Income Tax - Subtraction Modification - Retirement Income
HB0707, enacted as Chapter 440 and titled the Eric’s ID Law, requires the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration to add an optional notation for a nonapparent disability on initial and renewal applications for a driver’s license, identification card, or moped operator’s permit. A nonapparent disability is defined as a disability or health condition that is not immediately obvious or visible, including developmental and intellectual disabilities. Applicants may choose whether to request the notation, and the MVA must place the notation on the bottom of the credential if selected.
The bill also requires the MVA to consult with developmental disability and intellectual disability advocacy groups on the design of the notation, provide public outreach about its availability, and notify individuals when they turn 18 that they may request removal of the notation. The agency must delete records of the notation upon request, charge no fee for the notation or a corrected document issued solely for that purpose, and may not require proof of the disability. The law further restricts disclosure of information about the notation, with limited exceptions for courts, criminal justice agencies, driver licensing authorities, the applicant, designated third parties, and the Child Support Administration, and bars use of the information as a basis for referral to the Medical Advisory Board.
HB0707 amends Maryland Transportation law by creating a new section governing disability notations on licenses, identification cards, and moped operator’s permits. It changes MVA application and recordkeeping practices, adds confidentiality protections, and imposes outreach and training obligations, including immediate training by the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission on interactions with people who have the notation. The law primarily affects the Motor Vehicle Administration, law enforcement training entities, applicants with nonapparent disabilities, and agencies that may receive limited disclosure of the information.
The bill appears broadly supportive and protective in tone, reflecting a policy goal of helping people with nonapparent disabilities identify themselves if they choose to do so and improving interactions with law enforcement and other officials. The statutory language emphasizes privacy, voluntariness, and removal rights, suggesting the measure was framed as a civil rights and accessibility initiative rather than a regulatory burden. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or divided sentiment.
The main potential points of contention are privacy and disclosure concerns, since the bill creates a disability marker on government-issued credentials while also limiting who may access related records. Another possible concern is whether the notation could be misused or lead to unwanted identification, which the bill addresses by making the notation optional, free, removable, and subject to strict confidentiality rules. Support is most clearly associated with disability advocates, especially developmental and intellectual disability groups, who are specifically consulted on the notation’s design, while the bill also directs law enforcement training to reduce misunderstandings during encounters with affected individuals.