HB 145 would expand Maryland election-law tools for responding to false or misleading election-related information, including deepfakes. It defines “election misinformation” as incorrect or misleading information about election timing, location, manner, results, or voting rights, and defines “election disinformation” as the same kind of information when knowingly and deliberately spread. The bill requires the State Board of Elections to maintain a public reporting portal for such content and to review submissions, issue corrective information when needed, or refer matters to the State Prosecutor.
The bill also gives the State Administrator of Elections authority, upon receiving a credible report, to publicly correct misinformation or disinformation, seek an injunction to remove it from online platforms, and issue subpoenas for related records where allowed by federal law. In addition, the State Board may bring a civil action against a person, campaign, political action committee, or other legal entity that published election disinformation or recklessly disseminated election misinformation and caused the Board to incur corrective costs. The Board may seek damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees, with awards requiring clear and convincing evidence.
HB 145 creates a separate prohibition on using a “deepfake” to produce materially false information in an election context. A deepfake is defined as an image, audio recording, or video recording intentionally created or manipulated with generative AI or other digital technology to appear realistically but falsely as a person’s actual speech or conduct. The law would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly or with reckless disregard create, use, or disseminate a deepfake with the intent to interfere with voting decisions, misrepresent election-related facts, induce petition-signing decisions, or influence votes, and where the conduct causes or is intended to cause harm. Penalties include up to a $5,000 fine, up to 5 years’ imprisonment, or both.
The bill also includes several exemptions and carve-outs. It does not apply to satire or parody, certain bona fide news broadcasts and publications that clearly disclose deceptive media, or broadcasters complying with federal candidate-advertising requirements under specified conditions. It further protects interactive computer services, internet service providers, cloud services, streaming services, and telecommunications networks from liability solely because others use their services to disseminate a prohibited deepfake. The bill would take effect June 1, 2026, and amend existing Election Law provisions while adding a new section specifically addressing deepfakes.
Overall, the available legislative record suggests the bill was treated as a serious election-integrity measure, with the House committee reporting it favorably with amendments and the House adopting it. No vote breakdowns or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so there is no detailed record here of opposition or debate. Based on the bill’s structure, likely points of contention include free-speech and press concerns, the scope of state authority over online platforms and election speech, and the line-drawing between prohibited disinformation and protected satire, journalism, or platform activity.
HB 145 would amend Maryland Election Law § 2-110 and add new § 16-905, creating a statutory framework for reporting, correcting, and litigating election misinformation, election disinformation, and deepfakes. It would expand the State Board of Elections’ and State Administrator’s authority to respond to false election-related content, including public corrections, subpoenas, injunction requests, and civil enforcement actions, while also creating a criminal offense for certain deceptive election deepfakes. The bill would affect campaigns, political action committees, online platforms, media entities, and individuals who create or spread election-related falsehoods, while preserving specified exemptions for satire, journalism, broadcasters, and service providers.
The bill appears to have been received positively in the House, where it was reported favorably with amendments and adopted on second reading. The available record does not include committee testimony or vote tallies, so the specific balance of support and opposition is not shown. Still, the bill’s focus on election integrity, misinformation, and AI-generated deepfakes suggests it was framed as a response to emerging threats to voting and public confidence in elections, while the amendments and exemptions indicate an effort to narrow its reach and address constitutional or practical concerns.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s speech-regulation provisions and the breadth of state enforcement authority. Critics would likely focus on First Amendment issues, especially the civil and criminal penalties tied to misinformation, the injunction authority over online platforms, and the possibility of chilling political speech. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to combat deliberate election deception and AI-generated deepfakes that could mislead voters. The bill itself reflects these tensions by carving out satire, parody, bona fide news coverage, and certain service providers, and by limiting civil actions to cases involving disinformation or reckless misinformation that causes corrective costs.