WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 996

SS/SB 996 - This act modifies provisions relating to workers' compensation. CHANGES OF ATTORNEYS IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASES (Sections 287.200 and 287.470) The act permits the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission to change the name, information, or fee arrangement of the attorney or law firm representing a claimant upon the filing of a written agreement, signed by both the claimant and his or her attorney and the new attorney, with the Commission. QUALIFICATIONS, COMPLAINTS, DISCIPLINE, AND REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES (Sections 287.610 and 621.045) The act provides that all administrative law judges (ALJs) shall retire from being an ALJ at 70 years old. Furthermore, ALJs are exempted from the employee at-will doctrine. Current law requires that a retention vote be taken by the Administrative Law Judge Review Committee with respect to each workers' compensation ALJ every twelve years. This act provides that such retention vote shall occur, beginning August 28, 2026, every four years and any ALJ who receives a vote not in favor of retention by a majority of the Committee shall be immediately terminated as an ALJ. This acts also repeals provisions of current law relating to performance audits of ALJs and recommendations of confidence and no confidence. The act permits the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation to file a complaint with the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) seeking to remove an ALJ from office for one or any combination of the following causes: • The ALJ has committed any felony or misdemeanor, regardless of whether a criminal charge has been filed; • The ALJ has been convicted, or has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in a criminal prosecution under the laws of any state, the United States, or of any country, regardless of whether sentence is imposed; • The ALJ is guilty of misconduct, habitual intoxication, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, or incompetency; or • The ALJ has committed any act that involves moral turpitude or oppression in office. Prior to filing a complaint, the Director shall notify the ALJ in writing of the reasons for the complaint. Special provisions are included if the reason for the complaint is willful neglect of duty or incompetency. Upon a finding by the AHC that the grounds for disciplinary action are met, the Director may, singly or in combination, issue the disciplinary actions against the ALJ, as provided in the act, including removal or suspension from office. Upon a finding that there are no grounds for disciplinary action, the ALJ shall immediately resume duties and shall receive any attorney's fees due under current law. An ALJ may be suspended without pay, without notice, at the discretion of the Director if: • The ALJ commits a crime for which the ALJ is being held without bond for a period of more than 14 days; • The ALJ's license to practice law has been suspended or revoked; or • A declaration of incapacity by a court of competent jurisdiction has been made with respect to the ALJ. PAYMENT AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES (Sections 287.615, 287.812, and 287.835) The act provides that the compensation for ALJs and chief administrative law judges shall be determined solely by the rate outlined in law and shall not increase when pay raises for executive employees are appropriated. The salary premium for chief ALJs is increased from $5,000 to $10,000. The act furthermore repeals reference to the position of Chief Legal Counsel. The act repeals a prohibition on the payment of any retirement benefits under workers' compensation law to any administrative law judge who has been removed from office by impeachment or for misconduct, or to any person who has been disbarred from the practice of law, or to the beneficiary of any such persons. These provisions are substantially similar to SB 667 (2025), HCS/HB 83 (2025), HCS/HB 123 (2025), SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), SCS/HCS/HB 615 (2025), SCS/SB 1390 (2024) and certain provisions in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024) and similar to HB 2194 (2024). REMOTE HEARINGS (Section 287.640) This act allows the Division of Workers' Compensation or any administrative law judge acting through the Division to hold any hearing by electronic means, allowing the parties, attorneys, and judges to be remote. SURCHARGE RATES (Section 287.690) Current law allows the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation to impose taxes or surcharges for different purposes relating to the administration of workers' compensation, with such tax rate being rounded up to the nearest one-half of a percentage point. This act requires the tax or surcharge rates to instead be rounded up to the nearest one-tenth of a percentage point. This provision is identical to SB 932 (2026). SCOTT SVAGERA

2026 Regular Session Introduced by David Gregory

Allows Maryland counties to adopt approval voting for county elections by local law, with required voter education and State Board rules to govern implementation.

Informal Calendar S Bills for Perfection
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 996

SB 996 — Election Law — Approval Voting — Authorization for County Elections

Status: First Reading, Senate Rules
Introduced: Jan 29, 2025 (bill text includes an effective date of June 1, 2025)
Primary sponsor(s) (from document): Senator McKay; other listed sponsors include Wakai and Chang.
Statute amended: Article — Election Law, §8–101 (Maryland Annotated Code)

Purpose / Intent

SB 996 authorizes Maryland counties to adopt approval voting for county elections. The bill is intended to give local governments a legal pathway to use an alternative voting method in which voters may endorse any number of candidates and the candidate with the most endorsements wins. The measure also requires local voter education and grants the State Board authority to adopt implementing regulations.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new subsection to §8–101 that:
    • Defines “approval voting” as a method in which voters may choose any number of candidates and the candidate chosen most often is elected.
    • Permits the governing body of a county, by local law, to adopt approval voting for elections for county executive and county legislative branch offices.
    • Requires any local law adopting approval voting to provide for an educational campaign explaining how to vote under that method.
    • Authorizes the State Board of Elections to adopt regulations governing the administration of elections conducted using approval voting.
  • Amendatory approach: inserts the new subsection into existing uniform election law language.
  • Effective date specified in the bill text: June 1, 2025.

Who would be affected

  • County governing bodies: can choose (but are not required) to adopt approval voting by passing local law.
  • County election officials and local boards of elections: would implement new ballot formats, counting procedures, and public education as required.
  • State Board of Elections: tasked with issuing regulations and guidance for administration of approval-voting elections.
  • Voters and candidates in counties that opt in: voting behavior, campaign strategy, and ballot outcomes could change where approval voting is used.
  • Vendors and election technology providers: potential need to adapt ballot design and tabulation software.

Practical and procedural implications

  • Adoption is permissive (county-level choice), so the law could create a patchwork of voting methods across the State.
  • Counties must run an educational campaign before or as they implement approval voting, which creates administrative and outreach costs.
  • The State Board’s regulations will determine detailed operational matters (ballot design, vote counting, audit procedures).
  • Implementation will require changes to ballots, pollworker training, tabulation systems, and public information materials.

Potential impacts (neutral framing)

  • Electoral dynamics: approval voting allows voters to support multiple candidates, which can reduce vote-splitting and may favor broadly acceptable/consensus candidates rather than strictly plurality winners.
  • Administrative costs: short‑term costs for technology updates and voter education; long‑term costs depend on scale and county uptake.
  • Legal/regulatory coordination: State Board regulations will be important to ensure consistency in administration and audits.

This summary focuses on the election-law portion of the provided document (authorization of approval voting for counties).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.