Senator McKay reflects on the 449th Legislative Session — the FY27 budget, affordability, redistricting, energy, immigration, juvenile justice, his highlighted bills, and District 1 wins.
Senator McKay reflects on the 449th Legislative Session — the FY27 budget, affordability, redistricting, energy, immigration, juvenile justice, his highlighted bills, and District 1 wins.
We have come to the end of the 449th Legislative Session of the Maryland General Assembly. It was an honor to continue to serve you this Session in the capacity as State Senator, serving our Appalachia Region of District 1 encompassing Garrett, Allegany, and Washington Counties.
Your calls, e-mails, and letters have been instrumental in making decisions to benefit the residents of our District, Region, and our State. I was proud to be a member of seven separate committees and caucuses this year:
Our primary responsibility, as the Maryland General Assembly, is to pass a balanced budget while maintaining our priorities in education, public safety, healthcare, and protecting our natural resources.
However, the priorities I set for District 1 could not be achieved without the added teamwork of our District Delegates — Delegate Hinebaugh (District 1A), Delegate Buckel (District 1B), and Delegate Baker (District 1C). I want to say thank you and express my appreciation for their hard work and dedication to Western Maryland.
Passing a balanced budget is the only constitutional requirement of the Maryland General Assembly each year, and the FY27 budget meets that obligation. The General Assembly approved a $70.6 billion state budget, an increase of more than $3 billion over last year. The budget does not include new taxes or fees this year, and unfortunately, does not include any tax relief for Maryland families already facing a high cost of living. It continues to rely on revenues from tax and fee increases enacted in prior years to sustain current spending levels.
The Budget reflects what many have described as an election-year approach — avoiding immediate impacts on taxpayers while relying on prior revenues and short-term solutions to maintain spending. The FY27 Budget does little to change the state’s long-term fiscal outlook. Current projections show future deficits growing to as much as $4 billion annually if structural issues remain unresolved. The final budget also included cuts to disability services programs, which were a significant concern for members of the Senate Republican Caucus. These reductions were debated late into the session and, ultimately, funding was not fully restored, raising concerns about support for some of Maryland’s most vulnerable residents. The FY27 Budget sets aside $2.2 billion in the Rainy Day Fund and an additional $280 million in cash balances, providing a financial cushion.
Rather than making structural reforms, the budget relies in part on one-time actions and transfers from dedicated funds to close the gap. This includes shifting approximately $292 million from the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF) into the General Fund, along with additional transfers from the Bay Restoration Fund and the Waterway Improvement Fund.
These funds were created for specific purposes, and in the case of SEIF, are funded in part by charges paid by Maryland ratepayers. Using those dollars to support general spending, rather than their intended purposes, raises serious concerns about transparency, sustainability, and whether taxpayers are truly getting what they were promised.
Several of the largest drivers of future spending remain largely unchanged:
The budget does include a step forward on accountability.
New language, proposed by Republicans, ensures that nonprofit organizations receiving state funding must be in good standing with the state and remain compliant with required filings in order to receive taxpayer dollars — a commonsense safeguard for transparency.
However, the budget also includes provisions tying certain law enforcement funding to compliance with state policies related to federal immigration enforcement agreements. This approach has raised concerns about conditioning public safety funding on broader policy issues, rather than focusing solely on the needs of local communities.
While most of Republican amendments to the budget were not adopted, they reflected a broader effort to reduce costs and address long-term budget pressures. One proposal that did receive bipartisan support updated Maryland’s historic vehicle law, restoring a more practical standard by allowing vehicles 25 years or older to qualify as historic.
The FY27 budget fulfills the state’s legal requirement to be balanced and avoids new taxes this year. However, it continues to grow spending, draws from funds intended for other purposes, and does little to address the structural issues driving future deficits.
In short, the budget reflects an election-year approach that prioritizes short-term stability, while leaving more difficult financial decisions for the future.
Making Maryland more affordable was one of Senate Republicans’ top three priorities this session. While Democrats congratulated themselves for passing a budget without new taxes or fees, that budget also failed to deliver any meaningful tax or fee relief to Maryland families already struggling with the cost of living. Senate Republicans used the session to press for practical steps that would have lowered everyday costs for drivers, commuters, workers, and employers, but those efforts were largely blocked or ignored.
One major focus was rolling back steep Motor Vehicle Administration fee increases and eliminating the costly, outdated Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program. Republican-sponsored legislation sought to reverse the vehicle registration fee hikes enacted in 2024. Those increases raised registration costs by roughly 60% to 70%, adding between $70 and $162 a year for many Maryland drivers. Additional Republican-sponsored legislation would have repealed VEIP entirely. Both proposals received hearings but failed to advance, and efforts to provide the same relief through amendments to the state budget were also rejected by the majority.
Republicans also pushed for immediate relief at the gas pump as prices spiked in March. Republican leaders called for a 30-day gas tax holiday that would have paused Maryland’s 46-cent-per-gallon gas tax and saved drivers about $7 per fill-up on average. The proposal ran into opposition from the Moore administration and legislative Democrats and ultimately failed to move forward. Even as Marylanders felt the squeeze, the majority rejected the idea of short-term, immediate relief.
Senate Republicans also tried to repeal the state’s 3% “tech tax,” one of last year’s most controversial tax hikes. During budget debate, Republicans argued the tax was hurting Maryland’s competitiveness, discouraging investment, and failing to meet revenue expectations. Despite those concerns, a Republican amendment to repeal the tax failed in the Senate.
Democrats pointed to targeted tax credits, limited energy rebates, and a budget that avoided new taxes as their answer to affordability. But those measures are narrow, temporary, and fail to address the bigger issue: Maryland’s high cost of living is being driven by years of policy decisions, tax increases, and an increasingly burdensome regulatory environment. From higher vehicle fees to the tech tax to rising energy costs tied to state mandates, Marylanders are paying more, not less. Instead of providing meaningful, across-the-board relief, the majority continues to rely on government-managed programs that do little to ease the day-to-day financial pressure facing working families and small businesses.
The bottom line is simple: this year’s budget may have avoided adding new taxes, but it did nothing to make life more affordable for Marylanders. Senate Republicans put forward concrete proposals, both in stand-alone legislation and during budget negotiations, to reduce costs on driving, commuting, and doing business in Maryland. Democrats chose to protect the status quo instead of delivering real relief.
Redistricting dominated the conversation this session but ultimately went nowhere.
What began as talk of a potential special session in fall 2025 carried directly into the 2026 legislative session, driven by pressure from Wes Moore and House Democrats to pursue mid-cycle redistricting, a significant departure from the traditional, census-based process.
The push was widely viewed as part of a broader national strategy to redraw maps in reliably Democratic states, raising serious concerns that Maryland voters were being used to advance a political agenda beyond the state’s borders.
Even within Democratic leadership, there were reservations. Senate President Bill Ferguson declined to move forward with a special session, in part due to concerns that reopening the maps could actually result in Republicans gaining seats, not losing them.
That didn’t stop the effort. Throughout session, there was continued pressure from the Governor and House Democrats to move legislation that would allow for mid-cycle redistricting, without the kind of transparent, deliberative process that such a major change demands.
Redistricting is foundational to representative government. Changing the rules mid-decade absent new census data raises real concerns about fairness, stability, and public trust. In the end, the legislation died in the Senate Rules Committee, never making it to the floor for a full vote.
Republicans offered a clear alternative: the Fair Districts for Maryland Act, which would have prohibited mid-cycle redistricting altogether and established a structured, transparent process moving forward.
The proposal set clear standards for how districts should be drawn and ensured that partisan data could not be used, putting fairness and consistency ahead of political advantage. The legislation, however, was not advanced.
Maryland already has one of the most extreme partisan gerrymandered maps in the country. Roughly 40% of Maryland voters consistently support Republican candidates, yet that voting bloc is represented by just one Republican member of Congress. That disparity is not accidental; it is the result of years of map-drawing designed to concentrate and dilute voters in ways that predetermine outcomes.
Against that backdrop, the idea of mid-cycle redistricting raises even more serious concerns. Rather than addressing longstanding inequities in the system, this effort risked doubling down — further entrenching partisan advantage and deepening the disenfranchisement of Maryland voters whose voices are already underrepresented.
Energy affordability was one of the top concerns raised by Marylanders throughout the 2026 legislative session — from families struggling with rising utility bills to employers questioning the state’s long-term competitiveness.
After 90 days, this is where the General Assembly ended up. Lawmakers passed the so-called “RELIEF Act” — a sweeping, last-minute package that ultimately fails to deliver meaningful, long-term relief for ratepayers. After months of delay, Democratic leadership rushed forward a “Frankenstein bill” — a cobbled-together collection of policies assembled late in the session with limited transparency and little opportunity for meaningful review. Despite being marketed as “rate relief,” the results are underwhelming at best — and a disappointing outcome after 90 days of legislative work. By their own estimates, the legislation will save Marylanders just $12 per month — a negligible amount for families already facing energy bills that have increased by hundreds of dollars in recent years.
Rather than tackling the policies driving up energy costs, this bill largely preserves them. For years, Maryland has layered aggressive mandates, surcharges, and regulatory requirements that increase costs and strain grid reliability. Programs like the EmPOWER surcharge — added directly onto monthly electric bills — continue to grow, placing additional pressure on ratepayers even as affordability concerns mount.
At the center of this legislation is the Strategic Energy Investment Fund (SEIF) — funded largely through Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) proceeds and Alternative Compliance Payments (ACPs) both of which are ultimately paid by Maryland ratepayers through higher electricity costs. Instead of reducing these underlying cost drivers, the RELIEF Act simply redistributes SEIF funds back to ratepayers in the form of limited, short-term relief, effectively returning a small portion of the money Marylanders were already forced to pay. That is not real rate relief, it is a temporary rebate funded by the same policies that caused prices to rise in the first place. In reality, the bill allows Democratic leadership to check the box on their talking points, while making no meaningful changes to the policies driving up costs.
At the same time, Maryland continues to send the wrong signals to energy markets. By maintaining aggressive mandates without ensuring sufficient in-state generation or reliability, the state is discouraging new energy development and pushing investment elsewhere. That includes high-demand industries like data centers and advanced manufacturing, which require stable, affordable, and predictable energy supply.
Without a shift toward policies that support reliability and affordability, Maryland risks becoming increasingly dependent on imported electricity, exposing ratepayers to higher costs and volatility while missing out on economic growth opportunities.
Throughout the session, Senate Republicans advanced a comprehensive package of reforms focused on delivering real relief and long-term stability, including:
These proposals directly addressed the structural causes of rising energy prices and would have delivered meaningful relief to ratepayers. Instead, nearly every Senate Republican amendment was rejected, with all but one stripped from the final legislation.
While Maryland families and small businesses see little benefit, one group is clearly satisfied: the hardline environmental lobby. This bill prioritizes maintaining aggressive policy frameworks over delivering affordability, even as ratepayers continue to struggle with rising costs.
Immigration policy quickly became one of the most dominant, and most politically driven, issues of the 2026 Legislative Session. While Marylanders faced rising costs, energy challenges, and ongoing public safety concerns, Democratic leadership prioritized a series of bills aimed at restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, moving Maryland closer to a sanctuary state in practice.
Rather than advancing practical solutions, these proposals were driven by national political messaging and worst-case narratives. The result was a steady push to limit coordination between state, local, and federal agencies, often at the expense of clarity, consistency, and public safety. Senate Republicans raised their core concerns: reduced cooperation, loss of local control, and serious constitutional questions under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
After more than a decade of debate, the General Assembly passed sweeping changes to Maryland’s juvenile charging laws through Senate Bill 323, fundamentally altering when and how young offenders are charged as adults. The legislation now heads to Governor Moore’s desk.
At its core, SB 323 significantly narrows the list of offenses that automatically place juveniles in adult court. Supporters argued the changes are intended to keep more young offenders in the juvenile justice system, emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration.
However, the final version of the bill raises serious concerns about accountability, particularly for older juveniles committing serious or repeat offenses, and comes at a time when Maryland’s juvenile justice system is already under significant strain.
Under prior law, a broader range of serious offenses triggered automatic adult charging for juveniles, particularly in cases involving violence or weapons. SB 323 rolls back many of those provisions, shifting more cases into the juvenile system by default. While the bill preserves adult charging for the most serious crimes, it removes or limits automatic transfers for several offenses that many believe still warrant stronger consequences, especially when committed by older teens. This represents a significant policy shift: fewer juveniles will face adult prosecutions upfront, and more cases will rely on the juvenile system’s capacity to intervene effectively.
Throughout the legislative process, Senate Republicans offered a series of targeted amendments aimed at preserving accountability, particularly for repeat offenders and those committing serious crimes. These amendments were not adopted.
SB 323 represents a major shift in Maryland’s approach to juvenile justice, prioritizing rehabilitation over prosecution for a broader range of offenses. But without safeguards for repeat offenders, stronger consequences for serious crimes, or clear transparency measures, the legislation risks weakening accountability at a time when both public safety and system performance remain significant concerns. Senate Republicans consistently supported reforms that balance second chances with real consequences. Those proposals were ultimately rejected, leaving unresolved questions about whether the system is equipped to handle the expanded responsibilities this bill creates.
While all the bills I pushed for this Session are important to making Maryland a better place to live and work, below are several I want to highlight.
Senate Bill 482 strengthens Maryland’s laws against cyberattacks. It makes it a felony to hack into systems like utilities or 9-1-1 centers with the intent to disrupt them. Attempting to interfere can lead to up to 5 years in prison and a $25,000 fine. If the attack actually disrupts services, penalties increase to up to 10 years and a $50,000 fine. The goal is to protect critical systems without adding costs for taxpayers.
Senate Bill 689 (Bri’s Law) expands a task force focused on helping people successfully reenter society after incarceration. It requires a broader review of programs like housing, job training, and healthcare, and extends the report deadline to the end of 2026. While it doesn’t cost the state additional money, it aims to reduce repeat offenses and improve outcomes — especially for communities most impacted by incarceration. Unfortunately, this bill did not pass but we look forward to honoring Brianna Mae Weishaar next year by submitting this legislation again.
Senate Bill 745 (LEAD Act of 2026) improves police training for interactions with individuals who have autism, dementia, or developmental disabilities. It requires more specialized instruction on safety, search techniques, and coordination during emergencies. The bill has little financial impact but helps ensure officers are better prepared for these situations.
I am proud to get 7 bills passed this session. While it may not have been as high a success rate as last year, I am very happy the General Assembly passed these excellent bills. I will push next year for some of those that did not make it. The bills that passed are as follows:
This year there have been great wins for our District. The Board of Public Works and the General Assembly approved many funds for projects throughout Garrett, Allegany, and Washington Counties. Garrett County will receive $58,082,750; Allegany County will receive $1,004,126,143; and Washington County will receive $619,295,298 for this year. Local bond initiatives for our District are below:
It was a pleasure to work with my District One colleagues during the past ninety days. As we move into the interim, I look forward to spending more time with my family and returning to my small business in LaVale, Maryland. Please do not hesitate to call my office if I may ever be of assistance. My email address is mike.mckay@senate.maryland.gov and our district office number is 240-362-7040. Thank you again for the honor and privilege of serving as your State Senator.
Sincerely,
Senator Mike McKay, District 1
Representing the Appalachia Region of Maryland
Serving Garrett, Allegany, and Washington Counties