Election Law - Local Boards of Elections - Language Assistance Program
HB983 creates a new Language Assistance Program within Maryland election law. It requires the State Board of Elections to determine whether a county has a significant need for election-language assistance based on census or comparable data, and to designate the non-English languages that must be supported. If a county meets the statutory thresholds, its local board of elections must participate in the program and provide translated voting materials, notices, signage, and other election-related information for voters with limited English proficiency.
The bill also requires local boards to make language assistance available at early voting centers and polling places, including the option to communicate with a translator by video conference, and to provide online voting materials in designated languages. It directs local boards to make reasonable efforts to recruit bilingual election judges, allows oral-only assistance for unwritten or oral languages such as sign language, and bars reliance solely on machine translation or artificial intelligence for required translations. The State Board must publish and update the list of covered counties and languages, adopt regulations, and establish a process for requests to designate additional languages. The law takes effect October 1, 2025, with the State Board required to publish the initial list by January 1, 2026.
HB983 adds a new Title 15.5 to the Election Law Article, creating enforceable duties for the State Board of Elections and local boards in counties with substantial populations of voters with limited English proficiency. It expands election administration obligations by requiring translated forms, notices, sample ballots, signage, and interpreter access, while also creating a judicial enforcement mechanism and allowing the Attorney General to assist in enforcement. The bill affects county election operations, staffing, technology, and translation services, and it assigns the State Board the role of determining coverage and overseeing compliance.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable in the General Assembly, as reflected by passage on third reading in both chambers with comfortable margins. The vote totals suggest broad support for expanding access to voting for non-English-speaking residents and for standardizing language assistance across affected counties. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed floor or committee debate, but the final votes indicate the measure was not highly divisive overall.
The main points of potential contention are the scope and cost of the mandate, and the division of financial responsibility between the State and counties. The bill requires counties to pay for hardware and other expenses associated with translation software services, while the State provides licensed translation software, which could raise concerns about local fiscal impact. Another likely issue is the threshold for triggering coverage and the State Board’s discretion in designating languages, since local boards may seek judicial relief only if the State Board’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The prohibition on relying solely on automated translation may also be a practical concern for implementation, though the bill’s text emphasizes accuracy and competence in voter communications.