Fair Chance Housing bill would block blanket denials for applicants with criminal records

Economic Matters Committee · March 5, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

HB 10-73 would require landlords to make conditional offers and perform individualized assessments before denying applicants for most criminal convictions, with explicit exceptions for specified serious offenses; reentry groups, developers and legal aid urged a favorable report while industry groups proposed narrower look‑backs and process safeguards.

Delegate Robin Lewis presented HB 10-73, the Fair Chance Housing Act, which would prohibit blanket denials of rental applicants based solely on criminal conviction records and require landlords to evaluate applicants on tenancy qualifications first. The bill sets a conditional‑offer process: landlords would evaluate income, rental history and credit, then, if an applicant otherwise qualifies, may review criminal history and weigh defined factors and mitigating evidence before withdrawing an offer. Limited disclosures are required for the most serious offenses and lifetime registrants.

A broad coalition of advocates and reentry groups testified in support, including formerly incarcerated leaders who described repeated denials despite steady employment and local ties. John Bey of the Vera Institute said there is little evidence that blanket exclusions enhance safety and emphasized that stable housing reduces recidivism risk. Developers and some owners also voiced support for second‑chance approaches and pointed to local models in Montgomery and Prince George's counties and Washington, D.C.

Property industry groups (including the Maryland Multihousing Association and apartment owners) said they generally back transparency and individualized assessments but raised operational concerns about timing, vacancy loss and the administrative burden of an extended conditional‑offer and mitigation‑review process. They proposed amendments mirroring Montgomery County's framework with specific look‑back periods and narrower prohibitions.

Committee questions focused on exceptions, enforcement, the proposed public record of violators and the bill's fiscal note for an enforcement database. Sponsors and advocates indicated willingness to refine look‑backs, time limits for the mitigation process and penalty language to avoid unduly criminalizing landlords that make procedural errors. The hearing record shows active negotiation between civil‑rights advocates and industry over implementation details.