New fight, old arguments: Senate, House panels debate contested circuit court elections
Maryland Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader testifies before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in support of legislation to get rid of contested elections for circuit court judge. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
Maryland Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Fader and Carroll County Circuit Judge Maria L. Oesterreicher agree that the state's current system of choosing circuit court judges at the ballot box allows for the broadest possible pool of candidates.
They disagree on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
That was the crux of arguments that stretched over several hours of testimony Wednesday, as Senate and House committees held back-to-back hearings on a proposed constitutional amendment to change the way circuit judges are selected.
District and appellate judges in the state stand every 10 years for retention elections — voters give a thumbs up or down on whether the judge should continue on the bench. But circuit judges stand for election every 15 years, and when they do they can face challengers who file to run against them, just like candidates in any other political race.
Critics say the system opens the door to unqualified candidates and forces sitting judges to act like partisan candidates instead of impartial jurists.
'This is a bill that is aimed at increasing public trust and confidence in the judiciary, minimizing perceived conflicts and ensuring that every judge in the state has been thoroughly vetted and found most fully qualified by a neutral panel before taking office,' Fader said to the Senate committee.
But supporters say the system gives voters a full voice in the selection of judges, and that contested elections increase diversity on the bench by opening the door to candidates who are not part of the network of lawyers who nominate judges. Oesterreicher cites herself as a case in point.
'I remain the only female that has ever been placed on our circuit court,' Oesterreicher, who won in a 2018 election, said of the Carroll County bench. 'This [a proposed constitutional amendment] is not the proper way to fix the issue of judicial selections.'
The hearings Wednesday before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Senate Bill 630 and the House Judiciary Committee on House Bill 778 are the latest in a decades-long fight over contested circuit judge elections. More than 75 bills have been introduced since the 1980s to change the process, all unsuccessful so far.
But the debate was renewed almost three years ago, when the Maryland Judicial Conference appointed a judicial work group to study the issue. After nearly two years of study, the group released a 63-page report last year which concluded that contested elections present ethical concerns and pose a risk to judges' safety in the current political atmosphere.
It recommended doing away with the process and making circuit judges face retention elections every 10 years, like all other judges in the state.
In both the House and Senate hearings, Maryland State Bar Association President Raphael Santini, a supporter of the bills, pointed to former Prince George's County Circuit Judge April Ademiluyi, who won the judgeship by unseating sitting Judge Jared M. McCarthy in the 2020 election. But by 2023, Ademiluyi had been charged with violating multiple provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct.
After an investigation by the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, the Maryland Supreme Court in May 2024 ordered Ademiluyi removed from the bench for engaging in 'egregious misconduct.'
Critics of the current system said it allows candidates like Ademiluyi to bypass a vetting process by local commissions of lawyers. Those commissions review the credentials of would-be judges and recommend nominees to the governor, who makes the initial appointment of judges — with Senate confirmation — when there is a vacancy on the bench.
Montgomery County Circuit Judge Kathleen Dumais, a state delegate for nearly two decades and co-chair of the judicial work group, said the commissions help make sure the governor receives a list of qualified candidates 'who reflect the community.'
To make sure that nominees reflect their communities, former U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. — who co-chaired the work group with Dumais — said at the Senate hearing that the report recommends that vetting commissions seek input from the public and specialty bars. Those bars are associations of attorneys established by race, gender, legal specialty and sexual orientation.
But hours later in the House hearing, Del. Aaron M. Kaufman (D-Montgomery) asked Claudia Barber, an opponent to the judicial bill, if she thinks the judicial nominating committees and the legal establishment 'is somewhat clubby.'
'Yes, it is clubby, and to a certain degree, it is also political,' said Barber, who ran unsuccessfully for an Anne Arundel County Circuit judgeship in 2016 and 2024. 'It's cliquish. It's all of that. Which is why oftentimes the best is not always chosen.'
Rob Daniels, who ran an unsuccessful circuit court campaign last year in Baltimore County, testified that the judiciary still does not include anyone from the LGBTQ+ community.
'The impetus for this bill seems to be the false conclusion by the judicial selections work group that we've resolved the diversity issue so popular elections are no longer needed,' said Daniels, chair of the LGBTQ Bar Association. 'But the work group has moved the goal posts in the diversity fight by ignoring the dearth of LGBTQ judges in our state.'
A few lawmakers asked whether it's a good idea to restrict voters' voices in the selection of circuit judges.
'Whenever we start having these discussions about taking away the public input and we leave it at the discretion of solely the governor…then the people that I represent aren't getting their fair input into the discussion,' said Sen. William G. Folden (R-Frederick).
If the measure passes, the question would go to voters in the November 2026 election, to decide whether to amend the Maryland Constitution to make the change.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Food Bank of Iowa is sounding the alarm while the fate of the President's 'big, beautiful bill' sits in the United States Senate. The concerns outlined by the organization are food insecurity and limited resources that food banks already have. 'We're gravely concerned about the one big, beautiful bill act as written,' said Annette Hacker, Vice President of Strategy and Communications for the Food Bank of Iowa. 'It stands to slash $267 billion with a 'b' from SNAP over ten years. And it takes 9.5 billion meals a year off of the table for people facing hunger.' New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa The bill has states pay for these federal benefits, in part, through a cost sharing method. Hacker said that this would be roughly $40 million a year the state would have to account for, which to her doesn't feel possible. The legislation also raises the age of SNAP work requirements to 65-years-old, extending those requirements to parents without children younger than 7-years-old. 'The crushing need this would create is not possible for the charitable food system, that's us, to absorb. If you look at every Feeding America food bank in this country, of which Food Bank of Iowa is one of 200 and all the partners and pantries we stock across the entire country, that's 6 billion meals a year distributed. This would be 9.5 billion more meals, a gap that would have to be filled. And the math just doesn't work,' said Hacker. U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said that the goal is for the chamber to take it up on the Senate floor in the last week of June. To volunteer or donate, visit the Food Bank of Iowa's website. Iowa News: Food Bank of Iowa warns about SNAP implications in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Winner named in Coolest Thing Made in Iowa contest New law helps clear the way for birthing centers in Iowa Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline Third case of measles in Iowa this year reported by HHS Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth.
President Donald Trump and many of his allies in Congress are making grand claims about the economic growth they say will result from the recently proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill." Trump has accused critics of not understanding the budget proposal, "especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming." A closer examination of the economic realities involved reveals that these claims are dramatically overstated. I have no objections on principles to extending the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Allowing these cuts to expire would deliver some measure of pain to the economy and add to our troubles. Tax hikes at a time when individuals and businesses are expecting tax stability would undoubtedly depress investment, employment, and overall economic confidence. Americans are already getting a huge tax hike because of Trump's tariffs. However, making a sound case for maintaining the current tax structure is fundamentally different from making the case that it will bring about substantial new growth. It's largely a defensive move. Realistically, the economic boost will be modest at best. In fact, the administration and congressional supporters of this bill admit that much without realizing it. On the Senate side, lawmakers argue that the fiscal cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts should be measured against today's tax code rather than against the code to which we would revert if the cuts automatically expire. They argue that assuming the cuts will be extended reflects the common expectation among taxpayers and markets. But if markets already expect extensions, then making the tax cuts permanent cannot generate significant additional economic growth. The growth that can be achieved by these tax cuts has largely been realized. Merely continuing with lower rates doesn't unleash many new incentives or productivity. In addition, the budget legislation does lots more than extend the 2017 tax cuts. In fact, about 25 percent of the bill consists of different tax breaks on tips or overtime, and spending hikes for the military and various special interests. These are not pro-growth policies—in addition to being expensive. The Tax Foundation estimates that the bill would raise economic output by approximately 0.8 percent in the long run. The Economic Policy Innovation Center analysis pegs the economic gain at around 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Both are far from the revolutionary 3 percent figures that Trump's most ardent fanboys are claiming. Moreover, most economic models don't adequately consider the negative consequences of ballooning federal debt on long-term growth. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will add a further $2.4 trillion to the debt. High levels of debt put upward pressure on interest rates, crowding out private investment and dampening long-term growth prospects. Historically, too much debt correlates with diminished economic performance. Whatever blip in the growth rate we will see thanks to the tax bill, it won't compensate for the damage done by the Trump administration's ongoing trade wars. Tariffs disrupt supplies, increase costs for American businesses and consumers, and create considerable economic uncertainty. Even if we generously assume that tax cuts will deliver an additional 0.5 percent to 0.8 percent in annual GDP growth, the drag from tariffs easily surpasses this modest benefit. The contradiction couldn't be clearer. Proponents of the bill and the president himself trumpet its growth-enhancing powers while simultaneously piling up debt and enacting trade policies that are both guaranteed to undermine economic dynamism. And yes, in addition to the expected opposition from Democrats, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and a few other voices from the right side of the aisle have been highlighting the bill's inadequacies, to the great displeasure of the president. Among other things, they point to its subsidies and other distorting economic interventions and accurately observe that the economic benefits being touted are inflated and misleading. Paul understands that a true pro-growth agenda would extend the tax provisions while limiting the debt impact by cutting wasteful spending, closing tax loopholes, and not loading the bill with lots of special-interest giveaways. The legislation is now in the hands of the Senate. If senators are interested in genuine and productive tax reform, they will scrap the new provisions and do 10-year extensions of pro-growth policies that are currently temporary in the legislation as passed by the House (such as 100 percent bonus depreciation and research-and-development expensing)—and they'd still be left with room to lower the cost. If they keep the spending offset included in the House bill and Medicaid reform, this would become both pro-growth and fiscally responsible legislation. Instead of indulging in the dangerous fantasy that any tax cuts will produce enormous growth, Congress needs to do the work and revise the bill so that it does produce growth and offsets the debt accumulation. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth. appeared first on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Oregon lawmakers scale back proposal for unemployment strike payments amid blowback
Hundreds of educators, parents and students joined a rally Nov. 1. 2023 at Roosevelt High School in north Portland to support striking teachers. Teachers like them could soon receive up to 10 weeks of unemployment benefits under a compromise negotiated by Oregon lawmakers.(Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A particularly controversial measure that would give unemployment benefits to public and private Oregon workers during labor strikes survived a key Wednesday hearing after lawmakers agreed to cut the length of time in which workers on strike could cash checks by more than half. Senate Bill 916 would have limited striking workers to receiving benefits for 26 weeks, in line with the current caps on unemployment checks for Oregonians. But after the Senate rejected an amended version of the bill on Tuesday, a bicameral conference committee voted Wednesday to set a new cutoff at 10 weeks after a two-week waiting period. Committee members voted along party lines, with the sole Republican present voting against the amendments. 'I do feel like this is a massive compromise,' said Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, the bill's lead author. 'It's not something I'm entirely thrilled with.' The measure would be a first-in-the-nation move by Oregon, establishing a right to strike for public and private employees while ensuring them the ability to apply for unemployment benefits. Aside from traditionally strike-exempt public employees such as firefighters and police, workers such as nurses and teachers could claim benefits after two weeks of striking. The bill has been among this session's most controversial measures, laying bare deep divisions over how best to use the state's $6.4 billion unemployment insurance fund. The changes come after support for a Democrat-led bill collapsed in a concurring Senate vote on Tuesday amid concerns from Republicans and a key dissenting Democrat. It had already drawn opposition from school board leaders who help negotiate teacher strikes, business groups, and local government leaders who contribute to the state's unemployment fund. 'We have a healthy fund today due in no small part because all the agreements in the years have been honored,' committee member Sen. Daniel Bonham, R- The Dalles, told his colleagues before voting against the amended bill. 'It is a healthy enough fund that I don't know that this will be a massive draw on it, but again the kids will lose if teachers are incentivized to strike.' House Democrats got the bill over the finish line in their chamber last week, arguing that the benefits would be used sparingly and not as a tool to prolong strikes, but to shorten them. A change made in a House committee would cap benefits to eight weeks if the state's unemployment fund is at risk, and lawmakers also included an amendment that mandates deductions in backpay for benefits claimed by teachers during strikes. Grayber on Tuesday repeated a promise she has made to continue monitoring the bill's implementation if it were to pass, but also signaled that she hoped to move past concerns that the bill would promote misuse of the unemployment system or dramatically hamper school life and public facilities. She said she's been 'guided by the math' behind the bill from the beginning, a subtle nod to the estimates from the state's employment department that the bill would not change existing tax structures for businesses and government agencies paying into the state's unemployment funding. 'I have heard the opposition,' she said. 'I very much look forward to moving past what feels like a worst-case scenario focus that we've maintained for several weeks now.' Oregonians who have lost a job can currently apply for unemployment weekly checks ranging from $196 to $836. The bill would allow benefits to kick in immediately if workers are locked out of facilities by their employer during negotiations. Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, is a sponsor of the legislation, but withdrew his support when it came up short in a 15-14 Senate vote on Tuesday. In a brief interview after the hearing, he declined to comment on whether he supported the proposed changes. He referred to another attempt at a transportation and infrastructure funding bill that the Legislature has taken up in the final weeks of the session: 'If there's time to pass a transportation package, there's time to get this right,' he said. The new amendment pushes the bill closer to a similar law passed in Washington that caps benefits at six weeks, but which doesn't go so far as to protect public employees like Oregon's proposed legislation. New Jersey and New York have also passed laws in recent years to provide unemployment benefits to striking private sector workers, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar effort in 2023 over fiscal concerns. Another bill extending benefits to striking workers in Connecticut is currently sitting on Gov. Ned Lamont's desk, but he is expected to veto it. The bill passed out of committee on a 4-1 vote. Rep. Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, was excused. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
