Prince George's County - State's Attorney Salary - Alteration PG 426-26
Summary
HB1222 increases the annual salary for the Prince George’s County State’s Attorney from $199,000 to $250,000. The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Article to revise the compensation provision that applies only in Prince George’s County and keeps the salary payable in equal semimonthly installments.
The bill also includes a delayed effective-date structure required by the Maryland Constitution for changes to compensation of elected officials. It specifies that the salary increase does not apply to the incumbent State’s Attorney during a term that began before the act’s effective date, and instead takes effect at the start of the next term of office, unless a person is appointed or elected after the effective date to fill an expired term.
Impact
This legislation directly amends Section 15-417 of the Criminal Procedure Article, increasing the statutory salary for the Prince George’s County State’s Attorney and changing state law governing compensation for that office. It affects only Prince George’s County and only the State’s Attorney position, with no broader statewide salary changes. The bill also preserves constitutional limits on mid-term compensation changes, meaning the incumbent’s pay remains unchanged until the next term begins.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been generally favorable overall. It passed the House unanimously on third reading and later passed the Senate on third reading with strong support. The rejection of proposed amendments suggests some discussion or disagreement over details, but the final votes indicate broad agreement with the salary increase.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been whether and how to modify the bill through amendments, as both a committee amendment and a floor amendment were rejected. The bill’s core policy choice—raising the State’s Attorney’s salary by $51,000—may have prompted scrutiny, but the recorded votes show that opposition was limited and the underlying salary increase ultimately retained strong support. The constitutional timing rule limiting application to future terms was also an important structural feature, though not shown as a major source of opposition.