WASHINGTON – Maryland Democratic lawmakers are being accused of silencing people’s First Amendment rights as a General Assembly committee considering a bill to block transgender students from playing girls’ sports decided to block any public testimony on the bill. 

Maryland House Bill 156 would prevent transgender students from playing girls’ sports. It’s an issue that has sparked controversy around the country but in Annapolis Wednesday, it was much quieter as the public wasn’t allowed to testify on the legislation.

Republican Del. Kathy Szeliga says she wrote of the “Fairness in Girls’ Sports Act” because she believes fairness and safety are jeopardized when biological boys are allowed to compete in girls’ sports. 

“I’ve had opponents contact my office and say, ‘look, we’re disappointed we can’t get in person to weigh in against your bill’ and of course people who are for my bill,” Szeliga said. 

Neither supporters nor opponents were allowed to testify on the bill. The chair of the Ways and Means Committee ruled that only Szeliga, the bill’s sponsor, could speak. 

“For all sponsor-only oral testimony bills, we accept unlimited written testimony and we do not time sponsors when they testify although we reserve the right,” said Democratic Del. Vanessa Attenbeary. 

Under the General Assembly’s rules, if a bill was introduced in a prior session, as the Fairness in Girls Sports Act was, the committee does not have to hear oral testimony from the public. 

“They’re saying ‘this bill’s been brought up before’ Therefore there’s going to be no public testimony. That’s a real First Amendment issue,” said Dan Nash with the Christ Reformed Evangelical Church.

Democrats control both the House and Senate in Maryland but some people who showed up to speak say Democrats are also controlling their First Amendment rights by not letting them testify.

Given the political makeup in Annapolis, it’s highly unlikely the bill would even make it out of committee but there is a companion bill in the Senate and supporters are hoping they can testify in that hearing next month.

As Maryland lawmakers look for ways to raise money to close a budget gap and fund the state’s priorities, some are looking to online gambling as part of the solution.

Lawmakers again will consider allowing Marylanders to legally play poker, blackjack, roulette and other forms of gambling — with the state taking a hefty cut, primarily to fund education programs.

The proposal, dubbed “iGaming” in Annapolis, will get its first airing at the General Assembly on Wednesday. Lawmakers have wrestled with the idea of internet gambling multiple times but never settled on a plan. Last year, an internet gambling measure passed the House of Delegates but went nowhere in the Senate.

Sen. Ron Watson, one of the measure’s sponsors, said he hopes now is the year, given the state’s budget picture and the momentum of internet gambling in other states. Under the bill he is sponsoring along with Del. Vanessa Atterbeary, a Howard County Democrat, most of the proceeds would be directed to pay for the state’s ambitious education plan, the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.

“Everybody makes such a big deal out of the Blueprint, and now we want to slow the rollout and push things back — and nobody wants to experience this revenue,” said Watson, a Prince George’s County Democrat.

Here’s how the internet gambling proposal would work.

Voters get a say

Maryland voters would get an up-or-down vote on internet gambling during the 2026 election, in the form of an amendment to the state constitution.

That’s how the existing forms of gambling — slot machines, followed by casino table games and then sports betting — became legal in the state.

That means it would take some time to get internet gambling up and running, because the state would have to solicit applicants for licenses and pick who would get to participate in the industry.

Money for education

The state government would take a cut of each internet gambling company’s profits, plowing most of that money into the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund.

Nonpartisan analysts estimate that once the internet gambling companies are up and running, the state would bring in $225 million in the first full year — a number that would grow in future years.

The state’s cut would be 20% of the proceeds from live dealer games and 45% of the proceeds from other types of gambling.

A small portion of the money would be sent to the state’s problem gambling fund, state regulators, horse racing subsidies and local governments. There also would be a fund set up to assist casino workers who lose their jobs due to internet gambling.

The bill has a complicated licensing regime that offers opportunities for existing casinos to gain licenses, as well as opportunities for minority and disadvantaged businesses to get into the industry. Casinos could gain additional licenses if they launch joint ventures with minority companies.

An inevitable gambling expansion?

Supporters of internet gambling argue that millions of Marylanders are gambling online already, but they’re doing it illegally.

“Just type, ‘Can I play online poker?’ or ‘Can I play online slots?’ while sitting in Maryland and you’ll be directed to dozens of websites that say they are legal and legitimate. But the reality is they are not licensed and they are not regulated and the state gets zero revenue,” said John Pappas with iDEA Growth, a nonprofit that represents companies involved with internet gambling.

Pappas said seven states already have internet gambling, including nearby Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Cannibalizing existing gambling?

One of the arguments against online gambling — at least the one made by some casino operators — is that it would take away business from the existing forms of gambling.

Nonpartisan state analysts estimate that once internet gambling is fully operational, the state’s six casinos could see a 10% loss of profits from their slot machines and table games. If that plays out, there would be a corresponding loss in money going to the state funds that casinos support, including education, horse racing subsidies and aid to local governments.

Baltimore-based Cordish Companies, which owns the Live! Casino Hotel in Hanover, opposed internet gambling last year, with the company’s top lawyer saying it would a “jobs killer” that could end up causing losses in important revenues from the state.

Mark Stewart, Cordish’s general counsel, wrote to lawmakers last year that they should study the issue more to understand the possible consequences. “There is too much at stake for the State in terms of jobs, comprehensive tax revenues and potential social costs to rush this important public policy decision,” he wrote. (The Baltimore Banner leases an office in a Cordish-owned building.)

Proponents say the concerns about internet gambling cannibalizing bricks-and-mortar gambling are overblown. Pappas points to an analysis his organization did using data from Pennsylvania, where revenue from slots and table games have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels and overall gambling revenue has increased since internet gambling was legalized in 2019.

Concerns have also been raised that the ease of internet gambling — having access in one’s phone in the palm of their hand — may drive problem gambling. Republicans voiced opposition to internet gambling last year citing worries over problem gambling, with one lawmaker calling it a “bad bet” for Maryland.

Uncertain prospects

Internet gambling has been debated multiple times in Annapolis, where there is more interest in the House of Delegates than in the state Senate.

The House approved internet gambling last year and included it in their version of the state budget, but the Senate did not go along with it.

Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Baltimore Democrat, did not predict good odds this year.

“I think there are a lot of issues when it comes to internet gaming that we have to work through,” Ferguson told reporters Tuesday. “I don’t know that there’s been a significant change for members of the [Budget and Taxation] committee from last year.”

Ferguson said lawmakers should be thoughtful in their approach to the issue.

“Just because we are in need of new revenues doesn’t mean that everything all of a sudden makes sense,” he said.