Latest news with #SenateJudicialProceedingsCommittee
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A dereliction of duty in the Senate
Renter advocates gather in Annapolis to call on lawmakers to pass Good Cause Eviction legislation in February, but the bill never got out of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. (File photo by Danielle J. Brown/Maryland Matters). In what many are calling an astonishing dereliction of duty, the Maryland Senate's Judicial Proceeding Committee (JPR) failed to move 'Good-Cause' eviction legislation forward. Despite unprecedented statewide support, including a 96-37 vote in the House last year, JPR allowed amendments pushed by the landlord/developer (LL/D) industry tying the legislation to rent stabilization laws, and weakening good-cause standards, letting landlords arbitrarily and unjustly evict renters from their homes. The committee's first amendment would have required rent stabilization programs across Maryland to drop vacancy control from apartment homes. Vacancy control maintains rent levels for apartments when a tenant moves out. Vacancy decontrol lets rent float up to market rates, often to levels new tenants cannot afford. Affordable housing advocates adamantly oppose decontrol, pointing to the further loss of reasonably priced housing stocks. The second series of amendments would have knocked the teeth out of the good causes that would be required to justify nonrenewal of leases and the eventual eviction of a tenant who stays longer than the lease term, known as Tenant Holding Over (THO). Including minor violations of a lease or community rules, for example, as a justification to evict turns on its head the very principle of establishing a stated, substantial violation to justify forcing someone from their home. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. Consensus has been building for decades that stable, quality homes are central determinants of community health, welfare and prosperity. The idea that a rental apartment is a mere 'unit' no different than any commodity, like craft beer or concert tickets, has faded as the relationship of stable, quality housing to social welfare and prosperity has changed. Nearly 40% of Maryland residents now live in rental housing not as a station on the way to owning, but as permanent housing. It is no longer acceptable to destabilize whole communities with unpredictable and excessive rent increases that rely entirely on market potential, or to evict without good reason, without considering the social and economic costs to tenants and our communities. At least that's what we thought … But alongside modern thinking on housing policy that promotes affordability, and legislation to ensure stability, a counter narrative promoted by the rental housing industry and its well-financed network of lobbyists and bloggers has spawned, citing cherry-picked and distorted data. The narrative goes like this: Things like good-cause protections, rent stabilization or stronger code and rights enforcement might sound nice to uneducated renters and their advocates, but they don't really need them. What they really need is investment in building more housing so that market competition will eliminate the lack of affordability and disincentivize bad landlord behavior. They define the housing crisis solely as a 'shortage,' citing market demand for housing while ignoring the instability of existing residents' housing, and conveniently omitting discussion around when or how that demand might be met in specific markets. They say all we need to do is 'build our way out of the crisis.' Industry-friendly bloggers cite the building boom of the Sun Belt and how housing prices there have come down, not mentioning high vacancy rates and low demand in some of those cities. They cite the St. Paul, Minnesota, sample where new multifamily building slowed after rent stabilization passed — but fail to mention how, when the city went back and exempted new development long enough for investors to recoup their investment and make a profit, investment in multifamily housing continued at its hurried pace. Closer to home, the LL/D bloggers cite the lack of building in Takoma Park, citing rent stabilization as the cause. They don't mention the lack of land availability in Takoma Park, now understood to be a built-out community. Housing codes and renter protections were introduced decades ago to put an end to the squalor, instability and abuse past generations of tenants endured. Teachers, police, nurses, retail workers, immigrants, young families and now, an increasing number of senior citizens are no longer able to purchase a home in a housing market that places home ownership well out of their reach. Marylanders must ask why Senate Judicial Proceedings Chair Will Smith (D-Montgomery) and Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) would give deference to these fallacious industry narratives that set up a false choice between renter protections and building more housing, rather than using every tool at their disposal to get this done for constituents demanding action — and facts. More than 5,000 Marylanders were evicted last year for THO, likely a tip-of-the-iceberg figure as it does not count those who move before going to court. Until our elected officials press them on just what that means, we will continue to see whole renter communities destabilized, while anger grows at those elected to represent them who failed to act.
Los Angeles Times
05-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Maryland lawmakers pass bill to limit future liabilities amid thousands of claims of sexual abuse
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland lawmakers passed a measure Saturday to try to limit future liabilities from claims of sexual abuse at state and private institutions after thousands of people unexpectedly came forward with allegations of abuse, many of them in youth detention centers, putting potentially billions of dollars at stake for the state. The wave of cases targeting the state's juvenile justice system resulted after Maryland eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims two years ago with the Catholic Church abuse scandal in mind. The action comes as Los Angeles County has announced it plans to pay $4 billion to settle nearly 7,000 claims of childhood sexual abuse that allegedly occurred inside its juvenile facilities and foster homes, in what would be the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history. The Maryland measure, which now goes to Gov. Wes Moore, reduces caps on settlements from $890,000 to $400,000 for cases filed after May 31 for state institutions and from $1.5 million to $700,000 for private institutions. It also changes the 2023 law to allow each claimant to receive only one payment, instead of being able to collect for each incident of abuse. State Sen. Will Smith, who chairs the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said it has been estimated that Maryland is facing a potential liability between $3 billion and $4 billion. Smith, a Democrat, noted that lawmakers approved the 2023 Child Victims Act in response 'to a long fight to have justice for victims of child sex abuse, where our prior framework barred some of those claims if you were above the age of 38.' 'But what we could never have anticipated was just the sheer volume of cases that ensued,' Smith said. During debate Saturday, lawmakers said about 1,500 cases already have been filed. In addition, 4,500 other cases have come to light, lawmakers said, and attorneys for plaintiffs have been in settlement discussions with Maryland Atty. Gen. Anthony Brown's office. Sen. Justin Ready, a Republican who is the Senate minority whip, said the state liability could potentially be even higher than the estimate cited by Smith. 'We just spent all session wrestling with a $3-billion deficit, which is a huge deficit, and we've been fighting about that and debating it discussing it. … Just one settlement from this very well could end up being that entire amount, and that is not the end of this,' Ready said. Sen. Chris West, a fellow Republican, said he doubted the provision in the bill that would limit someone to sue for only one individual case, rather than for each incident of abuse, would survive a court challenge, based on prior rulings by the Maryland Supreme Court. 'If the Supreme Court follows the guidance of prior Supreme Court decisions, they will hold that our attempt to deny people the right to file cases to recover for multiple occurrences is unconstitutional, because those rights for the past two years have been vested,' West said. 'The people have had the right to file those cases.' Smith told reporters Friday that he believed a settlement 'is the optimal solution here.' 'We're hoping that the attorney general and the plaintiffs can get together and work out a settlement,' he said. Maryland lawmakers passed the Child Victims Act in the immediate aftermath of a scathing investigative report by the attorney general's office that revealed widespread abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Before its passage, victims couldn't sue after they turned 38. The law change prompted the archdiocese to file for bankruptcy to protect its assets. The Maryland Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in a 4-3 ruling in February. The measure approved Saturday also would cap attorneys' fees at 20% for cases that settle out of court and 25% for cases resolved in court. The Senate voted 36 to 7 for the bill on Saturday, and the House voted 92 to 40 in favor a short time later, sending the bill to the governor. Witte writes for the Associated Press.
The Independent
05-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Maryland lawmakers pass bill to try to limit liabilities for thousands of claims of sexual abuse
Maryland lawmakers passed a measure Saturday to try to limit future liabilities from claims of sexual abuse at state and private institutions after thousands of people unexpectedly came forward with allegations of abuse, many of them in youth detention centers, putting potentially billions of dollars at stake for the state. The wave of cases targeting the state's juvenile justice system resulted after Maryland eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims two years ago with the Catholic Church abuse scandal in mind. The measure, which now goes to Gov. Wes Moore, reduces caps on settlements from $890,000 to $400,000 for cases filed after May 31 for state institutions and from $1.5 million to $700,000 for private institutions. It also changes the 2023 law to only allow each claimant to receive one payment, instead of being able to collect for each incident of abuse. Sen. Will Smith, who chairs the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said it has been estimated that the state is facing a potential liability between $3 billion and $4 billion. Smith, a Democrat, noted that lawmakers approved the 2023 Child Victims Act in response 'to a long fight to have justice for victims of child sex abuse, where our prior framework barred some of those claims if you were above the age of 38.' 'But what we could never have anticipated was just the sheer volume of cases that ensued,' Smith said. During debate Saturday, lawmakers said about 1,500 cases already have been filed. In addition, another 4,500 cases are known about, lawmakers said, and attorneys for plaintiffs have been in settlement discussions with Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown's office. Sen. Justin Ready, a Republican who is the Senate minority whip, said the state liability could potentially be even higher than the estimate cited by Smith. 'We just spent all session wrestling with a $3 billion deficit, which is a huge deficit, and we've been fighting about that and debating it discussing it … Just one settlement from this very well could end up being that entire amount, and that is not the end of this," Ready said. Sen. Chris West said he doubted the provision in the bill that would limit someone to only sue for one individual case, rather than for each incident of abuse, would survive a court challenge, based on prior rulings by the Maryland Supreme Court. 'If the Supreme Court follows the guidance of prior Supreme Court decisions, they will hold that our attempt to deny people the right to file cases to recover for multiple occurrences is unconstitutional, because those rights for the past two years have been vested," West, a Republican, said. "The people have had the right to file those cases.' Smith told reporters on Friday that he believed a settlement 'is the optimal solution here.' 'We're hoping that the attorney general and the plaintiffs can get together and work out a settlement," Smith said. Maryland lawmakers passed the Child Victims Act in the immediate aftermath of a scathing investigative report by the attorney general's office that revealed widespread abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Before its passage, victims couldn't sue after they turned 38. The law change prompted the archdiocese to file for bankruptcy to protect its assets. The Maryland Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in a 4-3 ruling in February. The measure approved Saturday also would cap attorneys' fees at 20% for cases that settle out of court and 25% for cases resolved in court. The Senate voted 36-7 for the bill on Saturday, and the House voted 92-40 for the bill a short time later, sending the bill to the governor.
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate committee moves Second Look Act one step closer to final passage
The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee advanced the Second Look Act Friday on an 8-3 vote, putting the House bill one step closer to final passage. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters) After an hour of robust debate, a Senate committee advanced a House bill Friday that would let some long-serving incarcerated individuals to ask a judge for a second chance at life. By an 8-3 vote, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee approved the Second Look Act, which would let individuals who have served at least 20 years in prison petition for a reduced sentence. The bill sponsored by Del. Cheryl Pasteur (D-Baltimore County) passed the House on March 17. Sen. Charles Sydnor III (D-Baltimore County) sponsored a version in his chamber, but the Senate will work off Pasteur's bill. A similar bill passed the Senate last year but stalled in the House. This year's bill would apply to anyone sentenced for a crime committed between the ages of 18 and 25, who has served at least 20 years of their sentence. Those incarcerated would need to wait five years to petition the court again if they were turned down the first time, and those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole or a convicted 'sex offender' would not be eligible. Sen. Chris West (R-Baltimore and Carroll) said he has reservations about the age restrictions — those 18 to 25 should know right from wrong, he said — but he still voted in favor of it. 'Many will call, many will knock on the door, but not that many will be let out by the judge because it all depends on what you've done in the intervening 20 years,' West said after the Senate adjourned Friday afternoon. 'Does the judge really believe that you've reformed and you're longer a threat to society? I think we need to give them [those incarcerated] some consideration,' he said. Others worried that the bill would give a second chance to individuals charged with murder and other violent crimes. 'I would probably support this bill if it took out murder … and some of the violent crimes,' said Sen. Mary-Dulany James (D-Harford), who voted against the bill in committee. 'That's where I think it's a bridge too far.' Supporters of the bill have stressed this 'isn't a get out of jail free card' because it doesn't guarantee everyone incarcerated will be freed from prison. The bill would apply to an estimated 350 people. If a court decides to grant parole, it can order the paroled individual to 'stay away from and refrain from contact with a victim and victim's family … unless the victim requests otherwise.' A victim or a victim's representative would be able to submit an impact statement to the court 'regarding the impact of the crime and the proposed sentence reduction.' Those statements can 'carry weight' in court, said Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), chair of the committee, who voted in favor of the bill. But Sen. Mike McKay (R-Garrett, Allegany and Washington) said the bill would simply 'revictimize, revictimize, revictimize, revictimize.' House grants final approval to Second Look Act, sends bill to the Senate 'I believe that we are in the business of correcting and rehabilitating people, but not at the expense of increasing the amount of time to revictimize,' McKay said before he voted against the bill. Sydnor, who voted for the bill, said it attempts to strike a balance for victims and rehabilitation. 'This bill is really about mercy and grace for someone who has been incarcerated for a minimum of 20 years and who has shown or demonstrated that they have rehabilitated themselves,' he said. 'It's just a second look. Judges aren't being forced to release anyone.' Sen. William G. Folden (R-Frederick) cited families such as Richard and Dawn Collins, who traveled to Annapolis in January to testify against the bill on behalf of their son, Richard W. Collins III. He was visiting a friend at the University of Maryland, College Park, when he was fatally stabbed in a racially motivated hate crime in May 2017. The stabbing took place a few days before he was set to graduate from Bowie State University, where he was in the Army ROTC. 'This bill would undermine the small justice and the loss of her [Dawn Collins] up-and-coming second lieutenant son, going to make a difference,' said Folden, who voted against the measure. Folden said Richard 'told his mother the world would know his name. We know his name because his parents come down here and advocate on his behalf because he's no longer here.' Meanwhile, the bill's racial equity impact note notes that incarcerated Black prisoners could receive the most benefit. As of Jan. 1, the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services reported that 12,675, or 72%, of those incarcerated in the state's prisons are Black; the state's Black residents accounted for 31.6% of the state's overall population in 2023. Of the total 17,586 individuals incarcerated in the state, about 1,303 are serving life sentences and 331 are those without the possibility of parole. 'Black inmates would experience the most significant impact given their overrepresentation in the State's incarcerated population,' according to the note. The full Senate could debate the measure sometime next week. It would have to act before April 7, the last day of the legislative session. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate panel recommends approval of two medical parole measures
(Photo by Getty images) The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee recommended approval Wednesday of two bills that would reform the parole process for medical and geriatric parole petitions. It appears to be the first time Senate Bill 181 has made it out of committee, after four years of trying. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Shelly Hettleman (D-Baltimore County), would give long-serving or ill inmates a chance to take their case directly to the state's Parole Commission. The bill originally called for incarcerated individuals who were 60 years old and had spent at least 15 years in prison to seek parole and, if turned down, they could reapply every two years. The committee Wednesday raised the age to 65, with 20 years incarcerated, and a five-year pause between petitions. But another hearing could be sooner 'if the commission determines that extraordinary and compelling circumstances justify the subsequent parole hearing.' The committee also amended the geriatric inmate portion of the bill to include someone with a condition that 'substantially diminishes the ability … to provide self-care.' That and a few other phrases mirror federal law when it comes to compassionate release. The bill is supported by the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland and Attorney General Anthony Brown. Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), chair of the committee, said a work group with senators, members of the Public Defender's Office and state's attorneys agreed on the amendments. 'Everyone walked away in an agreement and has blessed off on this,' he said. 'I think it's amazing.' 'Miracles do happen,' said Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's). Muse and Smith added themselves as co-sponsors of the bill, along with Sen. Chris West (R-Baltimore County and Carroll) and Democratic Sens. Sara Love of Montgomery, Charles Sydnor III of Baltimore County, Nick Charles of Prince George's and Shaneka Henson of Anne Arundel. Sen. Mary-Dulany James (D-Harford) was the only committee member to vote against the amendments. Muse sponsored the second bill, Senate Bill 648, long sponsored by former Sen. Jill P. Carter. The bill would remove the governor from the process of approving parolee for a geriatric or medical parole release. The legislature had approved removing the governor from the parole process four years ago, but Carter said last year that an oversight at the allowed the governor to remain a part of the process for medical parole. This year's measure would let the Parole Commission to decide whether a person can be released whose poor health condition pose no 'danger to society.' As a condition of release, the commission may require that person to be placed in a hospital, hospice or other housing. Both measures are scheduled to be read on the Senate floor next week.
