By MDBayNews Staff
ANNAPOLIS, MD — The Maryland State Board of Elections moved swiftly this week to counter what it described as “misinformation” about federal agencies taking over state-run elections.
In a February 18 press release, State Administrator of Elections Jared DeMarinis firmly rejected claims that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, or the President could assume control of Maryland’s elections during a state of emergency.
“The law is clear,” DeMarinis stated. In Maryland, authority rests with the Governor and, in some circumstances, the courts — not FEMA or DHS.
The statement also addressed voter list maintenance, citizenship verification, and the controversial federal SAVE database.
But while the press release aims to reassure Marylanders, it raises deeper questions about transparency, federal coordination, and whether Maryland is striking the right balance between access and integrity.
Who Controls Maryland Elections?
According to the Board’s statement, in the event of a state of emergency that interferes with the electoral process, only the Governor of Maryland has the authority to mandate changes. FEMA cannot close polling places, alter election dates, or change voting methods.
Additionally, if there is an emergency circumstance that does not rise to the level of a formal state of emergency, the State Board may petition a circuit court for remedial action.
The Administrator emphasized that neither DHS nor FEMA has “constitutional or statutory authority” to take over Maryland elections.
That clarification may ease concerns among voters wary of federal overreach. But it also underscores how politically charged election administration has become — even at the state level.
Citizenship Verification and the SAVE Debate
The more contentious portion of the release focused on voter registration integrity and citizenship verification.
Maryland currently relies on:
- Reports from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) involving jury disqualifications for non-citizenship.
- Self-reporting by individuals.
Before removal from voter rolls, the State Board sends written notice seeking confirmation.
However, when third-party information about potential noncitizens is received, the Board states it cannot administratively remove a voter and instead forwards such reports to the Office of the State Prosecutor.
The Administrator also confirmed that Maryland does not use the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database in voter registration processes and argued that SAVE is not designed for voter roll maintenance and may produce erroneous information.
Here’s where critics may push back.
While protecting eligible voters from improper removal is essential, many Marylanders reasonably ask:
If SAVE is flawed, what alternative cross-checks are being used?
How frequently are audits conducted?
How many referrals to the State Prosecutor result in confirmed ineligible registrations?
The release reassures — but does not quantify.
In an era where trust is fragile, data matters.
Cybersecurity: Independent — or Insulated?
The press release also asserts that Maryland’s cybersecurity defensive efforts are overseen by the State Board itself, “not the federal government or CISA.”
On its face, that statement reinforces state autonomy.
Yet cybersecurity threats are increasingly international and sophisticated. Maryland voters deserve clarity about how state-level independence is balanced with federal threat intelligence sharing.
Are we leveraging federal expertise while maintaining control — or distancing ourselves from valuable resources in the name of political optics?
Transparency here would strengthen confidence, not weaken it.
Confidence Requires Accountability
The Administrator is correct about one thing: public trust is the bedrock of democracy.
But trust cannot be sustained by assurances alone.
Marylanders deserve:
- Public metrics on voter roll maintenance actions.
- Clear reporting on citizenship verification outcomes.
- Transparent cybersecurity audit summaries.
- Legislative hearings that allow bipartisan scrutiny.
Defending state authority against federal overreach is important. So is ensuring that voter rolls are accurate, lawful, and secure.
Those goals are not mutually exclusive.
The debate over election administration should not devolve into partisan panic — but neither should it shut down legitimate questions.
Maryland’s elections belong to its citizens.
Confidence grows not from dismissing concerns as “misinformation,” but from answering them thoroughly and transparently.
And in 2026, with political tensions high nationwide, Maryland officials would be wise to lead with data, openness, and accountability — not just reassurance.
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.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.