Constitutional Amendment - Form of County Government - Requirement to Adopt Charter Home Rule
HB0190 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require every Maryland county and the City of Baltimore to adopt a charter form of government by December 31, 2032. After that date, each county would be required to operate under a charter adopted under Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution. The bill also directs that any new charter adopted on or after January 1, 2027, must provide for both a county executive and a county council, with council members elected from councilmanic districts.
The bill changes the process for counties that do not already operate under a charter form of government. By January 1, 2029, county commissioners in those counties would have to appoint a charter board of five to nine registered voters, which would draft a proposed charter and submit it for publication and a vote by the county commissioners. If the commissioners reject the proposal, the charter board must revise and resubmit it. The measure also states that charter amendments must follow the procedures in Article XI-A, and it limits the continued applicability of Article XI-F, the constitutional provision governing code counties, until all counties have adopted charters.
If adopted by the voters, the bill would substantially alter Maryland’s constitutional framework for local government by converting all counties and Baltimore City to charter home rule and phasing out the code-county model. It would amend Article XI-A to impose mandatory charter adoption deadlines, establish a new default charter-creation process for non-charter counties, and require district-based election of county council members. It would also narrow Article XI-F so that code-county provisions apply only until each county has adopted a charter under Article XI-A, affecting county governance structures, local legislative authority, and the relationship between county governments and state law.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and received a House hearing, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided here. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a significant local-government reform proposal rather than a narrow technical change. The absence of recorded testimony or vote history means there is no documented public sentiment in the supplied materials, though the measure’s sweeping mandate suggests it would likely draw strong interest from county officials, home-rule advocates, and opponents of state-imposed restructuring.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s mandatory nature and its statewide imposition of charter government on all counties, including those that have not chosen that structure. Another likely issue is the shift in power from county commissioners and existing local arrangements to a required charter board process and district-based council elections. Counties currently operating under code home rule may object to the bill’s effective elimination of that option, while supporters would likely argue that it creates uniform home-rule governance and stronger local accountability. No specific objections or endorsements are included in the provided transcripts.