HB 145 cleared the House 95-36 today. Governor Moore is expected to sign it. The First Amendment problems haven’t gone anywhere.
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
ANNAPOLIS — The Maryland House of Delegates passed HB 145 on Friday by a vote of 95-36, sending the state’s first criminal deepfake and election disinformation law to Governor Wes Moore’s desk. The Senate passed the crossfiled version 44-0 in February. Moore is expected to sign it.
Three years after Maryland Democrats first introduced legislation to criminalize AI-generated “deepfakes” and “election disinformation,” they finally have it. What they may also have is a lawsuit — and a federal precedent that suggests they’ll lose it.
What the Law Does
HB 145 requires Maryland’s State Administrator of Elections to act on credible reports of election misinformation or deepfakes — seeking injunctions, correcting public information, and coordinating with online platforms. It also creates criminal liability for anyone who knowingly or with reckless disregard uses or disseminates a deepfake to produce materially false election information.
The penalties are not trivial. According to formal testimony submitted to the House Government, Labor, and Elections Committee by the Reason Foundation, violations carry a misdemeanor penalty with a fine of up to $5,000 and a possible five-year prison sentence.
The bill includes an exception for parody and satire. That sounds reassuring until you consider who decides: a state prosecutor, appointed by the same government the content may be criticizing, would evaluate a publisher’s intent and determine whether to charge them. That is not a safeguard. That is the problem dressed up as a solution.
It’s worth noting that the bill did not pass without resistance. Republican Delegate Arikan offered a floor amendment Friday that was rejected 39-90. Delegate Matt Morgan, who had attempted to kill the bill outright with a motion to table it on April 9, saw that motion fail as well before the bill advanced to third reading.
Even Supporters Had Reservations
The witness list from the February committee hearing tells a more complicated story than the final vote suggests. Several major institutional stakeholders testified in support only with amendments — meaning they backed the bill’s goals while raising serious concerns about how it was written.
The Maryland-DC-Delaware Broadcasters Association supported the bill with amendments, specifically worried about broadcaster liability for news reporting that references or covers deepfake content. The Motion Picture Association filed similar conditional support. The Maryland Chamber of Commerce also testified favorably with amendments.
Those concerns were not resolved. The Republican floor amendment offered Friday — the only vehicle available to address them at that stage — was rejected 90-39. The bill that passed is the bill those organizations had reservations about.
California Already Tried This. A Federal Judge Blocked It.
Maryland isn’t legislating in a vacuum. In 2024, California passed AB 2839 — a law with nearly identical architecture. Broad prohibitions on election-related deepfakes. Exceptions for parody and satire. The state as arbiter of what qualifies.
A federal judge blocked it within days of taking effect. U.S. District Judge John Mendez, acknowledging that deepfakes pose genuine risks, nonetheless ruled the law likely violated the First Amendment. The law, he wrote, acts as “a hammer instead of a scalpel, serving as a blunt tool that hinders humorous expression and unconstitutionally stifles the free and unfettered exchange of ideas which is so vital to American democratic debate.”
Mendez went further: “YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and X tweets are the newspaper advertisements and political cartoons of today, and the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take.”
The court’s reasoning wasn’t that deepfakes are harmless. It was that the government cannot appoint itself the permanent referee of what political expression is real and what is dangerous — especially in the weeks before an election. That principle does not stop at the California border. Maryland’s legislators were aware of the California ruling. They passed HB 145 anyway.
A Better Model Existed — Maryland Rejected It
The Reason Foundation, in its formal committee testimony against HB 145, didn’t simply object. It offered an alternative: Utah’s disclosure-based model, which requires campaigns, PACs, and political operatives to disclose when AI is used in paid political advertising. That approach targets the highest-risk, highest-reach uses of AI — professional political messaging — without empowering the state to police what a private citizen posts on social media.
That distinction matters enormously. There is a meaningful difference between requiring a campaign to label its AI-generated attack ad and threatening a private citizen with five years in prison for a satirical video that a state official decides crossed a line.
That alternative was available. The legislature chose otherwise.
Who Gets to Define “Disinformation”?
The core problem with HB 145 — and every law like it — is the question its supporters never satisfactorily answer: who decides?
The bill’s defenders would say the courts will sort it out. But that answer ignores the chilling effect that arrives long before any case reaches a courtroom. If a Maryland citizen knows that posting an AI-altered image of a politician — even as obvious satire — could expose them to criminal prosecution, many will simply choose not to post. That self-censorship is not a side effect of this law. For some of its supporters, it may be the intent.
The history of “disinformation” legislation at every level of government is a history of definitions expanding to cover speech that is merely inconvenient to those in power. Maryland’s law grants the state authority over “materially false” election information. Who determines materiality? The same officials whose conduct, competence, and honesty are the subject of the speech being regulated.
Democrats in Annapolis have spent this entire legislative session positioning themselves as defenders of democracy against federal overreach. They have sued the Trump administration, passed sanctuary legislation, and invoked constitutional protections at every turn. The Senate voted 44-0, and the House voted 95-36 to hand the Maryland government the authority to criminalize political speech it deems misleading — with up to five years in prison as the penalty.
That tension is worth naming.
What Happens Next
Moore will almost certainly sign HB 145. When he does, Maryland will have enacted a law that a federal court has already told a nearly identical state it cannot enforce. A First Amendment challenge will follow — likely quickly, likely from a civil liberties organization or an individual whose political satire suddenly carries criminal exposure.
Maryland will then spend taxpayer money defending in court what California already lost. The legislature knew that going in.
The right answer was never to ignore the genuine threat of AI-generated election interference. It was to write a law that targets bad actors without conscripting the state as the permanent judge of what political speech Marylanders are allowed to make.
That option was on the table. Ninety delegates voted it down.
Sources: Maryland General Assembly, HB 145 bill history and vote records, 2026 session (third reading 95-36, April 10, 2026); Maryland General Assembly, SB 141 crossfiled bill, passed Senate 44-0, Feb. 12, 2026; Maryland General Assembly, HB 145 committee witness list, Feb. 4, 2026; Reason Foundation, testimony before Maryland House Government, Labor, and Elections Committee, Feb. 4, 2026; Maryland-DC-Delaware Broadcasters Association, testimony on HB 145, Feb. 4, 2026; Maryland Chamber of Commerce, testimony on HB 145, Feb. 4, 2026; Motion Picture Association, testimony on HB 145, Feb. 4, 2026; U.S. District Judge John Mendez, ruling on California AB 2839, Oct. 2, 2024; Associated Press / CBS News reporting on California AB 2839 injunction, Oct. 2024.
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.