Maryland · individual fact

Maryland prices and inflation

Compare Maryland’s price levels, category costs, and changes in its regional price deflator.

BLS does not publish a statewide Maryland CPI or a complete 50-state CPI cohort. The statewide comparisons here use BEA regional price parities and its implicit regional price deflator. They are explicitly labeled and are not CPI.

All-items price level1052024 · #7 of 50 · highest first
Goods price level102.52024 · #9 of 50 · highest first
Housing-rent price level121.12024 · #9 of 50 · highest first

Maryland over time

Explore Maryland readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Maryland officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Maryland effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Maryland change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

All-items price level Maryland · source units
MarylandPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

All-items price level2024: 10599104108.9Maryland, 2014: 107.9Maryland, 2015: 107.9Maryland, 2016: 107.2Maryland, 2017: 106.8Maryland, 2018: 106.3Maryland, 2019: 105.1Maryland, 2020: 106.4Maryland, 2021: 106.1Maryland, 2022: 104.9Maryland, 2023: 104.6Maryland, 2024: 105201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 29National context · Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupt fuel supplies · 2005-08-29Katrina / RitaNational context · Global food and energy price surge · 2008-07-15Food / energy surgeNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Fed cuts rates near zero during the crisis · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Renewed global food and oil price pressures · 2011-04-11Commodity pressuresNational context · U.S. drought damages crops and raises food costs · 2012-08-10U.S. droughtNational context · Oil-price collapse lowers energy inflation · 2014-11-27Oil-price collapseNational context · Fed raises rates after the near-zero period · 2015-12-16Fed rate liftoffNational context · Hurricanes Harvey and Irma disrupt fuel markets · 2017-08-25Harvey / IrmaNational context · U.S.–China tariff escalation · 2018-07-06U.S.–China tariffsNational context · Fed cuts rates amid muted inflation · 2019-07-31Fed cuts rates in 2019National context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Fed emergency rate cut and asset purchases · 2020-03-15Fed emergency easingNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan expands pandemic support · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Reopening demand meets supply and chip shortages · 2021-07-09Reopening / shortagesNational context · Avian influenza disrupts egg supplies · 2022-02-09Bird flu / egg supplyNational context · Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine · 2022-02-24Russia invades UkraineNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increases beginNational context · Banking stress raises credit and inflation uncertainty · 2023-03-22Banking stressNational context · Supply recovery and slower rent growth ease inflation pressures · 2023-08-25Supply / rent easingNational context · Red Sea shipping disruption raises supply risks · 2024-02-22Red Sea shippingNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates in September 2024 · 2024-09-18Fed rate cutNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02U.S. tariff announcementNational context · Federal shutdown interrupts CPI collection · 2025-10-01Shutdown / CPI data gapMaryland · Maryland directs emergency energy-assistance funding · 2025-11-07Maryland energy assistanceMaryland · Maryland orders energy reliability and affordability reviews · 2025-12-19Maryland energy planningNational context · Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz energy disruption · 2026-02-28Iran / Hormuz shock● Maryland Legislature · 3522● U.S. Congress · Maryland delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 82■ Maryland agencies · 52005-08-012026-07-31

48 of 48 reviewed Maryland actions match · 45 date markers shown. 29 major events shown separately.

Maryland · 2024: 105 · Rank #7 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year. Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Maryland with the published U.S. category value shown. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Maryland All-items price level · source units
PeriodMarylandRankU.S. benchmark
2024105#7 of 50100
2023104.6#9 of 50100
2022104.9#10 of 50100
2021106.1#7 of 50100
2020106.4#7 of 50100
2019105.1#7 of 50100
2018106.3#7 of 50100
2017106.8#8 of 50100
2016107.2#7 of 50100
2015107.9#5 of 50100
2014107.9#5 of 50100
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Maryland · state comparison

How does Maryland’s cost of living compare?

The U.S. all-items level is 100. Each category uses its own published U.S. benchmark. Compare the same category and year.

Maryland · 2024105
Maryland rank#7among all 50 states
U.S. price level100Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

All-items price level

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year.

Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Maryland with the published U.S. category value shown.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Maryland
All-items price level history in Maryland98.8104109.120142024
2024 · Maryland: 105 · Rank #7 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Maryland All-items price level history
PeriodMarylandCompare
2014107.9
2015107.9
2016107.2
2017106.8
2018106.3
2019105.1
2020106.4
2021106.1
2022104.9
2023104.6
2024105

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Maryland stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Maryland has a dark outline.

Lower value · 86.9Higher value · 110.7Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Maryland · 1052024 · Rank #7 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
All-items price level · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California110.7—
#2Hawaii110—
#3New Jersey108.8—
#4New York107.9—
#5Washington107—
#6Massachusetts105.8—
#7Maryland · your comparison105—
#8New Hampshire104.2—
#9Connecticut103.6—
#10Florida103.4—
#11Oregon103.4—
#12Colorado103.1—
#13Alaska102.4—
#14Rhode Island102.3—
#15Virginia101.1—
#16Arizona100.7—
#17Nevada100—
#18Illinois100—
#19Delaware99.8—
#20Utah98.9—
#21Minnesota98.6—
#22Vermont98—
#23Pennsylvania97.6—
#24Texas97.1—
#25Maine97.1—
#26Georgia96.3—
#27Michigan96.2—
#28Idaho95.5—
#29Montana94.6—
#30North Carolina94.3—
#31Wisconsin94.1—
#32South Carolina93.7—
#33Indiana93.3—
#34Ohio92.8—
#35Wyoming92.7—
#36New Mexico92.2—
#37Tennessee91.9—
#38Missouri90.8—
#39Kentucky90.2—
#40Nebraska90.1—
#41Kansas90.1—
#42West Virginia89.5—
#43North Dakota89—
#44Alabama88.8—
#45South Dakota88.6—
#46Louisiana88.2—
#47Oklahoma87.8—
#48Iowa87.8—
#49Mississippi87—
#50Arkansas86.9—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Maryland · state comparison

How much have prices changed?

This is BEA’s implicit regional price deflator, derived from regional price parities and the national PCE price index.

Maryland · 20243%
Maryland rank#17among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark2.6%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Annual change in regional price deflator

Year-over-year change in the BEA implicit regional price deflator.

An annual regional inflation measure; different from BLS CPI-U. Changes can reflect regional price parity estimates and revisions as well as national inflation.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Maryland
Annual change in regional price deflator history in Maryland-0.8%3.4%7.5%20152024
2024 · Maryland: 3% · Rank #17 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Maryland Annual change in regional price deflator history
PeriodMarylandCompare
20150.2%
20160.4%
20171.3%
20181.6%
20190.3%
20202.4%
20213.8%
20225.3%
20233.5%
20243%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Maryland stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Maryland has a dark outline.

Lower value · 0.8%Higher value · 6.7%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Maryland · 3%2024 · Rank #17 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Annual change in regional price deflator · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Montana6.7%—
#2Idaho6.2%—
#3Utah6%—
#4Nevada4.8%—
#5Michigan4.7%—
#6New Mexico4%—
#7Indiana4%—
#8Wyoming3.9%—
#9Illinois3.9%—
#10Colorado3.8%—
#11Delaware3.7%—
#12Ohio3.6%—
#13Wisconsin3.6%—
#14North Dakota3.5%—
#15Vermont3.5%—
#16South Dakota3.1%—
#17Maryland · your comparison3%—
#18Minnesota3%—
#19Kentucky2.9%—
#20South Carolina2.9%—
#21Hawaii2.9%—
#22Rhode Island2.8%—
#23Mississippi2.8%—
#24Kansas2.8%—
#25Pennsylvania2.8%—
#26Arkansas2.8%—
#27New York2.7%—
#28Arizona2.6%—
#29North Carolina2.5%—
#30Texas2.5%—
#31New Jersey2.5%—
#32West Virginia2.5%—
#33Nebraska2.4%—
#34Georgia2.4%—
#35Florida2.4%—
#36Virginia2.4%—
#37Tennessee2.4%—
#38Alabama2.3%—
#39Missouri2.3%—
#40Louisiana2%—
#41Connecticut2%—
#42Alaska1.7%—
#43Maine1.7%—
#44Oklahoma1.6%—
#45Iowa1.5%—
#46New Hampshire1.4%—
#47Washington1.3%—
#48California1.3%—
#49Oregon1.2%—
#50Massachusetts0.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Maryland · state comparison

Are incomes keeping up with prices?

Real personal income accounts for national inflation and regional price differences.

Maryland · 2024$61,111
Maryland rank#15among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$59,195Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Real personal income per person

Regional price-adjusted and inflation-adjusted personal income per resident.

Constant 2017 dollars. This differs from household wages, disposable income, and the national real-hourly-earnings measure.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Maryland
Real personal income per person history in Maryland$45.64K$54.39K$63.13K20142024
2024 · Maryland: $61,111 · Rank #15 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Maryland Real personal income per person history
PeriodMarylandCompare
2014$50,722
2015$52,499
2016$53,830
2017$54,690
2018$55,341
2019$56,850
2020$58,410
2021$59,999
2022$58,193
2023$59,922
2024$61,111

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Maryland stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Maryland has a dark outline.

Lower value · $48.47KHigher value · $75.5KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Maryland · $61,1112024 · Rank #15 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Real personal income per person · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Wyoming$75,501—
#2Connecticut$74,254—
#3Massachusetts$71,629—
#4South Dakota$69,153—
#5Nebraska$65,297—
#6North Dakota$65,271—
#7Colorado$65,223—
#8New Hampshire$64,632—
#9Washington$64,421—
#10New York$64,153—
#11New Jersey$63,142—
#12California$63,028—
#13Minnesota$62,039—
#14Virginia$61,914—
#15Maryland · your comparison$61,111—
#16Illinois$60,333—
#17Alaska$60,272—
#18Iowa$60,144—
#19Montana$59,203—
#20Kansas$59,172—
#21Vermont$58,893—
#22Oklahoma$58,692—
#23Pennsylvania$58,620—
#24Tennessee$58,582—
#25Wisconsin$58,273—
#26Texas$58,219—
#27Missouri$57,850—
#28Maine$57,480—
#29Florida$57,131—
#30Louisiana$56,789—
#31Nevada$56,503—
#32North Carolina$56,310—
#33Ohio$56,232—
#34Rhode Island$55,878—
#35Indiana$55,562—
#36Oregon$55,451—
#37Arkansas$55,219—
#38Delaware$55,185—
#39Utah$55,116—
#40Michigan$53,569—
#41Georgia$52,952—
#42Arizona$52,890—
#43Idaho$52,816—
#44South Carolina$52,463—
#45Kentucky$52,290—
#46Hawaii$52,272—
#47Alabama$52,216—
#48New Mexico$51,121—
#49West Virginia$50,051—
#50Mississippi$48,465—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living from FactVote’s Maryland candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

12 statements from 8 candidates

2026 Maryland Governor / Lt. Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 4 statements

Dan Cox

4 statements

Republican · Governor / Lt. Governor · MD

CPI / inflation mention

Dan Cox is running for Governor because he's deeply concerned about the financial burden of high inflation and national debt on Marylanders and all Americans. He believes in protecting the American dream and securing our borders to combat deadly increases in fentanyl trafficking, preserving our comm…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Immigration and border policy

Candidate campaign source

Dan Cox is running for Governor because he's deeply concerned about the financial burden of high inflation and national debt on Marylanders and all Americans. He believes in protecting the American dream and securing our borders to combat deadly increases in fentanyl trafficking, preserving our communities and resources.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Cox — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
View 3 more statements from Dan Cox
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Dan Cox will work to cut taxes and fees, and reduce the cost of living. He will provide incentives for young people to be able to build their futures here in Maryland, and reduce property taxes so seniors can retire here.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Dan Cox will work to cut taxes and fees, and reduce the cost of living. He will provide incentives for young people to be able to build their futures here in Maryland, and reduce property taxes so seniors can retire here.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Cox — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Dan Cox will reverse the added, crushing fees that have been handed to us during this current administration. He plans to reduce the corporate and income tax rate to 4.9%. He will cut taxes by being present in Annapolis and being your voice in the statehouse. This is a simple, but highly effective m…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, technology, and environment

Candidate campaign source

Dan Cox will reverse the added, crushing fees that have been handed to us during this current administration. He plans to reduce the corporate and income tax rate to 4.9%. He will cut taxes by being present in Annapolis and being your voice in the statehouse. This is a simple, but highly effective method for passing legislation quickly that benefits all Marylanders. Dan Cox will help reduce the cost of living by providing resources to business owners and incentives to young people so that business owners will have the freedom to make more and hire more employees; so that groceries and electric bills come down, and so that retirees can stay in Maryland without being taxed out of their homes.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Cox — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Since Wes Moore took office as Governor, Marylanders have been subjected to unsustainable increases in energy and power costs. We are committed to providing clean energy solutions that work without overwhelming our electric grid while reducing the outrageous increases in energy costs. Our focus is o…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, technology, and environment

Candidate campaign source

Since Wes Moore took office as Governor, Marylanders have been subjected to unsustainable increases in energy and power costs. We are committed to providing clean energy solutions that work without overwhelming our electric grid while reducing the outrageous increases in energy costs. Our focus is on achieving self-sustaining energy, including expanding household energy competition access, providing immediate incentives for re-opening and/or re-designing with clean LNG the Maryland power plants that the Wes Moore's administration has closed, while studying world-class SMRs for safe and clean implementation for Maryland, rather than relying on purchases off the power grid from other states which is spiking our rates.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Cox — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

2026 Maryland U.S. House — District 1 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Dan Schwartz

1 statement

Democratic · U.S. House District 1 · MD

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Work to lower energy costs by supporting local and regional projects including US Wind’s Project off Ocean City. Rep. Harris has sought to kill permitted projects that will bring much needed energy, jobs, and investment in our state.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, technology, and environment

Candidate campaign source

Work to lower energy costs by supporting local and regional projects including US Wind’s Project off Ocean City. Rep. Harris has sought to kill permitted projects that will bring much needed energy, jobs, and investment in our state.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Dan Schwartz — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 Maryland U.S. House — District 2 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 2 statements

Dave Wallace

2 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 2 · MD

CPI / inflation mention

The Cure for Inflation-GOLD!More preciselyThe Gold Standard Act!I am the candidate who will Introduce and be the lead sponsor of the Gold Standard Act.From the moment of the Nixon Shock — the moment America went off the Gold Standard— in 1971, The American Dollar Lost 85% in the 10 years hence. That…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

The Cure for Inflation-GOLD!More preciselyThe Gold Standard Act!I am the candidate who will Introduce and be the lead sponsor of the Gold Standard Act.From the moment of the Nixon Shock — the moment America went off the Gold Standard— in 1971, The American Dollar Lost 85% in the 10 years hence. That is, from 1971-1981 you and I lost 85% of our buying power! We need to bring sanity to our American Monetary Policy. So I propose and will be the chief Sponsor of the original Gold Standard Act of 1984. Originally introduced by Jack Kemp, and co-sponsored by Congressmen Vin Weber, Connie Mack and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. With one stroke of the pen, we will handcuff the Entire Federal Reserve. We will save the US Economy! We will prevent the further erosion of the US Dollar. Our economy’s furnace will be regulated by the Gold Standard Thermostat. We will arrest the devaluation of the dollar using the precious metal, Gold! Gold has withstood multiple millennia! Yet no one realized the axiom “If ain’t Broke, don’t fix it!”And in attempting to cure the ills of failed fiscal policy of the Lyndon B. Johnson presidency, namely the Fiscal imprudence of the Great Society, that imposed Socialism 1.0, the key adviser to Nixon, the egotistical, John Connolly set about the novice Nixon on “Fixing” the Monetary System by untethering the dollar. The result was the destruction of the value of our US dollar. The only person who got it was federal reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan who actually employed the de facto Gold Standard while he watched over monetary policy. He admitted so much in the most recent 5-7 years. When the idea was floated by President Trump, that he would nominate Steve Moore to the federal Reserve, the Imbeciles and liars at CNN, where Steve Worked, pulled out the knives to skewer him. They made horrible personal attacks against Steve Moore who they thought he would push to employ the Gold Standard, and that he would be a threat to their fiat currency. Fiat Currency is Government’s way of imposing taxes without one single vote of Congress!Today, we have an opportunity to change all that, I will not cower, I will not be intimidated! I will stand up for the American people, I will fight to restore the Gold Standard to protect your buying power. I will lead this crusade to protect our Dollar and all Americans buying power. We will end inflation in its tracks.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Dave Wallace — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
View 1 more statement from Dave Wallace
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Dave Wallace will fight for lower gas prices and make America Energy Independent again. He will vote for the use of energy sources wherever they happen to be, including natural gas in Maryland.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy, technology, and environment

Candidate campaign source

Dave Wallace will fight for lower gas prices and make America Energy Independent again. He will vote for the use of energy sources wherever they happen to be, including natural gas in Maryland.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Dave Wallace — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

This section matches specific inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living terms in retained, attributed source text from published Maryland candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Maryland incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Maryland legislators and Maryland’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Maryland’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

35 matching sponsorships or proposals · 21 Maryland incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Del. Adrian Boafo

Maryland House of Delegates, District 23 · D–MD

1 proposal
View proposals from Del. Adrian Boafo
Maryland Legislature · HB 1479

Labor and Employment - Minimum Wage - Increase (Maryland Raise the Wage Act)

Apr 2, 2026 · Did not pass

Del. Adrian Boafo · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Increasing the State minimum wage rate to $18 for calendar year 2028 for large employers and for calendar year 2029 for small employers; and increasing, beginning January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, for large employers and small employers, respectively, the State minimum wage rate in effect for certain periods of time based on annual growth in a certain consumer price index, as determined by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry.

The measure did not pass in its completed 2026RS session. Final recorded action: 2026-04-02, Withdrawn by Sponsor.

Why this record is included

Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Increasing the State minimum wage rate to $18 for calendar year 2028 for large employers and for calendar year 2029 for small employers; and increasing, beginning January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, for large employers and small employers, respectively, the State minimum wage rate in effect for certain periods of time based on annual growth in a certain consumer price index, as determined by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Del. Bernice Mireku-North

Maryland House of Delegates, District 14 · D–MD

2 proposals
View proposals from Del. Bernice Mireku-North
Maryland Legislature · HB 387

Comprehensive Community Safety Funding Act

Jan 31, 2025 · Did not pass

Del. Bernice Mireku-North · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Would impose an 11% excise tax on specified firearm dealers’ firearm-sale receipts and distribute revenue to designated funds, including the Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund.

The measure did not pass in its completed 2025RS session. Final recorded action: 2025-01-31, Hearing 2/13 at 1:00 p.m..

Why this record is included

The relationship concerns proposed violence-prevention funding. The tax proposal did not become law and does not establish fewer firearm deaths. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

HB 387 Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2025 Session FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE First Reader House Bill 387 (Delegate Mireku - North, et al. ) Ways and Means Comprehensive Community Safety Funding Act This bill establishes an 11% firearm excise tax on the gross receipts of a federally licensed firearms dealer derived from (1) the retail sale of firearms in the State and (2) the retail sale of firearms to State residents from a federally licensed firearms dealer that is located outside the State. The bill requires specified distributions of the revenue from the excise tax. The bill also provides for the filing of specified tax returns and for the administration of the tax by the Comptroller. The bill takes effect July 1, 2027. Fiscal Summary State Effect: Special fund revenues increase by $15.0 million in FY 2028 and by $16.2 million in FY 2030. Special fund expenditures for administrative costs increase by $2.2 million in FY 2028 and by $0.6 million in FY 2030. Future year expenditures reflect annualization and inflation. ($ in millions) FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 SF Revenue $0 $0 $15.0 $15.6 $16.2 SF Expenditure $0 $0 $2.2 $0.6 $0.6 Net Effect $0.0 $0.0 $12.8 $14.9 $15.5 Note: () = decrease; GF = general funds; FF = federal funds; SF = special funds; - = indeterminate increase; (-) = indeterminate decrease Local Effect: None. Small Business Effect: Potential meaningful. Small businesses that sell firearms will be subject to the new excise tax. However, some portion of the cost of the new tax may be passed on to the consumers through increased prices. HB 387/ Page 2 Analysis Bill Summary: The bill establishes an 11% firearm excise tax on the gross receipts of the sale of firearms in the State by a federally licensed firearms dealer located both within the State and outside the State. The bill specifies the distribution of revenue from the excise tax, administration of the excise tax by the Comptroller, filing of excise tax returns by licensed dealers, and the paying of excise taxes by licensed dealers. The excise tax does not apply to the sale of a firearm to (1) a law enforcement agency; (2) the armed forces of the United States; (3) the National Guard; (4) a law enforcement officer; (5) a retired law enforcement officer; or (6) an individual for the exclusive purpose of competition shooting or match shooting. The excise tax applies to (1) a retail sale made on or after July 1, 2027, by a federally licensed firearms dealer that is a large retailer and (2) a retail sale made by any other federally licensed firearms dealer on or after July 1, 2028. For a federally licensed firearms dealer that is located outside the State, the excise tax only applies if the federally licensed firearms dealer, during the previous calendar year or the current calendar year (1) derives gross revenue from the sale of firearms to residents of the State that exceeds $100,000 or (2) sells firearms to residents of the State for delivery into the State in 200 or more separate transactions. Distribution of the Firearm Excise Tax Revenue Revenue from the firearm excise tax must be distributed equally to the following:  the Coordinated Community Supports Partnership Fund;  the Maryland Trauma Physician Services Fund;  the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical System;  the Maryland Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Fund;  the Survivors of Homicide Victims Grant Program within the G overnor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy; and  the Center for Firearm Violence Prevention and Intervention within the Maryland Department of Health. The bill specifies that it is the intent of the General Assembly that the excise tax revenue supplement, and not supplant, any other funding for these funds required by law. HB 387/ Page 3 Firearm Excise Tax Returns A federally licensed firearms dealer must complete, under oath, and file an excise tax return with the Comptroller (1) on or before the 25th day of the month that follows the month in which the person sells any firearms within the boundaries of the State or to residents of the State and (2) if specified by the Comptroller, by regulation, on other dates for each month in which the licensee does not sell any firearms in the State or to residents of the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must file with the return an attachment that states any information required by the Comptroller to determine the gross receipts derived from the sales of firearms in the State or to residents of the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must maintain records of the firearms sold in the State or to residents of the State and the basis for the calculation of the excise tax owed. Payment of Firearm Excise Taxes Each person required to file an excise tax return must pay the firearm excise tax in the manner required by the Comptroller, with the return that covers the period in which the person sold firearms in the State or to residents of the State. If a corporation, other than a nonstock, nonprofit corporation, is required to pay the excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any officer of the corporation who exercises direct control over its fiscal management. If a limited liability company, or limited liability partnership, including a limited partnership registered as a limited liability limited partnership, is required to pay the excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any person who exercises direct control over the fiscal management of the limited liability company or limited liability partnership. The Comptroller may require a person subject to the firearms excise tax to post security for the excise tax in the amount that the Comptroller determines. A person who willfully fails to file a required firearm excise tax return is guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction, is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to five years or both. Definitions A federally licensed firearms dealer is a person licensed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to deal in firearms. Gross receipts are defined as the total amount of the sale or lease or rental price of the retail sale by a person, valued in money, whether received in money or otherwise, without any deduction for (1) the cost of the property sold; (2) the cost of the materials used, labor or
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Maryland Legislature · HB 935

Comprehensive Community Safety Funding Act

Feb 2, 2024 · Did not pass

Del. Bernice Mireku-North · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Would impose an 11% excise tax on specified firearm, accessory and ammunition sales and distribute revenue to designated funds, including the Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund.

The measure did not pass in its completed 2024RS session. Final recorded action: 2024-02-02, Hearing 2/22 at 1:00 p.m..

Why this record is included

The relationship concerns proposed violence-prevention funding. The tax proposal did not become law and does not establish fewer firearm deaths. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

HB 935 Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2024 Session FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE First Reader House Bill 935 (Delegate Mireku - North, et al. ) Ways and Means Comprehensive Community Safety Funding Act This bill establishes an 11% firearm, firearm accessory, and ammunition (FFAA) excise tax on the gross receipts of a federally licensed firearms dealer derived from the sales of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State. The bill requires specified distributions of the revenue from the excise tax. The bill provides for the filing of specified tax returns and for the administration of the tax by the Comptroller. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025. Fiscal Summary State Effect: Special fund revenues increase by approximately $22.4 million in FY 2026 and by $25.0 million in FY 2029. Special fund expenditures for administrative costs increase by $3.7 million in FY 2026 and by $716,500 in FY 2029. Future year expenditures reflect annualization and inflation. ($ in millions) FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 SF Revenue $0 $22.4 $23.2 $24.1 $25.0 SF Expenditure $0 $3.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 Net Effect $0.0 $18.7 $22.6 $23.4 $24.3 Note:() = decrease; GF = general funds; FF = federal funds; SF = special funds; - = indeterminate increase; (-) = indeterminate decrease Local Effect: None. Small Business Effect: Potential meaningful. Small businesses that sell firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition will be subject to the new excise tax. However, some portion of the cost of the new tax may be passed on to the consumers through increased prices. HB 935/ Page 2 Analysis Bill Summary: The bill establishes an 11% FFAA excise tax on the gross receipts of the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State by a federally licensed firearms dealer. The bill specifies the distribution of revenue from the excise tax, administration of the excise tax by the Comptroller, filing of excise tax returns by licensed dealers, and the paying of excise taxes by licensed dealers. Distribution of the Firearm, Firearm Accessory, and Ammunition Excise Tax Revenue Revenue from the FFAA excise tax must be distributed as follows:  44% to the Maryland Trauma Physician Services Fund;  29% to the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical System;  23% to the Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Fund;  2% to the Survivors of Homicide Victims Grant Program within the G overnor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy; and  2% to the Center for Firearm Violence Prevention and Intervention within the Maryland Department of Health. The bill specifies that it is the intent of the General Assembly that the excise tax revenue supplement, and not supplant, any other funding for these funds required by law. Firearm, Firearm Accessory, and Ammunition Excise Tax Returns A federally licensed firearms dealer must complete, under oath, and file an FFAA excise tax return with the Comptroller: (1) on or before the 25th day of the month that follows the month in which the person sells any firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition within the boundaries of the State; and (2) if specified by the Comptroller, by regulation, on other dates for each month in which the licensee does not sell any firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition in the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must file with the return an attachment that states any information required by the Comptroller to determine the gross receipts derived from the sales of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must maintain records of the firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition sold in the State and the basis for the calculation of the FFAA excise tax owed. HB 935/ Page 3 Payment of Firearm, Firearm Accessory, and Ammunition Excise Taxes Each person required to file an excise tax return must pay the FFAA excise tax in the manner required by the Comptroller, with the return that covers the period in which the person sold firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition in the State. If a corporation, other than a nonstock, nonprofit corporation, is required to pay the FFAA excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any officer of the corporation who exercises direct control over its fiscal management. If a limited liability company, or limited liability partnership, including a limited partnership registered as a limited liability limited partnership, is required to pay the FFAA excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any person who exercises direct control over the fiscal management of the limited liability company or limited liability partnership. The Comptroller may require a person subject to the FFAA excise tax to post security for the excise tax in the amount that the Comptroller determines. A person who willfully fails to file a required FFAA excise tax return is guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction, is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or imprisonment up of to five years or both. Definitions A federally licensed firearms dealer is a person licensed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to deal in firearms. A firearm accessory is: (1) a magazine or magazine loader; (2) a firearm scope or optic; (3) a stock; (4) a grip; (5) a handguard; or (6) body armor. Gross receipts are defined as the total amount of the sale or lease or rental price of the retail sale by a person, valued in money, whether received in money or otherwise, without any deduction for: (1) the cost of the property sold; (2) the cost of the materials used, labor or service cost, interest paid, losses, or any other expense; or (3) the cost of transportation of the property. Gross receipts do not include: (1) cash discounts allowed and taken on sales; (2) the sale price of property returned by customers when that amount is refunded in cash or credit unless the customer, in order to obtain the refund, is required to purchase other property at a price greater than the amount charged for the property that is returned; (3) the price received for labor or services used in installing or applying the property sold; and (4) the amount of any tax imposed by the United States, the State, a county, or a municipality on or with respect to retail sales whether imposed on the person or the consumer.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Del. Greg Wims

Maryland House of Delegates, District 39 · D–MD

1 proposal
View proposals from Del. Greg Wims
Maryland Legislature · HB 1369

Education - Minimum Wage for Education Support Professionals

Mar 5, 2025 · Did not pass

Del. Greg Wims · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Establishing a minimum wage of $25.00 to be paid by county boards of education to certain education support professionals beginning July 1, 2025; adjusting the minimum wage for education support professionals for inflation each year; and defining "education support professional" as a noncertificated public school employee designated as part of a nonsupervisory bargaining unit.

The measure did not pass in its completed 2025RS session. Final recorded action: 2025-03-05, Hearing 3/05 at 1:30 p.m..

Why this record is included

Wages and cash benefits can be components of household money income. Census income is measured before taxes, so tax relief alone is not an increase in this statistic; the provision does not determine the statewide median. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Median household income. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Establishing a minimum wage of $25.00 to be paid by county boards of education to certain education support professionals beginning July 1, 2025; adjusting the minimum wage for education support professionals for inflation each year; and defining "education support professional" as a noncertificated public school employee designated as part of a nonsupervisory bargaining unit.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Del. Jheanelle K. Wilkins

Maryland House of Delegates, District 20 · D–MD

1 proposal
View proposals from Del. Jheanelle K. Wilkins
Maryland Legislature · HB 983

Housing and Community Development - Expansion of Affordable Housing - County Grants

Mar 14, 2022 · Did not pass

Del. Jheanelle K. Wilkins · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide one-time grants to the three counties with the highest cost of living, to be used to expand affordable housing; and requiring, for fiscal year 2024, the Governor to include in the annual budget an appropriation of $60,000,000 to the Department, to carry out the Act.

The measure did not pass in its completed 2022RS session. Final recorded action: 2022-03-14, Withdrawn by Sponsor.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Maryland’s median rent. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide one-time grants to the three counties with the highest cost of living, to be used to expand affordable housing; and requiring, for fiscal year 2024, the Governor to include in the annual budget an appropriation of $60,000,000 to the Department, to carry out the Act.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Del. Lorig Charkoudian

Maryland House of Delegates, District 20 · D–MD

2 proposals
View proposals from Del. Lorig Charkoudian
Maryland Legislature · HB 398

Abundant Affordable Clean Energy - Procurement and Development (AACE Act)

Jan 16, 2025 · Did not pass

Del. Lorig Charkoudian · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Would establish incentives for development of at least 3,000 megawatts of utility-scale solar generation and at least 3,000 megawatts of small-scale solar generation, alongside other clean-energy measures.

The measure did not pass in its completed 2025RS session. Final recorded action: 2025-01-16, Hearing 2/06 at 1:00 p.m..

Why this record is included

These proposed generation-development programs concern the non-nuclear portion of the electricity-generation mix. The capacity targets are prospective and do not establish delivered output or a change in the measured nuclear share. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Nuclear share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

HB 398 Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2025 Session FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE First Reader House Bill 398 (Delegate Charkoudian) Economic Matters Abundant Affordable Clean Energy - Procurement and Development (AACE Act) This bill establishes or modifies multiple incentives and programs for clean energy and energy storage systems and redirects specified funds into an escrow account established by the Public Service Commission (PSC) (and supervised by the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA)) for ratepayer refunds or credits. A presently existing obligation or contract right may not be impaired in any way by the bill. The bill takes effect June 1, 2025. Fiscal Summary State Effect: No effect assumed in FY 2025. Special fund expenditures for PSC and the Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) increase by at least $2.6 million annually from FY 2026 through 2030; special fund revenues increase correspondingly from assessments imposed on public service companies. Special fund revenues and expenditures for MEA decrease significantly beginning as early as FY 2026. General/special fund expenditures for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) increase by $0.9 million annually from FY 2026 through 2030. General fund expenditures for the Department of General Services (DGS) may increase beginning in FY 2026. General fund revenues and special fund revenues for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund (BMFF) decrease beginning in FY 2026. The effect on State expenditures for electricity is discussed in the Additional Comments section. ($ in millions) FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 GF Revenue ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) SF Revenue $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 GF Expenditure - - - - - SF Expenditure $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 GF/SF Exp. $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 Net Effect ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) Note:() = decrease; GF = general funds; FF = federal funds; SF = special funds; - = indeterminate increase; (-) = indeterminate decrease HB 398/ Page 2 Local Effect: Local government finances and operations, including municipal electric utilities, are significantly affected, as discussed below. This bill imposes a mandate on a unit of local government. Small Business Effect: Meaningful. Analysis Bill Summary: Broadly, the bill:  establishes two rounds of applications and approvals by PSC for 150 megawatts of distribution-connected energy storage devices;  establishes a process in PSC for specified nuclear facilities to receive zero-emission credits (ZECs);  establishes the policy of the State as it relates to coordinated planning for offshore wind transmission, makes various changes to existing planning and evaluation processes, and makes a minor change to the existing DGS offshore wind procurement process;  requires PSC to establish an escrow account for ratepayer refunds or credits and redirects nearly all alternative compliance payment (ACP) revenues to the escrow account instead of the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF);  establishes the Utility Scale SREC-II Program in PSC to provide incentives for the development of at least 3,000 megawatts of utility scale solar generation;  establishes the Small Solar Facilities Incentive Program in PSC to provide incentives for the development of at least 3,000 megawatts of small-scale solar generation;  establishes a priority order for renewable energy credits (RECs) used for compliance with the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) ;  establishes two rounds of applications and approvals by PSC for 1,600 megawatts of front-of-meter transmission energy storage devices;  establishes a competitive process overseen by PSC for the procurement of SREC-IIs from qualifying (utility-scale solar) systems and REC-IIs from small hydroelectric systems and land-based wind systems, funded through a nonbypassable surcharge;  authorizes fast-track procurements for specified consultants;  redirects 75% of specified franchise tax and sales and use tax revenues associated with qualified data centers that are operational on or after January 1, 2026, to the ratepayer refund escrow account established by PSC under the bill; and  establishes the General Assembly’s support of the extension or renewal of the federal license for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. HB 398/ Page 3 Distribution-Connected Energy Storage Devices The General Assembly finds and declares that the State has a goal of reaching 150 megawatts of distribution-connected energy storage devices. PSC must notify each electric company of its proportion of the goal by July 1, 2025, and by July 1, 2026. The bill establishes two rounds of applications and related approval and construction timelines. For the first round, PSC must require each electric company to develop and implement a plan to achieve its goal by November 1, 2025. PSC must evaluate each plan, accept public comments on each plan, and issue an order for each plan that either approves the plan or approves the plan with modifications by March 1, 2026. The energy storage devices that are constructed or procured under the plan must be operational by August 1, 2027. The deadlines for the second round are one year later. PSC may extend a deadline for good cause. PSC must require each plan to demonstrate that the construction or procurement of each energy storage device (1) is beneficial in terms of cost, including demonstration of any avoided or delayed transmission, distribution, and generation costs and avoided emissions and (2) can be completed within 18 months after the plan is approved. The bill specifies requirements for third parties and electric companies that construct and/or own energy storage devices under the above provisions. Zero-Emission Credits for Nuclear Subject to specified requirements, a beneficial nuclear facility may submit an application to PSC to receive ZECs. “Beneficial nuclear facility” means a nuclear reactor that is located in and provides environmental benefits to the State. A “ ZEC ” means a payment equal to the generation attributes of one megawatt-hour of electricity that is derived from a beneficial nuclear facility, calculated as specified. The bill specifies three general requirements:  a beneficial nuclear facility may not receive ZECs during any period in which the facility receives zero-emission nuclear power production tax credits under § 13105 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022;  PSC may not offer ZECs after 2055; and  to be eligible to receive ZECs, a beneficial nuclear facility must maintain a neutral position in any labor organizing that takes place at the facility. After notice and an opportunity for a hearing, PSC must approve or deny an application within nine months after the application is filed. PSC may approve an application in whole or in part and subject to any limitations and qualifications that PSC considers necessary and in the public interest.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Maryland Legislature · HB 139

Landlord and Tenant - Notice of Utility Bills in Residential Leases - Gas and Electric Services

Apr 25, 2024 · Enacted

Del. Lorig Charkoudian · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Adding gas and electric utility services to the types of services for which landlords of buildings that contain six or more residential units are required to provide a written notice to a tenant, before the initiation of a lease and each term thereafter, notifying the tenant of the total utility costs billed to the landlord in the immediately preceding year, disaggregated by utility type; and applying certain requirements relating to payment of utility services to landlords of buildings that contain five or fewer residential dwelling units.

2024-04-25: Approved by the Governor - Chapter 225. This records the legislative disposition; later implementation or court decisions may differ.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Maryland’s median rent. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Adding gas and electric utility services to the types of services for which landlords of buildings that contain six or more residential units are required to provide a written notice to a tenant, before the initiation of a lease and each term thereafter, notifying the tenant of the total utility costs billed to the landlord in the immediately preceding year, disaggregated by utility type; and applying certain requirements relating to payment of utility services to landlords of buildings that contain five or fewer residential dwelling units.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Del. Marc Korman

Maryland House of Delegates, District 16 · D–MD

1 proposal
View proposals from Del. Marc Korman
Maryland Legislature · HB 426

21st Century Transportation Funding Act

Mar 4, 2019 · Did not pass

Del. Marc Korman · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Requiring the Comptroller to calculate a certain sales and use tax equivalent rate under the motor fuel tax in a certain manner; applying the sales and use tax to a sale or use of certain digital products; requiring the Comptroller to distribute the sales and use tax revenue on the sale of digital products to the Transportation Trust Fund; requiring the Department of Transportation to apply to the United States Department of Transportation to participate in the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program; etc.

The measure did not pass in its completed 2019RS session. Final recorded action: 2019-03-04, Withdrawn by Sponsor.

Why this record is included

The displayed price is EIA’s six-jurisdiction Central Atlantic regional proxy. Maryland gasoline taxes, supply, or sales rules concern one component and do not set pump prices across the region. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Maryland evidence context: Central Atlantic regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Requiring the Comptroller to calculate a certain sales and use tax equivalent rate under the motor fuel tax in a certain manner; applying the sales and use tax to a sale or use of certain digital products; requiring the Comptroller to distribute the sales and use tax revenue on the sale of digital products to the Transportation Trust Fund; requiring the Department of Transportation to apply to the United States Department of Transportation to participate in the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program; etc.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Maryland officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Maryland statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.