reach and preserves guardrails while the press association warns it could undercut small print publishers and recommended safeguards and a public portal were proposed.
Delegate Linda Foley presented House Bill 10 to the House Judiciary Committee as an update to Maryland's public‑notice publication rules, which currently require notices to appear in printed newspapers. Foley said the bill "brings Maryland's public notice publication system into the 21st century" by allowing qualified digital publications — those that maintain a public archive, employ at least one journalist and demonstrate local coverage — to post legal notices. "HB 10 has two primary goals: help reduce the cost to local governments and expand the pool of eligible publications," Foley said.
Monique Jones of the Baltimore Banner testified in support, saying the bill is about reach and accessibility: the Banner, she said, serves 75,000 paying subscribers and about 1.5 million monthly visitors, and making notices available digitally would reach more residents. Justin Fiore of the Maryland Municipal League urged a universal access amendment to host notices in a state archives portal to ensure free, searchable access. Sarah Sample of the Maryland Association of Counties supported the bill with amendments to create a statewide fail‑safe where no eligible publication exists locally.
Rebecca Snyder, executive director of the Maryland‑Delaware‑D.C. Press Association, opposed the bill, arguing it would affect all types of notices (foreclosures, estate notices, zoning, redemption rights) and that many digital‑only outlets have very small staffs and lack the independent filing/ownership records that print newspapers have. Committee members pressed the sponsor about a 50‑mile / 30‑hour criterion in the bill's eligibility list (requiring at least one employee who lives within 50 miles and works 30 hours weekly), potential effects on seniors and residents without digital access, and how the bill differs from last year's narrower measure.
No committee vote occurred; members and stakeholders indicated they are working on amendments to address accessibility, cost and oversight concerns.
