Green Party Ticket Pushes ICE Abolition as Maryland Faces Budget Reality

By MDBayNews Staff

As Maryland lawmakers advance legislation to ban local participation in federal immigration enforcement, the state’s 2026 gubernatorial race is already revealing sharp ideological divides—not just between parties, but over the basic role of government itself.

In a weekly media briefing released February 9, the Ellis/Andrews Green Party campaign endorsed a full ban on 287(g) agreements and reiterated its call for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), while simultaneously attacking Governor Wes Moore’s proposed disability service cuts as evidence of Democratic mismanagement Weekly Media Briefing- Ellis:An….

The message is clear: Maryland’s political debate is drifting further away from practical governance and deeper into ideological absolutism.

From Limiting Cooperation to Abolishing ICE

The General Assembly is moving forward with legislation to prohibit 287(g) agreements—federal partnerships that allow local law enforcement in eight Maryland counties to assist with immigration enforcement. Governor Moore has signaled he will sign the bill.

For Ellis and his running mate Owen Silverman Andrews, however, this is not enough. Their campaign argues that Maryland should move beyond limiting cooperation and toward “full ICE abolition,” portraying federal immigration enforcement as unconstitutional and inherently abusive.

That position places the Green Party ticket well outside the mainstream of Maryland voters, including many who support immigration reform but remain wary of dismantling federal law enforcement agencies entirely. While the campaign cites arrest statistics to argue that ICE enforcement disproportionately targets non-violent individuals, critics note that immigration enforcement is, by definition, a civil process—and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.

From a center-right perspective, the issue is less about compassion versus cruelty and more about constitutional boundaries. States can choose how much to cooperate—but advocating outright abolition of a federal agency raises serious separation-of-powers questions and invites legal conflict Maryland taxpayers would ultimately fund.

Disability Cuts Reveal Deeper Budget Problems

The briefing also sharply criticizes Governor Moore’s proposed $150 million reduction to the Developmental Disabilities Administration in the FY2027 budget, which would affect an estimated 21,000 Marylanders through capped services, reduced provider wages, and eliminated rate adjustments Weekly Media Briefing- Ellis:An….

Here, the Green Party’s critique overlaps with concerns raised across the political spectrum: Maryland’s budget math is becoming increasingly strained.

But Ellis’s framing—that the cuts stem from a refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy—ignores a more basic fiscal reality. Maryland’s structural deficit is the product of years of expanding commitments without corresponding long-term funding plans. Corporate tax credits and economic incentives may be politically unpopular, but they are also part of the state’s competitiveness strategy in a region where employers can easily relocate across state lines.

The uncomfortable truth is that no serious gubernatorial contender—Democrat, Republican, or Green—has yet offered a credible plan to fund every priority without either raising broad-based taxes or cutting spending elsewhere.

Outsider Rhetoric Meets Governing Reality

Ellis’s preview of Governor Moore’s upcoming State of the State address portrays Maryland as a one-party system failing to deliver bold outcomes despite total control of government. While there is truth to the critique of entrenched power, the Green Party’s alternative vision leans heavily on maximalist promises without grappling with enforcement, cost, or legal limits.

Calling for ICE abolition, sweeping economic restructuring, and expansive new protections may energize a niche base—but governing Maryland requires navigating federal law, balanced budgets, and a politically diverse electorate.

As the 2026 campaign unfolds, Maryland voters may find themselves less interested in who offers the most sweeping rhetoric—and more focused on who can actually make the state function.

Bottom line: The Ellis/Andrews campaign is succeeding at drawing sharp contrasts. Whether it can persuade voters that ideological purity translates into workable governance is another matter entirely.

---

Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free

MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.

If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip