The Maryland General Assembly passed an array of election reforms this year to try and curb election interference and increase voter access ahead of the General Election this November.

State Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery County) and State Sen. Katie Fry Hester (D-Howard and Montgomery Counties) are behind a majority of the changes that were signed into law by Gov. Wes Moore on Tuesday.

Requiring plain ballot language

Under SB0029, Maryland will become the twenty-fourth state to enact a law requiring that ballot language be written in a way that is easy to understand and is digestible for voters.

Any ballot question — like a request for voters to change the Maryland Constitution — must be written in compliance with the Federal Plain Writing Act of 2010 and exclude passive voice, legal jargon and double negatives.

“It just means that when voters are asked their opinion on a ballot measure, that they know what the question means,” Kagan said. “More than 400 people voted for governor and did not vote for ballot measures they found confusing.”

The changes go into effect on June 1.

Banning faithless electors

While “faithless electors” have shown up throughout history, the term reentered the zeitgeist during the 2016 presidential election between then-Republican nominee Donald Trump and then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Under the U.S.’s electoral college system, each state is allocated a number of presidential electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators plus the number of its U.S. representatives — Maryland has 10 electors.

The presidential candidate that wins the popular vote sends their slate of electors — who pledged to cast their vote for their party’s presidential nominee — to the state capital, and those electors are the ones who decide who the next president and vice president will be.

In 2016, seven of the 538 presidential electors officially voted for a presidential candidate other than whom they pledge to support, hence the title “faithless electors.”

SB0237 squashes the concept of the faithless elector in Maryland, prohibiting the state administrator of elections from accepting a presidential elector’s ballot if they vote in violation of their pledge.

If an elector refuses to vote in alignment with the candidate they pledged to support, the elector automatically vacates the position and an alternate elector will step in.

Kagan says ideally, she wishes the U.S. would switch to a popular vote system, where the president is decided by whichever candidate gets the most amount of votes without the need for electors.

“We’re not there yet. In the meantime, let’s make sure the Electoral College functions correctly,” Kagan said. “So if [a presidential elector] goes in and is going to vote for someone that is not reflective of the majority of Maryland voters and the way they express their preference, they will be immediately replaced with another elector so that the Electoral College reflects Maryland’s voters.”

Twenty-four other states have a similar faithless elector prohibition in place.

The bill goes into effect on Oct. 1.

Preserving state absentee ballot deadlines

The U.S. Supreme Court is in the throes of deciding if it will overturn laws in 29 states — including Maryland — that allow mail-in votes to be counted after Election Day if they were postmarked by Election Day.

When the high court heard oral arguments in late March, the conservative majority appeared to be in favor of outlawing the practice.

In Maryland, mail-in or absentee ballots are counted as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day and received by 10 a.m., 10 days after Election Day.

Maryland would not be able to supersede a decision from the Supreme Court to ban the practice for federal elections, but SB0949 would preserve extended ballot counting for state and local elections.

“This is an emergency bill, and it is in response to Donald Trump’s crazy and unconstitutional effort to try to take over our elections,” Kagan said, referring to an executive order Trump signed in March attempting to change how states run elections. “If you’re putting your life on the line in one of our international wars that [Trump] keeps starting, I want that person to have the right to vote, and that ballot may take a while to come back. So we want to make sure that is included in our tally before we finalize any election.”

A Supreme Court decision against extended ballot deadlines would only apply to Maryland congressional candidates come this November, meaning under this new law, a voter’s congressional pick may be invalid if their ballot is received after Election Day, but Maryland would still count their votes cast toward all other local and state candidates.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will make its decision on mail-in ballot deadlines.

The legislation became effective on Tuesday with Moore’s signature.

Bolstering authority at polling locations

SB0670 gives the state administrator of elections or local election director the ability to keep the peace at polling places, order the arrest of anyone who interferes with the election and protect designated challengers or watchers, individuals that have been given access to observe voting activities.

“The Maryland Association of Election Officials… asked me to help them increase security at the polling place, just to make sure that people feel safe,” Kagan said. “If someone comes in and they’re trying to talk to a voter, if there’s a threat happening, if they’re trying to destroy or interfere with election equipment, there needs to be more than just one person who can intervene and make sure that things stay calm, safe and in compliance with the law.”

Police who are on duty at polling locations will be required to obey the order of an election judge or other election officials under the new law.

The bill goes into effect on June 1.

Election AI deepfakes

SB0141 criminalizes the use of AI-generated deepfakes — highly realistic synthetic media — to distribute election misinformation.

Hester points to the potential usage of artificial intelligence to show an image of a polling place on fire or of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at a voting location as examples of deepfakes that this bill would protect against.

“We all know that AI tools now allow anyone to create convincing fake audio or video in minutes, and once misinformation spreads, it’s really hard to kind of un-ring that bell,” Hester said. “And so with elections, there’s this risk to harm and voter confidence.”

The bill allows the state administrator of elections to seek an injunction for the removal of any election misinformation from online platforms and then require the administrator to release the correct information to the public.

The state administrator can also file a civil action — if found guilty, the violator would be subject to a misdemeanor and a fine of no more than $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.

The law goes into effect on June 1.

Personal identity AI deepfakes

Hester is also the sponsor of SB0008, which outlines legal ramifications for the creation of an AI deepfake impersonating someone with the intent to defraud, mislead or cause harm.

The bill expands beyond election-related deepfakes, but the regulation is timely as the United States is starting to see examples of political opponents using AI to defame other candidates.

“We used the existing identity fraud laws that were written before this type of technology existed and [tried] to close this gap,” Hester said. “It updates this part of the law with different types of personal information, like biometric data, voice prints, iris scans and digital signatures, and then it creates clear penalties based on the harm caused.”

The bill provides a path to justice for the subjects of deepfakes by allowing the victim to bring forth civil action and authorizing courts to order restitution for the cost of identity theft, including reasonable attorneys fees.

Hester explains the bill does not criminalize the use of AI and that intent is key when it comes to determining if the produced deepfake could be subject to litigation.

The legislation includes carve outs for satire and parity, as well as for broadcast and print media where appropriate disclosures are provided.

Perpetrators could be charged with a misdemeanor or felony depending on the severity of the content and a maximum fine of $25,000 and/or imprisonment up to 20 years.

The law will become effective on Oct. 1.