HB607 revises the annual salaries for four Maryland constitutional officers: the Comptroller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. The bill increases each office’s pay schedule, with the new salary levels phased in over the first, second, and third years of the next term of office. For the Comptroller, Treasurer, and Attorney General, the salary would rise from $165,000 to $175,000 in the first year of the next term, then to $180,000, and finally to $185,000. For the Secretary of State, the salary would increase from $112,500 to $120,000 in the first year, then to $124,000, and finally to $128,000.
The bill also specifies that the changes do not apply to current officeholders mid-term; instead, they take effect at the beginning of the next term of office, consistent with the Maryland Constitution’s restrictions on changing compensation during a term. It includes a carve-out allowing the new salary structure to apply to anyone appointed or elected after the effective date to fill an unexpired term. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB607 amends Sections 4-103, 5-104, 6-103, and 7-107 of the State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland to update compensation provisions for the Comptroller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. Its practical effect is to increase state payroll obligations for these offices beginning with the next applicable term, while preserving the constitutional rule against altering compensation during an ongoing term. The bill affects only these constitutional offices and does not change their duties or powers.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support. It was reported favorably from committee and passed both chambers with substantial margins, indicating general agreement with the salary adjustments. The absence of committee transcript debate suggests the measure was relatively straightforward and not highly controversial in the recorded proceedings.
The main potential point of contention is the increase in compensation for statewide constitutional officers, which can raise concerns about public spending and executive pay. Any disagreement would likely center on whether the proposed salary levels are justified and whether the increases should be phased in over time. However, the strong vote totals suggest that any opposition was limited and did not prevent passage.