Sen. Mary Washington seeks to limit reentry facility to standalone Baltimore City site, restore original reentry intent

Senator Mary Washington presented Senate Bill 187 to the House Judiciary Committee on April 2, 2026, and asked members to report the bill favorably after sponsor amendments she said restore the legislation's original purpose.

“For the record, I'm Senator Mary Washington, and I'm here to present Senate Bill 187,” she told the panel, adding she circulated a preliminary draft of amendments that substantially restructure the article to separate definitions, services and construction specifications. Washington said the version that passed the Senate “was not in the posture I intended” and that the sponsor amendments were designed to restore the bill's original intent.

Washington described a drafting problem she said appeared in JPR'language: the bill as amended in one version defined a 'reentry facility' so broadly that the state could point to an existing maximum'security institution (MCIW) and deem it compliant. Her sponsor amendments would remove that language, define the facility as a dedicated, standalone structure operating at a minimum security level, and explicitly prohibit co'housing women with individuals classified as medium or maximum security.

The amendments also restore Baltimore City as the required location, set a minimum building size (the transcript records a minimum of 62,000 gross square feet in the sponsor'draft), and require a half'mile buffer from any existing correctional facility with no shared entrance, security checkpoint or administrative space. Washington said the bill also includes uncodified legislative-intent language to make clear that statutory deadlines from an earlier chapter (cited in her testimony) are not waived by passage of SB 187.

Committee members asked technical questions throughout the presentation and the subsequent Q&A. Several members pressed the bill's eligibility language. Washington said the sponsor'draft defines an eligible individual as a woman within 18 months of her anticipated release or with prerelease status, and that the drafting aim is to focus on a time'based reentry definition rather than a security-status classification.

Members also asked how large the facility would need to be. Washington said earlier procurement documents and an RFP referenced a design of about 6,200 square feet for a reentry/life'skills facility, while the sponsor'amendment text in the hearing packet used a 62,000'square'foot minimum; she described the operational population target as roughly in the 60'90 range, noting MCIW'related prerelease capacity figures cited in committee materials could reach about 135 at maximum. (The transcript contains both the RFP number and the larger minimum; committee members asked staff to reconcile those figures.)

The sponsor confirmed SB 187 is being offered as an emergency bill and defended the reporting timetable included in the amendments (May—, June— and July— reporting milestones) as steps to document procurement and requests for expedited processes rather than requirements that construction be finished within those dates. Washington emphasized that passage is one step in a longer process to build a gender'responsive reentry system and that the amendments are intended as guardrails to ensure the facility functions as intended.

The committee did not take a final vote in the hearing. Washington closed by asking for a favorable report and offered to provide clarifications and work with cross'file sponsors and committee staff on drafting issues and final amendments.

What's next: The committee will consider any updated sponsor amendments provided to staff; the chair announced a vote session for the next day.