Bill
HB 166
Shifts administration, recordkeeping, and public access for judicial branch financial disclosures from the State Ethics Commission to Maryland’s judicial oversight bodies and the S
Status & Effective Date
- Action: Referred to Judicial Proceedings (legislative processing ongoing in 2025).
- Effective date (as enacted): July 1, 2025.
Purpose / Intent
- Clarify and reassign responsibility for administering conflict‑of‑interest and financial disclosure provisions of the Maryland Public Ethics Law as they apply to State judicial branch personnel and, importantly, to candidates for judicial office. The bill aims to place administration, record‑keeping, and public‑access duties for judicial branch disclosures with judicial oversight bodies rather than the State Ethics Commission (SEC).
Key Provisions
- Administration and implementation
- Requires the Commission on Judicial Disabilities, the Judicial Ethics Committee, or another body designated by the Supreme Court of Maryland to administer and implement the conflict‑of‑interest and financial disclosure provisions of the Public Ethics Law for:
- State officials of the Judicial Branch, and
- Candidates to be State officials of the Judicial Branch.
- Recordkeeping and public access
- Requires those judicial entities to maintain financial disclosure statements for judicial branch officials and candidates and to make those statements available for public inspection.
- Repeal of transfer requirement
- Repeals the current statutory requirement that the Supreme Court of Maryland transmit copies of financial disclosure statements filed by judges, candidates, or judicial appointees to the State Ethics Commission.
- Conforming amendments
- Amends General Provisions (Art. —) sections governing administration and public access to reflect the shifted responsibilities (see §§ 5‑104, 5‑606, 5‑610 in the bill text).
Who is Affected
- Primary: Commission on Judicial Disabilities, Judicial Ethics Committee (or other Supreme Court‑designated body), and the Supreme Court of Maryland (in its rulemaking/oversight role).
- Secondary: State Ethics Commission (SEC) — reduced role with respect to judicial branch filings; election boards (procedural duties tied to candidate filings); State judicial officers and candidates who must file disclosures.
- Public: retains ability to inspect judicial branch financial disclosure statements from the judicial entity that maintains them.
Fiscal and Implementation Impact
- Department of Legislative Services / Fiscal notes conclude: no net fiscal effect. The Judiciary and the State Ethics Commission can implement the bill with existing resources.
- SEC assessed minimal or no impact on small businesses.
Context / Rationale
- SEC and Judiciary advised that requiring the Judiciary to send copies of judicial disclosures to SEC created administrative burden and that current law lacked clarity about the Supreme Court’s authority over conflicts and disclosures for judicial branch officials and candidates. This bill clarifies that authority and shifts retention and public‑access duties to judicial bodies.
Key Legal References
- Amends: Article — General Provisions, §§ 5‑104, 5‑606, and 5‑610 (financial disclosure and administration provisions).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
