Maryland ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Maryland Question 1, explained
Funding state employee collective bargaining agreements in the governor's budget. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wording
Constitutional Amendment (Ch. 155 of the 2026 Legislative Session) — Arbitration Reform for State Employees Act of 2026. Providing that each budget submitted by the Governor shall include proposed expenditures necessary to implement wages, hours, fringe benefits, health benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment in each collective bargaining memorandum of understanding with State employees, whether the State and State employees reached those terms and conditions by mutual agreement or through a neutral decider's order. (Amending Article III of the Maryland Constitution) For the Constitutional Amendment — A vote FOR this amendment means that the Governor has to include money in the proposed State budget to pay for agreements between the State and its employees. Agreements might include changes to wages, hours, fringe benefits, health benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Governor must put enough money in the State budget to cover the agreed upon pay and benefits for employees, whether those terms were negotiated or decided by a neutral decision-maker. Against the Constitutional Amendment — A vote AGAINST the amendment means that the law about funding agreements between the State and State employees stays the same.
This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
What it actually means
Maryland's governor writes the state budget and the legislature can cut but not add to it. Today, when the state and its employees' unions reach a deal, state law tells the governor to include the cost — but the obligation sits in statute. This amendment puts it in the constitution, and extends it to terms set by a neutral arbitrator rather than only to terms both sides agreed. A companion law, House Bill 604, sets up binding arbitration for state employee bargaining and takes effect only if voters approve.
If you vote YES
- Article III, Section 52 would require every budget the governor submits to include the appropriations necessary to implement all terms and conditions of employment in each memorandum of understanding with state employees — wages, hours, fringe benefits and health benefits — whether reached by agreement or by binding arbitration.
- The requirement would cover the state, institutions of higher education including the University System of Maryland, and the Maryland Environmental Service.
- The statutory changes in House Bill 604 would take effect: bargaining between July 1 and September 30, either party able to request a neutral arbitrator, an arbitrator drawn from a list of 15 supplied by the American Arbitration Association if no agreement by September 1, binding arbitration if an impasse is declared on or after October 1, and a final written award by December 15.
- The arbitrator's decision would be binding except on any term requiring a change in law or an appropriation, which would still rest with the legislature.
- The new process would not cover employees of state higher education institutions or BWI airport fire employees, who have their own arbitration process.
If you vote NO
- The rules on funding agreements between the state and its employees stay as they are. State law already directs the governor to include amounts needed to accommodate the additional cost resulting from negotiations, but that duty stays in statute rather than the constitution.
- House Bill 604's binding arbitration process would not take effect. Impasses would continue to go to a fact finder whose recommendations are advisory only, delivered to the governor and legislative leaders by December 1.
- The governor would keep the same discretion over what goes into the budget bill, subject to the existing statutory language.
- Maryland's budget process is otherwise unchanged: the governor submits a balanced budget on the third Wednesday in January and the legislature adopts one by the 83rd day of session.
Why supporters say YES
"SB 28 aligns collective bargaining outcomes with Maryland's constitutional budget process by requiring that each budget include the appropriations necessary to implement the terms and conditions of employment negotiated in memoranda of understanding. This creates a coherent system in which negotiated agreements are not aspirational, but actionable."
— Christopher Cano, director of political and legislative affairs, SEIU Local 500
"Maryland must do all it can to compete with neighboring jurisdictions and the private sector to make employment with the state competitive and attractive. The peaceful, timely resolution of disputes in collective bargaining negotiations through binding arbitration is a significant step forward to accomplish that goal."
— Jessica Cook, on behalf of the Maryland State Education Association
Why opponents say NO
"While Senate Bill 28 purports to bind the Governor to include appropriations in his budget necessary to fund implementation of all wage and other terms and conditions of employment in each MOU, it is unclear whether the General Assembly would be obligated to ultimately fund those terms. If those terms go unfunded, Senate Bill 28 would essentially create an unfunded mandate, binding the institutions to 'take all actions necessary to carry out and effectuate the final written award and place into effect the memorandum of understand[ing].'"
— Sherri Roxas, senior director of labor relations, University System of Maryland
What’s genuinely uncertain
- The gap the University System raises is real on the face of the text: the amendment binds what the governor must propose, not what the legislature must appropriate, and the amendment does not say what happens if the legislature declines to fund an arbitrated term.
- No committee has registered to support or oppose the amendment, and no campaign finance activity on either side has been reported through August 25, 2026.
- No fiscal estimate of what the amendment would add to future budgets was located; the cost depends entirely on what future agreements and awards contain.
- The amendment passed largely along party lines, with all voting Democrats and about 8% of voting Republicans in favour; no Republican legislator's argument against it was found published.
The bottom line
Whether the governor should be constitutionally required to budget for what the state agrees — or an arbitrator awards — to its employees, against leaving that obligation in statute and the governor's hands; unions say agreements should be actionable rather than aspirational, while a state university labour official warns it could commit institutions to costs the legislature never funds.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Checking it against the official text
The Maryland State Board of Elections publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Maryland State Board of Elections.
Other measures on the Maryland ballot
Candidates on the same ballot
- Maryland governor's race
- Maryland's 1st congressional district
- Maryland's 2nd congressional district
- Maryland's 3rd congressional district
- Maryland's 4th congressional district
- Maryland's 5th congressional district
- Maryland's 6th congressional district
- Maryland's 7th congressional district