Queen Anne’s County – Circuit Court Judgeships
HB 361 would increase the number of resident judges assigned to the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County from one to two. The bill makes a targeted amendment to the state’s courts and judicial proceedings law, specifically the statutory table that sets the number of resident circuit court judges in each county. No other counties’ judge counts are changed, and the bill does not alter the general jurisdiction or powers of the circuit courts.
The bill is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. If enacted, it would require the state judiciary to staff an additional resident judgeship in Queen Anne’s County, which could affect local court administration, case assignment, and judicial workload in that county. Because the change is limited to a single county, the broader statewide legal framework remains intact aside from the updated judgeship count in the statutory list.
HB 361 amends Section 1-503 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article to revise the number of resident circuit court judges in Queen Anne’s County from one to two, while leaving the rest of the county-by-county judgeship schedule unchanged. The bill would therefore modify state law governing the organization and staffing of the circuit courts, with direct operational impact on the Queen Anne’s County Circuit Court and the Maryland judiciary’s allocation of judicial resources.
Based on the available context, the bill appears procedural and administrative rather than controversial. There are no recorded votes or committee transcripts showing opposition or debate, and the bill’s narrow focus suggests it is intended to address local judicial capacity needs. The available information indicates a neutral-to-supportive posture, with no documented dissent in the materials provided.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Any potential concerns would likely center on whether Queen Anne’s County has sufficient caseload or population growth to justify an additional resident judge, as well as the cost and staffing implications for the state judiciary. However, the bill text and available history do not show any recorded disagreement or competing positions.