SB534 revises Maryland election law governing compensation for election judges. It requires local boards of elections to pay election judges for required training courses only after the judge actually serves on an election day or early voting day, rather than simply upon completion of training. The bill also preserves and clarifies minimum pay standards for election judges, including a higher minimum daily rate for returning election judges, and requires the State Board to reimburse local boards for part of the added compensation paid to returning judges.
The bill also adds a new provision allowing a public school student in Maryland who serves as an election judge to both earn service-learning hours toward the graduation requirement and receive election judge compensation. The act takes effect October 1, 2025, and amends Section 10-205 of the Election Law Article in the Annotated Code of Maryland.
Impact
SB534 amends Maryland Election Law § 10-205 to change when training compensation is paid, tying payment for required instruction to actual service on an election day or early voting day. It also codifies that student election judges may simultaneously count that service toward high school service-learning requirements and receive pay, which affects local boards of elections, election judges, and public school students participating in election administration.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It received a favorable committee report with amendments and passed the Senate on third reading by a unanimous 42-0 vote, suggesting general agreement with the compensation changes and the student participation provision.
Contention
The main policy issue is the timing of compensation for required training: the bill limits payment for the instruction course until after the election judge actually serves, which may be intended to ensure active service before payment is issued. Another point is the dual benefit for student election judges, who may both earn service-learning credit and receive compensation; this could raise questions about whether students should be allowed to receive both forms of benefit, though the bill expressly authorizes it. No recorded committee transcript indicates significant opposition.