State and Local Government - Real Property - Confederate Naming Prohibited
HB0160 prohibits State entities and political subdivisions from assigning Confederate names to real property they own. The bill defines “Confederate name” broadly to include names commemorating or referencing the Confederate States of America or persons or entities that voluntarily served with or on behalf of the Confederacy in military or civilian capacities. It also defines the covered property and government bodies, including streets, buildings, parks, subdivisions, counties, municipalities, school districts, special districts, and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
The bill creates a new title in the General Provisions Article governing State and local government real property naming. It applies prospectively only, meaning it does not require renaming any property that already had a Confederate name before the effective date. The act takes effect October 1, 2026, and would affect future naming decisions by State agencies and local governments rather than existing place names.
HB0160 adds §§ 9-101 and 9-102 to the General Provisions Article, establishing a new legal prohibition on future Confederate naming of State- and locally owned real property. It affects State entities and a broad range of political subdivisions by limiting their authority to assign commemorative names tied to the Confederacy to public property such as roads, buildings, parks, and subdivisions. Because the bill is expressly prospective, it does not alter the legal status of existing Confederate-named properties or impose an immediate renaming mandate.
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as reflected by the committee report of “Favorable with amendments” and adoption of the House action. No recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so there is no detailed evidence of opposition or debate in the supplied materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a policy measure aimed at restricting future Confederate commemorations on public property.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of the prohibition and its prospective-only application. Supporters are likely focused on preventing future Confederate commemorations in public naming, while any critics would likely object either to the breadth of the definition of “Confederate name” or to the bill’s decision not to address existing names. The bill’s explicit non-retroactivity may have been intended to reduce controversy by avoiding forced renaming of already-named properties.