Governor Larry Hogan cast a write-in vote for late former president Ronald Reagan last week.

Maryland voters are being asked to consider giving more budget power to state lawmakers, upending more than a century of governor-controlled budgets.

Question 1 on the ballot proposes an amendment to the Maryland Constitution that would allow state senators and delegates to move money around within a governor’s proposed state budget -- provided they keep the budget balanced and don’t go over the total amount set by the governor.

In return, the change would give the governor the ability to veto any addition or increase that lawmakers made to the budget, which this year totals nearly $48 billion. The legislature would have to hold a special session within 30 days of such a veto to vote to restore any spending.

If passed, the change would tilt the balance of power in Annapolis, where governors and lawmakers have perennially tussled over spending priorities. Proponents say the shift would give lawmakers power that most people think they already have; opponents say the current system works well.

“It’s an authority most people assume we already have because it’s so common,” said Del. Marc Korman, a Montgomery County Democrat who is one of the leading proponents of the change.

Maryland is the only state in the nation where lawmakers are only allowed to cut from the governor’s proposed budget but can’t move money around, according to supporters of the referendum. They say Maryland’s governor has the strongest budget powers in the country.

Del. Nic Kipke says the current system doesn’t need changing, because it forces lawmakers to work with a governor to get money for their priorities in the budget.

“Without the governor having that strength in the budget process, it reduces the interaction between the legislature and the executive,” said Kipke, an Anne Arundel Republican who is the House of Delegates minority leader. "It makes it lopsided, where the legislature has too much power.”

The change, if approved, would not affect the current governor, Republican Larry Hogan. It would go into effect starting with the next governor, who will be elected in 2022. Term limits hold Maryland governors to a maximum of two, four-year terms, so Hogan can’t run again.

Through a spokesman, the governor declined to comment on Question 1.

The proposal has bounced around Annapolis for decades, and has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans at times, though this year’s push came from Democrats.

P.J. Hogan sponsored the same amendment multiple times when he was a state senator in the 1990s and early 2000s, as both a Democrat and Republican. Now a lobbyist and member of the state elections board, he testified for the change in the 2020 legislative session.

“It has never been a partisan issue for me,” said Hogan, who is not related to the governor. “I viewed it previously, and still view it, as good governance and the balance of power between the coequal branches of government.”

The current setup has been in place since 1916, after state lawmakers overspent the state’s accounts significantly, creating a deficit. The state had to borrow money to pay it off, P.J. Hogan said.

While the reforms enacted then ensure a balanced budget, it has created other problems, he said. Chief among them is an annual fight over what’s known in Annapolis as “fenced off” money.

If lawmakers find areas of the budget to cut, they can’t move it to another area. They can only set it aside and instruct the governor that to spend it, he or she must fund a certain program the lawmakers have designated.

But the governor can opt not to spend some or all the “fenced off” money, frequently leading to squabbles between governors and lawmakers. Last year, for example, the governor declined to spend hundreds of millions in fenced off funds, including money that lawmakers wanted to divert to testing rape kits and boosting the financially struggling Baltimore Symphony Orchestra.

Since lawmakers have little say in the state budget, they also have taken to passing laws that require governors to put certain money in future budgets, known as spending mandates. Gov. Hogan has complained that more than 80% of the budget is spent on mandates, leaving him little room to work with.

Supporters of the constitutional amendment believe that if lawmakers are given a more authority to reallocate spending, there may be fewer fights over fenced-off money and fewer bills passed that require future spending.

“It’s Democracy 101,” said Sen. Jim Rosapepe, a Prince George’s Democrat who sponsored the constitutional amendment this year. “We don’t have a king. We have a governor and a legislature and a judicial branch. The legislative branch represents people from across the state, different constituencies, different backgrounds. Those people should have a voice in how the state’s tax money is spent.”

The prospects of the amendment’s success are unknown; there has been no public polling on the issue and there are no organized campaigns for or against it.

It’s unclear why the constitutional amendment moved forward this year after failing so many times before. Some attribute the momentum to new leaders in the House and Senate or an influx of progressive members.

The calendar may have played a role: By sending this question to voters this year, voters are deciding on a policy change separate from picking the first governor who would have to grapple with it.


(c)2020 The Baltimore Sun

Visit The Baltimore Sun at

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

(3) comments


"...provided they keep the budget balanced and don’t go over the total amount set by the governor..." Even if a budget has been "balanced" it doesn't mean that all needs are being met (infrastructure) or that the assumptions that go into the "balanced" budget are accurate. The problem is they could shuttle more money from transportation funds (as they have in the past) to other issues and not ever make those funds back up. It is an unnecessary power grab.

"Proponents say the shift would give lawmakers power that most people think they already have;..." So they best argument a proponent can come up with is we should do it because people ignorant of how the basics of their state government works think we do it that way already?


I believe this reasonably informative article would have been more useful if it had been published *before* 10s of thousands of voters had already cast their ballots. Kudos for the article; next election, try to inform the electorate before voting begins.


This is why voting should be on election day. What happens to all the people who already voted if tomorrow it turns out their candidate just absolutely blows it? Lotta time left until November...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!