Maryland State Laws
✅ Law #1: HB 1294 / Chapter 847 — Regulating Earned Wage Access Products
Law / Bill: HB 1294 — Subjecting certain earned wage access products to the Maryland Consumer Loan Law. Passed in 2025 as Chapter 847. (LegiScan)
Official Title: Subjecting certain earned wage access products to the Maryland Consumer Loan Law and other provisions regulating entities providing consumer credit; restricting the acceptance of tips by certain lenders under certain circumstances. (LegiScan)
Effective: Enacted May 25, 2025. (LegiScan)
📝 What HB 1294 Does
What it does:
Cost to taxpayers / state budget:
Minimal direct cost to the state; largely regulatory / oversight.
Entities offering these wage advance services will face compliance costs.
Who it helps/affects:
Workers using earned wage access services (they get more protections).
Financial firms / lenders that offer these services (they must follow stricter rules).
Regulators / consumer protection agencies.
Who sponsored / initiated it:
Introduced in Maryland House, passed by General Assembly. Specific sponsor names in bill record. (LegiScan)
Who opposed it / concerns raised:
Some fintech companies may oppose stricter regulation (cost, operational burden).
Possible concerns about slowing down access or increasing costs for consumers if providers pass on compliance costs.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Strengthens consumer protections in a growing area of wage advance products.
May prevent predatory practices or hidden costs.
Helps ensure earned wage access isn’t used as a loophole for payday-lender-style abuses.
❌ Cons:
Could increase cost for providers, which might reduce available options or slow service.
Risk that protections add complexity for small providers.
Possibly limit some products that lenders say help people with cash flow issues.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
HB 1294 brings earned wage access services under Maryland’s consumer lending rules as of May 2025—giving workers more protection, though possibly increasing costs for lenders and users.
✅ Law #2: SB 239 — Repeal of Cyber-security Preparedness Requirement for Local Governments et al.
Law / Bill: SB 239 — Chapter 167, 2025 effective laws. (Maryland General Assembly)
Official Title: Repeal of duplicated requirement for each county government, local school system, and local health department (in consultation with local emergency manager) to create/update a cybersecurity preparedness & response plan and complete assessments at frequencies established by the Department of IT. (Maryland General Assembly)
Effective: July 1, 2025 (as part of laws effective that day). (Maryland General Assembly)
📝 What SB 239 Does
What it does:
Removes a requirement that counties, local school systems, and health departments prepare/update cybersecurity preparedness/response plans and assessments, where duplicative or already covered elsewhere. (Maryland General Assembly)
Cost to taxpayers / state budget:
Reduces administrative burden and cost for local governments and agencies.
May shift risk if gaps in preparedness are not covered by other laws or oversight.
Who it helps/affects:
Local governments, school districts, health departments (less required paperwork).
The Department of Information Technology (state level) in oversight / coordination.
Constituents/community, to extent cybersecurity preparedness affects service reliability/resilience.
Who sponsored / initiated it:
By request (departmental) through the Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee. (Maryland General Assembly)
Who opposed it / concerns raised:
Some may argue that cybersecurity is too important to reduce oversight or remove requirements.
Concern that removing duplicative laws may still leave gaps or reduce accountability.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Reduces excess administrative burden and duplication across local/state levels.
Saves time/resources for local agencies.
Streamlines rules and removes mandates that overlap.
❌ Cons:
Potential weakening of cybersecurity readiness.
Possible confusion about which entities are responsible for what.
Risk that without those requirements being enforced elsewhere, vulnerabilities may go unaddressed.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
As of July 1, 2025, Maryland’s SB 239 repeals duplicated cybersecurity planning mandates for local agencies—cutting some red tape, but introducing risk if gaps remain unfilled.
✅ Law #3: HB 0001 — “See Someone, Save Someone Act” (Human Trafficking Training / Response)
Law / Bill: HB 0001 — Chapter 437, 2025 Regular Session. (Maryland General Assembly)
Official Title: Department of Transportation — Human Trafficking Awareness, Training, and Response (“See Someone, Save Someone Act”) (Maryland General Assembly)
Effective: Effective date generally scheduled (usually July 1 for many of the 2025 statutes) unless otherwise noted. Confirmed as Chapter 437. (Maryland General Assembly)
📝 What HB 0001 Does
What it does:
Requires the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) to provide awareness training, response procedures, etc., for human trafficking situations. (Maryland General Assembly)
The “See Someone, Save Someone” branding suggests a public awareness / reporting/response component to empower transit workers / agencies.
Cost to taxpayers / state budget:
Costs for training, creating materials, implementing response protocols.
Likely modest relative to state budget, spread across MDOT’s existing agencies.
Who it helps/affects:
Victims of human trafficking (improved recognition and response).
Transit workers / MDOT employees who receive training.
Agencies responsible for public safety in transport areas.
Who sponsored / initiated it:
Passed by both chambers in Maryland legislature; signed into law. Sponsor name in bill record. (Maryland General Assembly)
Who opposed it / concerns raised:
Typically, human trafficking bills have broad support; opposition likely minimal.
Some may argue about cost of implementation or scope of training requirements.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Enhances awareness and capacity to respond to human trafficking.
Educates transit workers who are likely to see or be first to encounter trafficking.
May strengthen victim protections and reduce harm.
❌ Cons:
Requires funding and ongoing training; if underfunded, implementation may be weak.
Possible operational burdens for transportation agencies.
Measuring effectiveness may be difficult.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Maryland’s “See Someone, Save Someone Act” mandates human trafficking training & awareness for MDOT as of mid-2025 — promising safer transit environments, though relying on good funding and follow-through.
✅ Law #4: Tax and Budget Changes Effective July 1, 2025 — Various Across Maryland
Law / Bill: Part of the budget & revenue-related bills, effective July 1, 2025. (“Maryland’s 2025 new laws…” as summarized) (Axios)
Official Title: Multiple laws raising taxes/fees on cannabis, sports betting, rental vehicles, vehicle excise, emissions, adjusting items such as high-income tax brackets, phasing-out itemized deductions, expanding crisis hotline and public services. (Axios)
Effective: Generally July 1, 2025 unless specified otherwise. (Axios)
📝 What the Budget / Tax Changes Do
What it does:
Raises taxes/fees on cannabis sales, sports betting, vehicle excise, emissions, rental vehicles. (Axios)
Increased taxes or adjustments for high-income earners; phasing out certain itemized deductions. (Axios)
Expands support services: establishes/strengthens Maryland’s 988 suicide / crisis hotline and related mental health crisis supports. (Axios)
Pilots program to help unemployed residents who owe child support find jobs. (Axios)
Cost to taxpayers / state budget:
State gains revenue from new taxes/fees and increased tax rates.
Some cost to implement the programs (crisis hotline, job-support pilot).
Likely net positive revenue, used to address budget shortfalls and fund services.
Who it helps/affects:
Residents who do not use those taxed services or who are low/middle income (but may be affected by price increases).
High-income individuals facing higher taxes.
Individuals who rely on mental health/crisis services.
Unemployed residents with child support obligations.
Who sponsored / initiated it:
Part of the Governor’s budget package and legislative consensus in 2025 session. Legislative leadership and Governor Moore. (Beveridge & Diamond PC)
Who opposed it / concerns raised:
Some taxpayers object to more taxes on consumer goods and services.
Concerns about inflationary effects or price increases.
Budget watchdogs sometimes warn about expanding services without sustainable revenue.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Increases state revenue to fund critical services.
bolsters mental health crisis response, which many advocates see as under-supported.
Helps improve public safety and social support via the 988 system, job-support programs, etc.
❌ Cons:
More expenses for residents via taxes/fees.
Potential for negative economic side-effects in sectors heavily taxed (e.g. sports betting, cannabis).
Budget risk if expected revenue doesn’t materialize.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Effective July 1, 2025, Maryland’s new budget raises taxes/fees on things like cannabis, sports betting, and vehicles, and invests more into mental health crisis services, job-support for unpaid child support — balancing revenue growth with expanded state services.