Maryland Election Protection Ordinance: Legal and Political Implementation Guide¶
Maryland offers a favorable but legally nuanced environment for municipal election protection ordinances modeled on Madison, Wisconsin's approach to enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 592. The state's robust home rule framework, absence of anti-sanctuary laws, and concentration of progressive charter jurisdictions create viable pathways—though Maryland's comprehensive Election Law Article presents moderate-to-high preemption risk that requires careful ordinance drafting. Baltimore City, Montgomery County, and Howard County emerge as optimal launch jurisdictions, supported by an established coalition infrastructure centered on ACLU of Maryland and Common Cause Maryland.
Section 1: Maryland's legal landscape presents nuanced opportunities¶
Maryland's home rule framework enables broad municipal authority¶
Maryland is definitively a Home Rule state, not a Dillon's Rule state, providing constitutional authority for local self-governance through three distinct articles of the Maryland Constitution. Article XI-A (adopted 1915) governs charter counties and grants them power to "enact local laws...including the power to repeal or amend local laws enacted by the General Assembly" on matters covered by express powers. Article XI-E (adopted 1954) governs 157 incorporated municipalities and permits them to adopt, amend, or repeal charters consistent with express powers granted by the General Assembly. Article XI-F (adopted 1966) provides more limited "code home rule" for counties that have not adopted full charter government.
The critical constitutional limitation appears in both Article XI-A Section 3 and Article XI-E Section 6: Public General Laws control over local laws in cases of conflict. This hierarchy means any election protection ordinance must either complement state law or invoke federal supremacy to override state preemption concerns.
Maryland's local government structure includes 11 charter counties (Anne Arundel, Baltimore County, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's, Talbot, Wicomico), Baltimore City as an independent city with its own charter, 9 code counties with limited home rule powers, and 3 commissioner counties with no home rule authority. For election protection ordinances, charter counties and Baltimore City possess the strongest legal foundation under Local Government Article § 10-206(a), which grants charter counties express "police power" for public safety ordinances—authority explicitly withheld from code counties.
Municipal corporations operating under Article XI-E receive express ordinance powers codified in Local Government Article Title 5, Subtitle 2. Section 5-202 authorizes municipal legislative bodies to adopt ordinances to protect municipal property and privileges, preserve peace and good order, and secure persons and property from danger—all potentially applicable to election protection measures.
State preemption presents the primary legal obstacle¶
Maryland's comprehensive Election Law Article creates the most significant legal vulnerability for local election protection ordinances. Under the preemption test established in Allied Vending, Inc. v. City of Bowie, 332 Md. 279 (1993), the "comprehensiveness with which the General Assembly has legislated in the field" serves as the primary indicator of implied preemption. Maryland courts will examine whether the state regulatory scheme is comprehensive enough to constitute an exclusive framework.
The Election Law Article appears to meet this threshold. Title 10 extensively regulates polling places, including election judge authority to maintain order and direct arrests. Title 16 contains comprehensive election offenses provisions. Most significantly, Election Law § 16-903 already addresses the core concern of the proposed ordinance: it prohibits anyone from "carrying or displaying a gun or badge within 100 feet of polling site on election day" except for law enforcement officers or security guards on duty performing official governmental functions. The 2024 Maryland Attorney General guidance confirms this interpretation, stating that "besides law enforcement officers and security guards that are on duty at the polling place, persons may not be armed at or near polling sites."
Additional state provisions relevant to preemption analysis include § 16-201(a)(5)-(7) prohibiting voter intimidation through force, threat, or intimidation; § 16-204 addressing interference with elections through violence or threats; § 10-303 establishing election judges' duty to maintain order; and § 10-304(a)(1) requiring police officers on polling place duty to obey election judge orders.
Critically, Maryland has NOT enacted anti-sanctuary laws prohibiting local restrictions on cooperation with federal agencies. While House Bill 85 was introduced in the 2025 session to "prohibit a county or municipality from adopting, enacting, or enforcing a sanctuary policy," it has not passed. This legislative posture—rejecting preemption bills—actually supports local authority under the "Amendment Rejection Theory" recognized in Montgomery County v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc. (2019), where the Court of Special Appeals held that the General Assembly's rejection of preemption bills "strongly suggests" no legislative intent to preempt.
Federal supremacy may provide defensive shield¶
The federal Supremacy Clause offers the strongest legal defense against state preemption challenges. 18 U.S.C. § 592 prohibits any "officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States" from ordering, bringing, keeping, or controlling "any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held" absent necessity to repel armed enemies. This federal prohibition is self-executing and cannot be contradicted by state law.
A municipal ordinance framed as local enforcement support for existing federal law rather than independent election regulation occupies stronger constitutional ground. The ordinance would not conflict with federal law (permissible under obstacle preemption analysis), does not address a field where Congress has expressly preempted state action (18 U.S.C. § 592 contains no preemption clause), and fills gaps where federal law applies only to federal personnel while local ordinances can address state/local cooperation.
The recommended drafting approach should explicitly reference 18 U.S.C. §§ 592, 593, and 594 as the federal statutes being locally implemented, frame restrictions as preserving municipal resources rather than regulating elections, emphasize public safety and order maintenance under traditional police power, and avoid creating standards that conflict with existing Maryland Election Law provisions.
Litigation risk assessment and mitigation strategies¶
The litigation risk for Maryland election protection ordinances falls in the moderate-to-high range primarily due to implied preemption concerns under the state's comprehensive Election Law Article, but several mitigation strategies can strengthen legal defensibility.
High-risk factors include the comprehensiveness of state election code regulation (primary Allied Vending preemption indicator), existing state prohibition on armed persons at polling places under § 16-903 (potential redundancy argument), express preemption of local firearms regulations under Criminal Law § 4-209 (though elections present distinguishing characteristics), and established field preemption doctrine when the state has "acted with such force that an intent by the State to occupy the entire field must be implied."
Mitigating factors include the federal Supremacy Clause as a shield when framing the ordinance as federal law enforcement support, traditional municipal police power for public safety, gap-filling role addressing armed private parties and federal personnel not covered by state provisions, absence of express election preemption statute (unlike firearms), and Allied Vending/Complete Lawn Care precedent upholding local ordinances when the General Assembly has rejected preemption attempts.
Recommended legal strategy should frame the ordinance as implementing and supporting federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 592, 593, 594) rather than independent election regulation, avoid any provisions contradicting or expanding upon existing Maryland Election Law provisions, emphasize public safety and order maintenance under traditional police power, focus on municipal resource allocation (property, personnel, budget) rather than election administration, and coordinate with the State Board of Elections rather than creating parallel regulation.
Seeking a Maryland Attorney General opinion prior to ordinance adoption would clarify preemption risk and could provide defensive documentation if the AG finds no conflict. The current AG has issued guidance recognizing polling place arms restrictions, suggesting alignment with ordinance objectives.
Section 2: Statutory framework for ordinance drafting¶
The localization kit for Maryland requires incorporating specific state code provisions that support municipal authority while acknowledging existing state election protections.
Voter intimidation and election offenses are governed by Maryland Election Law Article Title 16. The core provision, Md. Code, Elec. Law § 16-201, establishes criminal penalties (misdemeanor with fines up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to 5 years) for influencing voters through force, threat, menace, intimidation, bribery, or conduct denying voting rights on account of race, color, or disability. Section 16-903(a)(3) specifically prohibits displaying a gun or badge within 100 feet of polling sites, with narrow exceptions for on-duty law enforcement performing official governmental functions. The Attorney General receives injunctive relief authority under § 16-1004(a)(1) to prevent imminent or continuing voter intimidation violations.
Municipal authority derives from Local Government Article provisions. Section 5-202 authorizes ordinances to protect municipal rights, property and privileges; preserve peace and good order; and secure persons and property from danger. Section 5-206 addresses personnel administration including police. Section 4-111 establishes that county legislation does not apply in a municipality on subjects where the municipality has charter or general law authority, allowing municipalities to exempt themselves from county provisions by ordinance.
Charter county police power under Local Government Article § 10-206(a) provides the broadest foundation for county-level ordinances in the 11 charter jurisdictions. This express police power grant does not extend to code counties under §§ 10-102(b) and 10-201.
A particularly useful provision for municipal ordinances appears in Public Safety Article § 2-412©: State police employees may NOT act within limits of a municipal corporation that maintains a police force except in enumerated circumstances including fresh pursuit, Governor-declared emergencies, interstate highways, or when requested by municipal officials. This establishes precedent for municipal control over law enforcement presence within city limits.
Section 3: Baltimore City leads the target jurisdiction analysis¶
Baltimore City emerges as the strongest initial target based on political alignment, legal authority, and advocacy infrastructure. As an independent city operating under its own charter separate from any county, Baltimore possesses the broadest municipal authority in Maryland. The Baltimore City Council consists of 15 members—14 district representatives plus 1 at-large Council President—and is currently 100% Democratic in composition.
The December 2024 election of Zeke Cohen as Council President with 89% of the vote signals a progressive shift. Cohen's victory came amid an influx of young progressive Democrats defeating moderate incumbents, described by local media as candidates with a "progressive edge" who are "professional change-makers." Cohen previously passed 92 ordinances during his council tenure on progressive priorities.
Baltimore's track record on civil liberties legislation demonstrates political feasibility. The city maintains sanctuary policies limiting ICE cooperation, passed the Elijah Cummings Healing City Act for trauma-informed governance, enacted the Gender-Inclusive Single-User Restroom ordinance, adopted the Transparency in Lobbying Act, and approved the Community Reinvestment and Reparations Fund through Question G in November 2024. Mayor Brandon Scott and Comptroller Bill Henry both identify as progressive Democrats, ensuring executive branch alignment.
Montgomery County ranks as the second-priority target with an 11-0 Democratic County Council and explicitly progressive County Executive Marc Elrich, who publicly stated regarding federal enforcement cooperation: "We will follow the law. But we will not abandon our values, we will not allow our communities to be divided." Montgomery County maintains the most extensive sanctuary policies in the region through Executive Order 135-19, barring compliance with ICE detainers and preventing ICE access to county jails.
Most significantly for ordinance implementation, Montgomery County has an existing Chapter 27: Human Rights and Civil Liberties framework in the county code that could accommodate election protection provisions. The Montgomery County Civil Rights Coalition actively develops civil liberties ordinances, and the county demonstrated resilience against legal challenges in the pesticide ordinance case affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Howard County presents the third-strongest target with a 4-1 Democratic supermajority on the County Council and progressive County Executive Calvin Ball III. The county's Liberty Act—limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—passed via 2022 ballot referendum with 64% voter approval, demonstrating strong public support for civil liberties protections against federal overreach. The affluent, highly-educated population skews receptive to election protection messaging.
Section 4: Coalition infrastructure provides organizing foundation¶
Maryland's election protection and civil liberties ecosystem includes established organizations with relevant experience and existing collaborative relationships that can be leveraged for ordinance campaigns.
ACLU of Maryland serves as the anchor coalition partner with extensive election protection infrastructure and legal capacity. Executive Director Dana Vickers Shelley leads the organization from headquarters at 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21211 (main phone: 410-889-8555). Amy Cruice, Legal Program Manager and Election Protection Director, manages the statewide election protection program including a dedicated hotline (667-219-2625) and can be reached at cruice@aclu-md.org or 667-219-2593. Public Policy Director Yanet Amanuel and Senior Staff Attorney David Rocah bring relevant expertise on federal overreach and civil liberties challenges. The ACLU-MD has experience challenging federal agencies on voter data and has worked on municipal police accountability ordinances through the Maryland Police Accountability Act of 2021.
Common Cause Maryland brings democracy reform specialization and municipal policy experience. Executive Director Joanne Antoine operates from 121 Cathedral Street, Suite 2A, Annapolis, MD 21401 (phone: 443-906-0442, email: jantoine@commoncause.org). Policy and Engagement Manager Morgan Drayton (mdrayton@commoncause.org, 410-245-3532) handles local-level campaigns. The organization leads Maryland's 866-OUR-VOTE Election Protection hotline and lists the Maryland Voting Rights Act among 2025 priorities. With 32,000+ supporters statewide and founding in 1974, Common Cause Maryland has deep institutional relationships across jurisdictions.
League of Women Voters of Maryland provides nonpartisan credibility and municipal-level chapter networks ideal for local ordinance campaigns. The Baltimore City chapter (www.lwv-baltimorecity.org), Montgomery County chapter (www.lwvmocomd.org, hotline 301-984-9585), and Howard County chapter (hoco.lwvhowardmd.org) directly correspond to priority target jurisdictions.
CASA (formerly CASA de Maryland) brings critical sanctuary ordinance experience directly applicable to election protection implementation. As the largest member-led immigrant rights organization in the mid-Atlantic with 122,000+ lifetime members, CASA has advocated for local ordinances limiting police-federal agency cooperation since its 1985 founding in Takoma Park—one of Maryland's original sanctuary cities. Executive Director Gustavo Torres leads campaigns including the Maryland Trust Act. CASA's experience navigating legal challenges to local restrictions on federal cooperation provides valuable precedent.
Progressive Maryland (PO Box 6988, Largo, MD 20792, phone 240-800-1571) offers coalition capacity through 120,000+ members and 30+ affiliated organizations. Executive Director Larry Stafford Jr. coordinates work through the Meet the Moment Maryland Coalition.
Jews United for Justice maintains active presence in both Baltimore (2221 Maryland Ave) and Montgomery County (montgomery@jufj.org), with experience on local police accountability campaigns and participation in the Silver Spring Justice Coalition.
Two existing coalitions merit engagement. The Everyone Votes Maryland Coalition includes ACLU, Common Cause, NAACP, League of Women Voters, Disability Rights Maryland, and CASA with a focus on ballot access and election administration—contact through Emily Scarr (Maryland PIRG) or Joanne Antoine (Common Cause). The Maryland Coalition for Justice and Police Accountability (MCJPA) comprises 100+ organizations with experience on local ordinance campaigns limiting law enforcement cooperation, providing a potential model for election protection coalition structure.
Section 5: Election Security Infrastructure¶
Maryland possesses the strongest cybersecurity posture among eastern states by a significant margin, driven by its proximity to Fort Meade (home to U.S. Cyber Command and NSA), elite National Guard cyber units, and a bipartisan State Board of Elections that has accurately counted over 13 million ballots since 2016. The state's comprehensive voter intimidation framework — including an explicit private right of action, penalties up to $5,000 and 5 years imprisonment, and a total firearms ban at polling places under the 2023 Gun Safety Act — makes Maryland one of the best-protected states in the nation. The Maryland TRUST Act (signed February 2026) and the ongoing pursuit of a Maryland Voting Rights Act further strengthen the election security landscape.
State Election Authority & Legal Framework¶
Maryland employs a bipartisan State Board of Elections (Chair Michael Summers) with State Administrator Jared DeMarinis managing operations. The board is structured 3-2 in favor of the governor's party. Maryland's ES&S system has accurately counted over 13 million ballots since 2016. All seven states in the eastern batch (including Maryland) use paper ballots with optical scan tabulation, providing strong audit trails.
Key statutes: Maryland Election Law Article governs all election administration. The state is actively pursuing the Maryland Voting Rights Act package across multiple bills, with language access provisions signed into law in May 2025.
Home rule: Maryland possesses the strongest home rule framework in the region. Article XI-A (charter counties) authorizes counties to adopt charter government with locally elected councils empowered to legislate on local matters. Article XI-E (municipal corporations) provides a broad general grant of authority. Eight counties have home rule charters, and Baltimore City operates as an independent city with its own charter. The Express Powers Act grants charter counties authority to legislate to "prevent nuisances and protect public health, safety, and welfare."
TRUST Act precedent: The Maryland TRUST Act (SB 245/HB 444), signed by Governor Wes Moore on February 17-18, 2026, as emergency legislation, bans 287(g) agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, effective immediately. Nine counties must terminate existing agreements within 90 days. Montgomery County's Trust Act (Expedited Bill 35-25) codifies a resource firewall: county employees, equipment, and facilities cannot be used for federal civil immigration enforcement. It passed unanimously. Howard County, Prince George's County, and Baltimore County have adopted local versions.
Cybersecurity Infrastructure & Capabilities¶
State cybersecurity apparatus: Maryland's proximity to Fort Meade gives it unparalleled access to cyber talent. Acting CISO James Saunders brings federal experience from OPM and SBA. Governor Moore established a Cybersecurity Task Force in January 2024, and the Maryland Local Cybersecurity Collaborative has achieved 100% county participation.
National Guard cyber assets: The 169th Cyber Protection Team (Army National Guard, 134 industry certifications including 16 CISSPs) and the 175th Cyberspace Operations Group (Air National Guard, actively supporting USCYBERCOM) provide elite capabilities. The 110th Information Operations Battalion adds additional capacity. These represent the strongest National Guard cyber assets among eastern states.
Cyber maturity: Tier 1 — Advanced. Maryland's cyber posture is the strongest among eastern states by a significant margin, with moderate impact from CISA withdrawal due to strong independent capabilities.
Physical Security & Polling Place Protections¶
Buffer zone: 100-foot restricted zone from polling place entrances (EL § 16-206(b)). Montgomery County has an exception allowing 25-100 feet; 50-foot restriction from drop boxes.
Firearms: Total firearms ban at polling places under the 2023 Gun Safety Act (Criminal Law § 4-111; Election Law § 16-903(a)). The ban was upheld on appeal in January 2026. EL § 16-903(a)(3) specifically prohibits displaying a gun or badge within 100 feet of polling sites, with narrow exceptions for on-duty law enforcement performing official governmental functions. The 2024 Attorney General guidance confirms this interpretation. Risk level: Low.
Voter intimidation: Maryland provides the most comprehensive voter intimidation framework among eastern states. EL § 16-201 imposes penalties up to $5,000 and 5 years imprisonment for intimidation. Critically, EL § 16-201© references Courts Article § 5-106(b), creating an explicit private right of action for voters — allowing individuals subjected to intimidation to seek legal remedies directly. The AG can also seek injunctive relief under EL § 16-1004(a)(1). Election judges have the duty to maintain order (§ 10-303), and police officers on polling place duty must obey election judge orders (§ 10-304(a)(1)).
Anti-paramilitary statute: Public Safety Article § 13-214 prohibits paramilitary activity.
No state constitutional RKBA provision: Maryland's Constitution has no provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms — unlike most state constitutions — removing a significant opposition argument for election protection ordinances.
Legal Strategies & Key Contacts¶
EO 14248 lawsuit: Maryland joined the 19-state coalition. AG Anthony G. Brown has filed approximately 50 actions against the Trump administration and established a Federal Litigation Unit with dedicated $1.5M funding.
AG enforcement authority: AG Brown issued October 2025 guidance limiting what Maryland police can do when working with federal authorities. The AG's Election Protection Hotline operates at (443) 961-2830 / (833) 282-0960 / electionswork@oag.state.md.us.
Free Elections Clause: Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 7 provides a powerful state constitutional hook: "elections ought to be free and frequent; and every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage."
Municipal ordinance strategy: Charter county ordinances covering Montgomery County (~1 million residents) and Prince George's County (~967,000 residents) demonstrate that election protection non-assistance can operate at population scales comparable to many entire states. The TRUST Act provides the cleanest legal precedent for non-cooperation framing. Maryland's proximity to Washington, D.C. guarantees national media coverage.
Coalition infrastructure: The "Everyone Votes Maryland" and "Expand the Ballot, Expand the Vote" coalitions are already organized around the Maryland Voting Rights Act. CASA (We Are Casa), Maryland's largest immigrant rights organization, was instrumental in passing Trust Acts at state and local levels. The ACLU of Maryland, NAACP Maryland State Conference, Campaign Legal Center, League of Women Voters-MD, and Disability Rights Maryland form the core advocacy coalition.
Key contacts: - State Board of Elections: (410) 269-2840 / 1-800-222-8683 / info.sbe@maryland.gov / elections.maryland.gov - AG Election Protection: (443) 961-2830 / (833) 282-0960 / electionswork@oag.state.md.us - DoIT/CISO: doit.maryland.gov
Conclusion: Strategic pathway forward¶
Maryland presents viable terrain for municipal election protection ordinances despite meaningful legal complexities. The combination of constitutional home rule, absence of anti-sanctuary laws, progressive political control in charter jurisdictions, and established civil liberties coalition infrastructure creates favorable conditions for implementation.
The critical insight is that federal supremacy provides the strongest legal foundation: ordinances explicitly framed as local implementation of 18 U.S.C. § 592's prohibition on armed federal personnel at polling places invoke constitutional protection against state preemption challenges. This framing distinguishes election protection ordinances from pure state-law sanctuary policies and places them within the tradition of local-federal cooperative enforcement.
Baltimore City's progressive Council leadership under Zeke Cohen, Montgomery County's existing civil liberties code framework under Chapter 27, and Howard County's demonstrated voter support for the Liberty Act offer distinct but complementary launch pathways. Coalition outreach should begin with Amy Cruice at ACLU of Maryland and Joanne Antoine at Common Cause Maryland, both organizations with election protection specialization and local ordinance campaign experience. The established Everyone Votes Maryland coalition provides immediate infrastructure for coordinated advocacy across target jurisdictions.
Printable Flyer¶
Download the Maryland Election Protection Flyer
A printable 5.5" × 8.5" flyer with Maryland-specific legal analysis, target cities, and coalition partners.
Open the flyer in your browser, then use File → Print or Ctrl+P to print or save as PDF. The flyer is optimized for half-letter (5.5" × 8.5") printing.
City-Specific Flyers¶
Printable flyers for individual cities with local council details, meeting schedules, and action steps.
Baltimore City — ~570,000 Howard County — ~334,500 Montgomery County — ~1,062,000