[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6373668,"mediaKeyId","2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403","parentId",2145667,"title","Committee hears bill to bar evictions tied solely to emergency calls","audioSeconds",647,"startMs",489000,"endMs",1136000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403&start=489&end=1136","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403/thumbnail_489000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6373668/Maryland/Committee-hears-bill-to-bar-evictions-tied-solely-to-emergency-calls","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373668-679ddfa17c4603c348ab325f92cce058/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140367&Signature=jmFva~KC8Go7Gp1LEhqEGIt4rJMCrLpLdDR6359ZaZJ3bwRWeqofp92tMPkNxHbvYI2UB2W645lDfjUUktb78LotaQCVX78dKI8Ic7bbLPPYEcHUvybfE2MqwJTBWSIPgKxFDuz-MaYnE2k1vTMkKNAGxKD7QDzDhpCdqEswT~xtNuGicfqJOMh7bOnKG0BnimdzBSufr935LWgU5clJJYwDbpqh3vnwq5gHUBwPrBD0z~T3FvMOp1DGqqDOgzFQaHOVpc4ZIGB6MEUkYtWiyTdYZK6~OM1hwjqphzemTUeI2D1RVLiosmZmBwY21LYNQG0NAjq0wAs2EzlIYrjNuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MGA - JPR","date","2025-01-23T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 125, presented to the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 23, 2025, would clarify a 2023 law that tried to stop local nuisance rules being used to penalize landlords or tenants whose properties draw repeated calls for police, fire or emergency medical service.

Supporters said the current statute as written prohibits only the enactment — not the enforcement — of certain local nuisance ordinances, creating what Senator Don Guile called “an accidental loophole.” The bill would make enforcement of those local nuisance laws impermissible where they single out people for calling emergency services, the sponsor said.

The bill’s backers told the committee that the gap can chill calls for help. “If they are being enforced against people, you’re forcing victims and survivors of intimate partner violence to choose sometimes between their own safety and possible homelessness,” Laurie Ruth, public policy director at the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, told the committee. She cited an attorney general opinion cited in outside testimony that the 2023 measure was meant to prevent enforcement as well as new enactments.

Bill Castelli, representing the Maryland Realtors, said the measure removes a perverse incentive for a landlord who faces licensing fines tied to emergency-response counts. Senator Don Guile, District 33, urged a favorable report and noted the fiscal note found the change is not anticipated to materially affect state operations or finances.

Committee members asked how the bill would interact with existing state anti-retaliation provisions for tenants (cited in testimony as real property section 8-208.1) and how to preserve local discretion to address genuinely abusive or frivolous calls. Guile said the bill is intended to prevent eviction or other penalties based solely on the quantity of calls while preserving the ability to assess context where misuse occurs.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 125 after testimony and questions from members including Senator West and Senator James.

Votes/decisions: No formal vote was recorded at the hearing.

Why it matters: Supporters said the change would reduce pressure on victims of domestic violence and households with chronic medical needs who otherwise might avoid calling for emergency help to escape fines or loss of housing.

What’s next: The sponsor requested a favorable report from the committee.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 1/23/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 125, presented Jan. 23, 2025, would bar the enforcement of local nuisance laws that penalize landlords or tenants solely because emergency responders were summoned to a property.","taxTitle","Judicial Proceedings Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15095,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373652,"Bill would raise Maryland judicial mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75",1146,4253000,5399000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403&start=4253&end=5399","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403/thumbnail_4253000.jpg","/articles/6373652/Maryland/Bill-would-raise-Maryland-judicial-mandatory-retirement-age-from-70-to-75","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373652-4538e9b77ff22e0cd368e72542c05e26/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140367&Signature=DZv-LowvkU1yjun2oUF9wa4XTZNmmukAcKcyVJ7zzLLNuXH2WM5u3jIHTBEwImEnUF7~6CXMaKx0zNF0FYlfDShLJIXIy9YeEGQEbq5~uvvOOAfcNW06PdzKIm3lK7Keumx50ToxWmg3dqOcTm-Xb9LwDuCY8dT2Nx9SxKXdic-yIz47oZzPRRkRLAkjQd4E4QTuVkbPq3ULR9PE8VGiBzWf86bZSxY260OkZk1De0wOAM2qoFti1UXm21zT0bLv6LChf42wf6bUsf0xuNOzbKA6T15i2RMhTXqU41Z4wtd8Ebet6PJFpGD4pgXOxTxOYc4twbWmSBB3cY0Y2nBn4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 74 would change Maryland’s mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75. Supporters argued the current limit is outdated and removes experienced jurists at a time when many are healthy and productive into their 70s.

C. Anthony Muse introduced the bill and asked that an intern deliver testimony; the student provided a prepared statement arguing that judges’ productivity and institutional knowledge often peak later in their careers. Former judge Ronald Jarischow testified he continued to handle complex litigation and appeals after age 70 and said extending the age preserves experienced jurists and mentoring functions on the bench.

The bill’s fiscal note was cited in committee discussion: testimony noted the state’s pension liabilities could decline if judges remained in active service longer and that actuarial projections in the fiscal note showed pension savings and reduced normal costs across the out-years. Opposing written comments from the State Bar Association were mentioned: the association cautioned that maintaining the existing retirement age can expand judicial diversity by creating earlier openings for younger lawyers.

Supporters argued that Maryland lags peers: several states either have higher judicial retirement ages or no limit. Committee members discussed tradeoffs between retention of experience and opportunities for new appointees; public commenters warned of competency risks for individual judges and urged caution. No committee vote occurred at the hearing.

","Senate Bill 74 asks the Judicial Proceedings Committee to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75, with supporters citing longer life expectancy, retention of experienced jurists and projected pension savings identified in the fiscal note.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373657,"Lawmakers weigh ban on eminent domain for lands under perpetual conservation easements",1893,2353000,4246000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403&start=2353&end=4246","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403/thumbnail_2353000.jpg","/articles/6373657/Maryland/Lawmakers-weigh-ban-on-eminent-domain-for-lands-under-perpetual-conservation-easements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373657-3daec3ca5f0b7d07f4611ccb44493028/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140367&Signature=FVNeDyvw8wrRWgxUdu87cG1C5ITr3d6X54acn37PwfaLFSNmrInOt8cuvZbuyTo0qMyzKRkOQ-ITJnsj4L-WKYWinp9zmM0u3HsyrVSNAICBCTY2RxyFEnPKz9yb7IlWY6-xWdufL5Sh5dKPPVFBgfv0YXJvROrYnuMEWopaTxNtyBYeoIlQERgFqR2f86XFU1FC-NQ3cehS97WYh-DbNnQ21nt~kd~LCUBzPtHQbDUM~6~TKnXKR4-xezmmDTTPeetoCAnzuSIxHy4MN-0YninLtOKAI1kiUKt2ZF0gDci6bb82aZg4vZkXzUvDsaQae8k1G9c2LpgBimx0M2bmfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 189, introduced Jan. 23, 2025, would bar the state and local governments from using eminent domain to take privately owned land that is subject to perpetual agricultural or conservation easements. Sponsors framed the bill as a protection of a long-standing state commitment after witnesses said transmission projects risked seizing easement-protected acreage at lower market prices.

Senator Brooks said the measure was prompted by the planned Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP), a proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line running roughly 70 miles and affecting Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties. Witnesses representing land trusts, landowners and the Maryland Farm Bureau argued that conserved farmland, forest buffers and legacy easements are public investments — in some cases backed by hundreds of millions of dollars — and that permitting eminent domain seizures undermines stewardship promises and the state’s broader conservation goals.

Joanne Frederick of StopNPRP and Michael Sonnenfeld of Land Preservation Trust offered acreage figures from project filings and emphasized permanent conservation commitments. “Maryland made a commitment to all these easement holders,” Frederick said, asking whether seizure through eminent domain would amount to a breach of that commitment. Tyler Hough of the Maryland Farm Bureau and Lindsey Thompson of the Maryland Grain Producers Association described practical farming impacts, including access and equipment constraints under a rights-of-way.

Several local officials and land-preservation advocates urged the committee to adopt amendments proposed by MAKO that would exempt broader “critical infrastructure” but explicitly exclude energy generation or transmission from that exemption; Senator Brooks said he would accept the amendment. County representatives described narrow situations (e.g., wastewater or road utility work) where limited intrusion could be necessary and sought carve-outs.

Opposition from utilities was not in the hearing room; witnesses suggested the bill could raise project costs, rerouting needs or litigation. The Department of Legislative Services’ fiscal note warned the state may have to pay amounts “far in excess of just compensation” or reroute projects. Senators discussed tradeoffs among landowner commitments, grid reliability and the fiscal and legal consequences of refusing eminent domain on conserved lands.

No vote was taken at the hearing; sponsors sought a favorable report with amendments under discussion.","Senate Bill 189 would prohibit the use of eminent domain to seize property subject to perpetual agricultural or conservation easements, prompted in part by concerns about the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP) transmission route crossing preserved land.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6373663,"Panel backs expedited eviction timelines for returning service members in testimony",1218,1144000,2362000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403&start=1144&end=2362","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2145667-80542f864772e5ae8fd04be03a89f403/thumbnail_1144000.jpg","/articles/6373663/Maryland/Panel-backs-expedited-eviction-timelines-for-returning-service-members-in-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6373663-e168296a19cbca9aa1e42cc31c18f0a6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140367&Signature=Qe0JF1txEnifE2VNCHxdTMaCwo5CPOTghwuyF4BC0ZpmA1qx7kLNeKAWOE4YimLUpQvH4~IcEZsd9~HPuBoXEudDbn53EoJyFA0CFZy4dpuFUtbhD3gpjD4Fc19QZV~le26WRPLS-T4BEu04i3fO4OzT1r2mx~Ga5t7apVou2hFvyL1fZ8lFvE5kt8EhaG4gxYSB~CJLNJRRMQwGfWtK7bqZjJ3DLrsqyWpzj2DDPkG96D0KBN-Ee6ttV6PvlXNSjLPpfXdXQpg5az0zdrBcTSsGl-mQSM3if4im4wpMLwec5Vs5nHFOqdv4aQrEG8zpO4UPjxFB-~0hgLPPtPB1aA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 32 was presented to the Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 23, 2025, to speed the eviction process when a Maryland homeowner who is on active military orders seeks to regain possession after a tenant holds over. The sponsor said delays in the current system can leave service members and families unable to reoccupy their primary home for months.

The bill would require a district court to hold an eviction proceeding within 45 days of a landlord filing a complaint. If the sheriff or constable does not serve a summons within 10 days of issuance, the bill permits service by a private process server — but only if the landlord (or spouse) is on active duty, has relocated on orders, intends to occupy the property after judgment, and submits supporting documentation.

Several witnesses described personal experience reconvening the family home weeks or months after orders. Michael Ash testified he and his family were effectively displaced for four months in 2021 after a holdover tenant delayed vacancy despite repeated legal filings; he called the delay “frustration, helplessness, anger, and abandonment.” Representatives of the Maryland Military Coalition and Maryland Military Coalition witness Matt Hill urged the committee to consider service members’ mission readiness and quality-of-life impacts.

Public Justice Center testified favorably with amendments but raised concerns about allowing private process servers, noting sheriffs are a neutral, independent party and that eviction process historically relies on mail and posting. Committee members discussed implementation options, including forms or checkboxes to identify qualifying military landlords to clerks and the judiciary’s rules committee adapting forms.

The sponsor asked for a favorable report; written testimony submitted with suggested amendments. No vote was recorded at the hearing.

","Senate Bill 32 would require district courts to schedule eviction hearings involving landlords who are active-duty service members within 45 days and allow private process servers if sheriffs fail to serve summonses in time; supporters said the rule would help service members return to their homes faster after deployments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to bar evictions tied solely to emergency calls

Bill would raise Maryland judicial mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75

Lawmakers weigh ban on eminent domain for lands under perpetual conservation easements

Panel backs expedited eviction timelines for returning service members in testimony