MD Republicans irked at legislative policies as No Kings Act debated

Listen to this article

ANNAPOLIS — Republicans in both chambers aired their frustration with their Democratic counterparts Thursday, suggesting that policies passed this session are unconstitutional and don’t move the needle forward for affordability.

“Hard to go back and find the wins,” Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey Jr., R-Upper Eastern Shore, said at a news conference. “I think, overall, with respect to … this legislative session and it being an election year, I think what you’re starting to see more than ever is that this is really all about talking points.”

This legislative session, Hershey and his Republican colleagues in both chambers have platformed on prioritizing affordability for Marylanders as the cost of living rises. He said he believes Democrats and Gov. Wes Moore will claim to have provided relief for residents at the close of the session but that those claims will be hollow.

Hershey pointed to the $70.8 billion budget that Moore signed Wednesday and energy policy slated to save residents a minimum as $150 on their utility bills annually as failures on the part of the legislature.

“He’s going to say, ‘We gave relief to Marylanders through energy prices … through the budget that doesn’t raise taxes.’ Those are going to be the same talking points that he started with at the beginning of the session, and what has changed? Nothing has really changed.” Hershey said of Moore. “If you look at the budget, OK, it didn’t raise taxes. But it didn’t cut taxes, either, so it didn’t address affordability.”

Similar angst was demonstrated in the House on Thursday morning as lawmakers debated a bill to allow state residents to sue federal officers over violations of their constitutional rights.

“I’ll certainly have more to say about violating constitutional rights, and maybe we can identify who the ‘kings’ really are,” House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy, R-Frederick, said during a debate of the No Kings Act. “Maybe.”

The No Kings Act would allow Marylanders to pursue civil actions against federal law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who cause or allow them to be deprived of their rights, privileges or immunities preserved under the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office could also incite these cases.

On the House floor Thursday morning, Del. Elizabeth Embry, D-Baltimore City, said the intent of the bill is to provide redress for civil rights violations alleged to have been committed by federal officers, pointing to a portion of U.S. code that allows individuals to sue state and local government officials.

In a short line of questioning, Pippy pointed to actions that the House chamber has taken that he believes are unconstitutional, like the recent passage of legislation to ban the sale of Glock semi-automatic pistols because they can be converted into automatic weapons.

The Republican asked Embry if, under the bill, people could sue officials for stripping them of their Second Amendment right to bear firearms.

Noting that the legislation is pointed toward law enforcement, she responded that if an officer were depriving a person of that right, they would have recourse under the bill. 

Still, Pippy continued to press, intimating that other legislative policies the House chamber has approved this session — like their early push to reconfigure Maryland’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm election — have been unconstitutional.

The redrawn map, which would have handed Democrats an 8-0 congressional map and potentially unseated the state’s only Republican, U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, passed out of the House but for months has made no movement in the Senate.

“Would this bill cover, let’s say like, unconstitutional gerrymandering?” he asked. “Would that be something that’s covered under this bill?”

Embry, again, responded that should a federal officer violate a person’s right under the U.S. Constitution, the bill would cover their ability to pursue legal action.

“So if a federal officer, let’s say, created congressional maps to deprive a political party of the right to have a voice, like let’s say, in the state of Maryland, would this bill cover that?” Pippy asked in return.

Embry said “potentially,” noting that actions have to be tied to constitutional rights.

Defending the bill, House Environment and Transportation Committee Chair Marc Korman, D-Montgomery, asked Embry if “partisan gerrymandering” is unconstitutional, adding that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a challenge to the redrawn congressional map that Texas enacted at the urging of President Donald Trump.

“The Supreme Court has, over time, come to the conclusion that it is an entirely political decision, not a constitutionally protected right,” she said.

The No Kings Act passed Thursday evening on a vote of 95-39. There are five days left in the 2026 legislative session.