Shown verbatim: the complete text as captured from the official PDF posted by the Maryland General Assembly, fetched 2026-09-25. Page and line markers are part of the official record; nothing is edited or removed. This is the chaptered version. The official bill page.
WES MOORE, Governor Ch. 157
Chapter 157
(Senate Bill 255)
AN ACT concerning
Voting Rights Act of 2026 – Counties and Municipal Corporations
FOR the purpose of prohibiting the imposition or application of a method for electing the
governing body of a county or municipal corporation that impairs the ability of
members of a protected class to elect candidates of the members’ choice or influence
the outcome of an election by diluting or abridging the rights of voters who are
members of a protected class; and generally relating to voting rights of members of
protected classes in elections in counties and municipal corporations.
BY adding to
Article – Election Law
Section 15.7–101 through 15.7–107 to be under the new title “Title 15.7. Voting
Rights – Counties and Municipal Corporations”
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2022 Replacement Volume and 2025 Supplement)
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND,
That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article – Election Law
TITLE 15.7. VOTING RIGHTS – COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
15.7–101.
(A) IN THIS TITLE THE FOLLOWING WORDS HAVE THE MEANINGS
INDICATED.
(B) “POLARIZED VOTING” MEANS VOTING IN WHICH THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE IN THE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES OR OTHER ELECTORAL CHOICES THAT
ARE PREFERRED BY VOTERS IN A PROTECTED CLASS AND IN THE CHOICE OF
CANDIDATES AND ELECTORAL CHOICES THAT ARE PREFERRED BY ANOTHER CLASS
OR SET OF CLASSES.
(C) “PROTECTED CLASS” MEANS A CLASS OF VOTERS WHO ARE MEMBERS
OF A RACE, COLOR, OR LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUP OR A CLASS OF TWO OR MORE
OF THOSE GROUPS.
15.7–102.
–1–
Ch. 157 2026 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(A) THIS TITLE APPLIES ONLY TO ELECTIONS IN A COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION.
(B) THIS TITLE DOES NOT APPLY TO STATEWIDE ELECTIONS.
15.7–103.
(A) A METHOD FOR ELECTING THE GOVERNING BODY OF A COUNTY OR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MAY NOT BE IMPOSED OR APPLIED IN A MANNER THAT
IMPAIRS THE ABILITY OF MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS TO ELECT CANDIDATES
OF THE MEMBERS’ CHOICE OR THE MEMBERS’ ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE
OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION AS A RESULT OF THE DILUTION OR THE ABRIDGEMENT
OF THE RIGHTS OF VOTERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS.
(B) A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION IS ESTABLISHED IF:
(1) ELECTIONS IN A COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EXHIBIT
POLARIZED VOTING; AND
(2) THE METHOD OF ELECTION DILUTES OR ABRIDGES THE VOTING
STRENGTH OF MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS TO ELECT A CANDIDATE OF THE
MEMBERS’ CHOICE OR THE MEMBERS’ ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN
ELECTION, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE EXISTENCE OF ONE OR MORE METHODS OF
ELECTION THAT COULD BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ADOPTED THAT WOULD LIKELY
MITIGATE THE DILUTION.
15.7–104.
(A) TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS POLARIZED VOTING UNDER §
15.7–103(B)(1) OF THIS TITLE, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER:
(1) THE METHODOLOGIES FOR ESTIMATING GROUP VOTING
BEHAVIOR, AS APPROVED IN FEDERAL CASE LAW, TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965;
(2) ELECTIONS OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY OR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION;
(3) BALLOT QUESTION ELECTIONS;
(4) ELECTIONS IN WHICH AT LEAST ONE CANDIDATE IS A MEMBER OF
A PROTECTED CLASS; AND
–2–
WES MOORE, Governor Ch. 157
(5) OTHER ELECTORAL CHOICES THAT AFFECT THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS.
(B) (1) ELECTIONS THAT ARE CONDUCTED BEFORE THE FILING OF AN
ACTION TO ENFORCE § 15.7–103(A) OF THIS TITLE ARE MORE PROBATIVE TO
ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF POLARIZED VOTING THAN ELECTIONS CONDUCTED
AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION.
(2) THE FOLLOWING MAY NOT PRECLUDE A FINDING OF POLARIZED
VOTING THAT RESULTS IN AN UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR A PROTECTED CLASS TO
ELECT CANDIDATES OF THE MEMBERS’ CHOICE:
(I) THE ELECTION OF CANDIDATES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A
PROTECTED CLASS AND WHO WERE ELECTED BEFORE THE FILING OF AN ACTION TO
ENFORCE § 15.7–103(A) OF THIS TITLE;
(II) NONQUANTITATIVE OR NONSTATISTICAL EVIDENCE; OR
(III) LOW VOTER TURNOUT OR VOTER REGISTRATION RATES
AMONG MEMBERS OF THE PROTECTED CLASS.
(3) TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF POLARIZED VOTING, THE
COURT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO:
(I) USE A SET NUMBER OR COMBINATION OF ELECTIONS; OR
(II) CONSIDER THE CAUSES OF OR REASONS FOR POLARIZED
VOTING, INCLUDING PARTISAN EXPLANATIONS OR DISCRIMINATORY INTENT.
(C) THE FACT THAT MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS ARE NOT
GEOGRAPHICALLY COMPACT OR CONCENTRATED MAY NOT PRECLUDE A FINDING OF
POLARIZED VOTING OR A VIOLATION OF § 15.7–103(A) OF THIS TITLE, BUT IT MAY
BE A FACTOR THAT IS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY.
15.7–105.
IN DETERMINING WHETHER A VIOLATION OF § 15.7–103(A) OF THIS TITLE HAS
OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO A PROTECTED CLASS, THE COURT MAY CONSIDER
EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO WHETHER PROTECTED CLASS MEMBERS ARE VULNERABLE
TO OR OTHERWISE AT RISK OF VOTING DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING:
(1) THE HISTORY AND EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE
PROTECTED CLASS; AND
–3–
Ch. 157 2026 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(2) THE EXTENT TO WHICH PROTECTED CLASS MEMBERS ENCOUNTER
BARRIERS, DISPARITIES, OR HOSTILITY REGARDING POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
AND CIVIC LIFE.
15.7–106.
(A) THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANY OTHER PERSON MAY
BRING AN ACTION TO ENFORCE § 15.7–103 OF THIS TITLE IN THE COUNTY WHERE
THE VIOLATION ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES, OR
OTHER RELIEF.
(B) (1) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION, IF THE COURT
FINDS A VIOLATION OF THIS TITLE, THE COURT SHALL HAVE BROAD AUTHORITY TO
ORDER APPROPRIATE REMEDIES THAT ARE TAILORED TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION.
(2) A COURT MAY NOT ORDER THE ADOPTION OF A METHOD OF
ELECTION THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE METHODS OF ELECTION IN USE IN
COUNTIES IN THE STATE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE RELEVANT JURISDICTION.
(C) (1) THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER REMEDIES PROPOSED BY ANY
PARTIES TO THE ACTION OR INTERESTED PARTIES.
(2) THE COURT MAY NOT GIVE DEFERENCE OR PRIORITY TO A
PROPOSED REMEDY BECAUSE IT IS PROPOSED BY A COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION.
(D) A COURT MAY GRANT PRELIMINARY RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER THIS
SECTION REGARDING AN UPCOMING ELECTION IF THE COURT DETERMINES:
(1) THAT THE PARTY IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT TO SUCCEED ON THE
MERITS; AND
(2) IT IS POSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY THAT
WOULD RESOLVE THE VIOLATION ALLEGED UNDER THIS SECTION BEFORE THE
ELECTION.
15.7–107.
(A) IN AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THIS TITLE, THE COURT MAY AWARD
REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS, INCLUDING EXPERT
WITNESS FEES AND EXPENSES TO A PRIVATE PLAINTIFF THAT PREVAILED IN THE
ACTION.
–4–
WES MOORE, Governor Ch. 157
(B) A PRIVATE PLAINTIFF WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE PREVAILED IN AN
ACTION WHEN, AS A RESULT OF THE ACTION, THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION YIELDS SOME OR ALL OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE ACTION.
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That, if a court issues a holding
that affects the application of a provision of this Act, the ruling does not affect other
provisions or any other application of this Act that can be given effect without the affected
provision or application, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared
severable.
SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act is an emergency
measure, is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health or safety, has
been passed by a yea and nay vote supported by three–fifths of all the members elected to
each of the two Houses of the General Assembly, and shall take effect from the date it is
enacted.
Approved by the Governor, April 28, 2026.
–5–Every fact on this page links to its source, starting with the official bill record.