HB0752 establishes a new Commission on State and Local Government Real Property Bearing Confederate Names within the executive branch of state government. The commission would be made up of 24 gubernatorial appointees, including one representative from each county, and would meet at least quarterly. It would be staffed by a director appointed with the governor’s approval, with the bill setting the director’s salary at $80,000 annually and requiring the governor to include that amount in the budget.
The commission’s core task is to develop a framework for identifying state- or local-government-owned real property that bears Confederate names and to make recommendations about which properties should be renamed. The bill defines Confederate names broadly to include names commemorating the Confederate States of America or people who served voluntarily with it, and it defines real property to include streets, buildings, parks, and subdivisions. The commission must report its findings and recommendations by October 1, 2032, to the governor, Baltimore City leadership, county governing bodies, and the General Assembly.
The bill does not itself rename any property or directly change existing place names. Instead, it creates an advisory body and a process for review, while expressly stating that the commission is not authorized to rename property owned by the state or a political subdivision. It also allows the commission to seek outside funding from federal, foundation, and private sources, accept gifts and grants, and use revenue from educational materials and activities, subject to audit.
The likely legal impact is to add a new subtitle to the State Government Article creating a temporary state commission and a new administrative structure for reviewing Confederate-named public property. It would affect state and local governments, including counties, municipalities, school districts, and special districts, by generating recommendations that could lead to future renaming actions by the relevant owners or governing bodies. The act would take effect July 1, 2026, and automatically sunset on June 30, 2033.
The overall sentiment suggested by the bill’s sponsorship is supportive of reevaluating Confederate commemorations on public property, with the bill framed as a study-and-recommendation measure rather than an immediate renaming mandate. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate here. The main point of contention likely would be whether the state should devote resources to a commission on Confederate names and whether such decisions should be handled locally rather than through a statewide process.
HB0752 would add a new temporary commission to the State Government Article and create a formal state process for identifying public real property bearing Confederate names. It would not itself change any property names or compel renaming, but it could influence future actions by state and local governments by producing recommendations and a statewide framework for review. The bill also creates a funded director position, authorizes outside fundraising, and subjects commission funds to audit, thereby establishing a new administrative and fiscal structure within the executive branch.
The bill appears generally supportive of removing or reconsidering Confederate commemorations from public property, based on its sponsorship and purpose. Because no committee testimony or vote history is included, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators in the record provided. The measure is structured as a study commission, which may indicate an effort to build consensus by gathering facts and recommendations before any renaming decisions are made.
The most likely points of contention are the scope of the commission’s work, the use of state resources for a temporary body, and the broader policy question of whether Confederate-named public property should be reviewed at the state level at all. Supporters are likely to favor a systematic review of Confederate names on public property, while critics may argue that naming decisions should remain with local governments or that the issue is not an appropriate use of state administrative capacity. The bill’s explicit statement that the commission cannot itself rename property may also be seen as either a safeguard or a limitation, depending on one’s view of the commission’s role.