In two letters sent four days apart, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and lawyers representing the state and national Republican Party and two party officials in Maryland raised concerns about efforts to purge duplicate and ineligible voters — including those who are deceased, incarcerated or undocumented immigrants. Both letters, obtained by Maryland Matters, cite federal election law and a 2023 state audit that raised questions about the accuracy of state voter rolls.

State Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis acknowledged that his agency received both letters in the past week.

“We’re reviewing the DOJ letter,” DeMarinis said in an interview. “We are acknowledging that — like the general public — information is available under the public information act, and we will respond accordingly.”

The July 14 Justice Department letter requested voter registration data from November 2022 to November 2024. Federal attorneys also asked the state to provide “the number of voters identified as ineligible to vote” during that period because they were a “non-citizen … adjudicated incompetent” or had a felony conviction.

Federal attorneys set a 14-day deadline for state officials to provide the information.

A Justice Department spokesperson, in an email, declined to comment.

The letter comes as a growing number of election boards around the nation are facing scrutiny from a federal government led by a chief executive who has widely claimed he was the victim of extensive voter fraud.

“It heightens concerns about federalism and the roles between federal and state governments involved in election administration,” DeMarinis said.

Separate federal lawsuit threatened

In a separate but parallel letter, attorneys representing a group of local, state, and national Republicans alleged “implausibly high” voter registration percentages, both statewide and in some individual counties. The letter was sent to state and local elections officials four days after the Justice Department request.

In a 12-page notice of intent letter, attorneys with the firm Consovoy McCarthy said they represent the Republican National Committee and the Maryland Republican Party.

“Maryland is failing to maintain accurate and up-to-date voter rolls, in clear violation of federal law,” Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley said in a statement. “Citizens deserve to know their vote isn’t being canceled out by duplicate or ineligible voters. We’re demanding action because clean voter rolls are essential to protecting free and fair elections in Maryland and across the country.”

The statement also referenced a 2023 report from the Office of Legislative Audits that raised questions about how the state maintains its voter rolls. That report raised concerns that potentially deceased residents remain on state voter rolls. State elections officials said auditors exaggerated those claims.

Maryland was sued last year by two organizations claiming widespread problems with the state’s voter registration system, but a U.S. District Court judge in Baltimore dismissed the case for lack of standing by the groups bringing the suit, citing the groups’ lack of standing to file a lawsuit. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal in February.

A  Maryland Republican Party spokesperson referred all questions about the letter to Nicolee Ambrose, a Republican National Committeewoman and 2022 Republican congressional candidate who is also represented by the law firm, according to the letter. Ambrose did not respond to a request for comment, but she did comment about the letter in a social media post.

“The Maryland State Board of Elections has run out of excuses for violating federal law,” she wrote on Facebook. “It is imperative they do their job and clean up Maryland’s egregiously out-of-date and inflated voter rolls.”

The firm also said it represents Reardon Sullivan, whom it described as chair of “Committee to Control MoCo Spending,” a ballot issue committee. He is also a former chair of the Montgomery County Republican Central Committee.

Sullivan, in an email, said “ensuring updated and accurate voter rolls is a non-partisan issue that affects every Maryland voter.” Issues with inaccurate voter rolls “directly [affects] our committee’s efforts to collect valid signatures for our ballot petition,” he wrote.

Data cited in the GOP letter alleges that there are more voters than adults who are eligible to vote in Maryland, which Sullivan said “is obviously impossible. … Maryland must take this issue seriously and remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists prior to the 2026 election.”

Allegations in the letter include state elections officials failing to maintain accurate voter registration rolls and counties with “implausibly high” voter registration rates. It said its analysis of state records identified two counties — Howard and Montgomery — as having “more active registered voters than eligible adult citizens” between 2019 and 2023.

Both Republicans on the five-member state board of elections have ties to those counties: Diane Butler is a former member of the Howard County Board of Elections and Jim Shalleck, vice chair of the panel, served six years as president of the Montgomery County Board of Elections.

The law firm’s analysis compared state voter registration totals and annual census data estimates.

“This evidence shows that your office and officials in these counties are not conducting appropriate list maintenance to ensure that the voter registration roll is accurate and current, as required by federal law,” the firm wrote in its letter.

Virginia-based Consovoy McCarthy is known for its conservative pedigree, representing President Donald Trump in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and arguing the case that ended the practice of race-based college admissions. Two of its attorneys clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The firm said its clients “will bring a lawsuit” against the state and local boards “if you fail to take specific actions to correct these violations” within 90 days.

“We’ve received it, and it is under review,” DeMarinis said when asked about the Consovoy McCarthy letter.

David Naimon, president of the Montgomery County Board of Elections, said the local agency is reviewing the letter and declined further comment.

Officials in Howard County did not respond to a request for comment.

Sowing ‘doubt’ and ‘conspiracy theories’

Maryland is one of a growing number of states where election officials have received letters from the Justice Department.

Some see the effort as a weaponization of federal law enforcement for political reasons.

“They’re just trying to come into a state that is currently dominated by Democratic leaders and sow doubt and imply there’s a problem where none exists,” said Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee Vice Chair Sen. Cheryl C. Kagan, a Montgomery County Democrat, who devotes much of her legislative policy focus to elections law.

“Don’t forget that next year is an election year in Maryland,” she said. “So, if Republicans, whether they are in the administration or in the political party, are looking to plant conspiracy theories or doubt, this is the right time to do it.”

Federal laws restrict the federal government’s ability to centralize information on Americans, said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. Even if states provide voter registration information to the public, they often redact sensitive information.

In Orange County, California, the DOJ sued local election officials in June, seeking unredacted voter registration information, such as Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses, as part of an investigation into noncitizen voting.

More than 350 election officials from some 33 states participated in a conference call about federal actions Monday hosted by Becker, who was previously an attorney in the DOJ Voting Rights Section during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. He said the interest in the call shows the level of uncertainty and anxiety over the current “federal imposition” on election administrators.

“The DOJ seems dead set on acquiring personal information on voters, including driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers and dates of birth — records that are highly protected under federal law and under state law and which state election officials are sworn to protect,” Becker told Stateline.

Maryland joins growing list of states

At least nine states have received requests for information over the past three months, according to letters from the DOJ obtained by Stateline. Some states also received emails from a DOJ official last week asking for meetings to discuss information-sharing agreements.

When asked whether Maryland had received any other letter or demands from the Department of Justice, DeMarinis said: “No.”

DeMarinis said the most recent letters will have little effect on how state elections are administered in the state.

“My charge and my mission is to make sure Maryland’s elections are safe, secure and transparent,” DeMarinis said. “I’m not going to be deterred from that mission.”

The department’s focus on elections comes after Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi in March to seek information about suspected election crimes from state election officials and empowered her to withhold grants and other funds from uncooperative states.

For years, Trump advanced false claims about elections, including the idea that the 2020 election he lost was stolen. Now back in power, his administration is taking a new level of interest in how states — and even local authorities — administer elections.

In March, Trump issued an executive order attempting to impose several election policies, including proof of citizenship requirements, reviews of state voter registration lists and requiring all mail in ballots be received by Election Day. That executive order is the subject of an ongoing court challenge.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman contributed to this article.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: scrane@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and Bluesky.

The letter from the 39-member House Republican Caucus was released a day before Moore was scheduled to hold his third post-legislative bill signing of the 2025 session.

“On numerous occasions, you have indicated your concerns about the impact federal actions can have on Maryland families and businesses,” the caucus wrote in its letter to Moore. “We would respectfully submit that the hundreds of new or increased taxes and fees Maryland’s families and businesses have had to absorb over the last several years have had a more significant and immediate impact on every Marylander.”

None of the bills objected to in the letter are among the 193 set to be signed during a noon ceremony Tuesday. Moore has until May 27 to decide to sign, veto or allow bills to become law without his signature.

“As Gov. Moore reviews the hundreds of bills put forward this session, he will continue to work with the state legislature, local leaders, and all partners involved to ensure that we are signing legislation that will make Maryland safer, more affordable, more competitive, and the state that serves,”  a Moore spokesperson said in an email.

Included on the Republican list are four bills: Senate Bills 250 and 425, which increase Maryland Department of Environment fees, and allow the state to collect fees on coal combustion byproducts from former coal plant operators, respectively; and House Bills 719 and 796, which raise boat title, license and other fees, and increase the cost to file a foreclosure action, respectively.

Some fees of the Department of the Environment fees in SB 250 have not been increased since the 1990s.

Combined, all four bills are projected to bring in tens of millions in additional revenues. Much of that money is earmarked for specific programs such as the clean air and private dam restoration funds.

The caucus, in its letter, noted a budget containing “numerous taxes and fees, representing the largest tax increase in ” state history in addition to the fees contained in the four bills.

The budget passed this year by the General Assembly includes roughly $1.6 billion in tax and fee increases. That package includes a new 3% sales tax on data and IT services.

“Our citizens need a break from the state government’s relentless attack on their wallets,” the caucus wrote in its letter.

The call for a veto came as those same attorneys announced nearly two dozen new lawsuits Monday against one Catholic high school in Baltimore County. Robert K. Jenner, managing partner at Baltimore-based Jenner Law, called on Moore to reject the bill that was rushed through the final days of the 2025 Maryland General Assembly session.

“It breaks the faith with the thousands of survivors who have come forward believing that the state of Maryland was on their side and ready to hold perpetrators accountable,” said Jenner, one of roughly a half-dozen attorneys who spoke during a news conference at his firm’s Baltimore office.

But a Moore spokesperson said Monday that while the Democratic governor “acknowledges the trauma survivors of child sexual assault have endured and the difficult and unprecedented circumstances surrounding this legislation,” a veto is off the table.

“The General Assembly has carefully crafted legislation that will continue to allow the survivors to seek justice while preserving the long-term fiscal stability of the state,” the spokesperson said in an email. “The governor will sign this legislation.”

House Bill 1378 passed both the House and Senate by veto-proof majorities.

While the attorneys decried the passage of House Bill 1378 , they said they are not waiting for Moore to veto the bill. The attorneys — part of a coalition calling themselves the Calvert Hall Lawyers Working Group — announced roughly two dozen new lawsuits against Towson-based Calvert Hall College High School.

Emily C. Malarkey, a partner at Baltimore-based Bekman, Marder, Hopper, Malarkey & Perlin, said the new lawsuits represent what could potentially be a rush to file before the new law — with its lower caps on damages — takes effect.

“We’re working 24/7, for the next six weeks to get all our clients’ cases filed,” Malarkey said in an interview. “If we wait until June 1, their cap is going to drop in half, and we’re not going to do that to them. We’re going to work our butts off to get it done.”

Jenner praised the 2023 law, sponsored by Del. C.T. Wilson, a Charles County Democrat, as well as a Supreme Court of Maryland ruling this year that held the law was constitutional. Wilson also sponsored HB1378, out of concern that potential settlements under the 2023 law could bust the state budget. It’s legislation that Jenner and other attorneys opposed.

“Finally, we thought we had a path to justice but here we are. A landmark victory for survivors that we thought ended the question has now been gutted. But this isn’t about budget math. This is about moral clarity. This is about a promise that the state of Maryland made and is now poised to break,” Jenner said.

The 2025 bill as passed “slashes the amount survivors can recover by jury, verdict or by settlement, and it limits them to a single payment when they have been abused several times, multiple times by the same perpetrator,” he said.

Malarkey’s firm on Monday filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 clients against Towson-based Calvert Hall College High School. The lawsuit also names as defendants the Brothers of the Christian Schools, District of Eastern North America, and the Christian Brothers of Frederick. Both entities were responsible for managing and operating Calvert Hall.

The 45-page filing includes allegations of abuse against four members of the clergy — Brother Geoffrey Xavier Langan and the Revs. Laurence Brett, Jerome Toohey and Francis LeFevre. All four were named in a 463-page report on child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore released in 2023 by the Office of the Attorney General.

Stephen E. Arnold, a lay science instructor at Calvert Hall is also named as an abuser in the lawsuit filed Monday.

The claims filed Monday would come in under the current law, which said victims of abuse in private institutions could file a lawsuit at any time, and capped damages at $1.5 million per “occurrence” — a term over which plaintiff’s attorneys and some lawmakers disagree. For state and local government entities, the cap was set at $890,000 per occurrence.

Assuming Moore makes good on his promise to sign HB1378 into law, claims filed after June 1 would be capped at $700,000 for private institutions and $400,000 for public institutions The changes came after legislative analysts warned of the potential “enormous liability” stemming from claims against state institutions.

Those analysts said in January that there could be as many as 3,500 claims. And while they did not provide a potential price tag, conservative estimates initially set the amount at about $3.1 billion — an amount roughly equal to the structural budget deficit.

The actual amount of potential liability is not fully known.

The Child Victim’s Act, passed in 2023, was the result of a decade of effort to allow victims — who were children at the time they were assaulted — to file lawsuits that were otherwise time-barred. At the time, most of the focus was on survivors of abuse who made allegations against the Catholic Church.

The bill was praised at the time by Moore and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, a Democrat.

But the potential for liabilities grew as attorneys for those with claims argued that “per occurrence” meant each individual instance of sexual assault. Others argued for a more conservative definition that would combine assaults based on other factors. The result would be a reduction of the total amount a jury could potentially award.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore quickly sought bankruptcy protection before the law could take effect in October 2023.

At the same time, cases against the state were also making their way to the courthouse. One group of attorneys earlier this year said they were representing roughly 4,500 claimants. If each one had just one claim of abuse and received the maximum award, the potential liability to the state is an estimated $4 billion.

“I could have never comprehended 4,500 claimants, and it’s an open door with another 1,500 in the hopper,” Wilson said in an interview earlier this year. He wondered aloud about “how much are taxpayers going to be on the hook for this?”

Those attorneys said many clients have more than one allegation of abuse. They also said that they have been in settlement discussions with the attorney general’s office. Those attorneys declined to provide details on the amount they were seeking, but said it was less than even what legislative analysts hinted at in January.

The Maryland attorneys are not the first to move cases to the courthouse. Levy Konigsberg, a New York-based law firm, filed lawsuits on behalf of 221 men and women the day after Maryland lawmakers adjourned the 2025 legislative session. All of the cases focus on allegations of sexual abuse at 15 state juvenile detention facilities.

The lawsuits bring the number of claims to roughly 2,000, according to the firm. Levy Konigsberg represents about 1,000 people who allege they were sexually abused while in state custody.

The Commission on State Debt, in a 10-minute meeting Friday, recommended holding the rate on commercial and residential properties at 11.2 cents per $100 in assessed value.

Treasurer Dereck Davis, chair of the panel, said the decision comes during “difficult, trying times.”

“The past few weeks and months have been stressful and busy but productive for the state,” he said.

The panel also recommended maintaining the property tax rate on utilities at 28 cents per $100 of assessed value.

The rates were approved with no debate.

The rates for commercial, residential and utility property have not changed since 2007.

The commission meets each year to recommend the state property tax rates. Those rates are later acted upon by the Board of Public Works, chaired by the governor.

State property taxes repay general obligation bond borrowing. Currently, there is more than $10 billion in outstanding debt. State law calls for the rate to be set at an amount sufficient to repay the annual debt service.

The current rate does not cover that amount. The gap has been filled with hundreds of millions in cash from the operating budget.

In fiscal 2026, the state will need an additional $156 million in general funds to cover debt service. That amount grows to about $400 million a year later. In fiscal 2030, the general fund will kick in an estimated $500 million for debt service.

State coffers will take in more money in property taxes this year without a rate increase.

In 2025, the state is projected to take in more than $1 billion in property taxes. For 2026, the commission is projecting property tax revenues to exceed $1.1 billion — a 6.3% increase year over year.

Left unchanged, property tax revenues would approach $1.2 billion in 2029, according to estimates.

The Department of Assessments and Taxation reassesses properties on a rolling three-year cycle. All 23 counties and Baltimore City reported increased assessments for seven consecutive years.

The statewide value of properties in Group One for this year increased by 20.1%. Residential properties increased in value by more than 21%. Commercial values increased 16.4%, according to the Department of Assessments and Taxation.

Last year, assessments in Group Three increased 23.4%.

State law caps increases at 10%.

The department mailed notices to property owners in December.

The budget introduced by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore did not include property tax increases. The legislature’s final version raised other taxes but avoided a property tax increase.

The Board of Public Works will take up the recommendation in the next few weeks. The three major bond rating agencies — Fitch, Moody’s, and Standard & Poor’s — are expected to update its credit ratings for the state before the next bond sale in June.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: scrane@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and Twitter.

Lawmakers have just over a week to finalize a $67 billion spending plan that includes $2 billion in cuts and $1 billion in new taxes. The plan includes meager — on average — income tax cuts for most individuals while raising taxes in a range of other areas.

“While we are working through all the final details, I’m very clear about what I want the conclusion to be, right?” Moore told a gathering of reporters Friday. “The conclusion is the middle class needs to get a tax cut, that we’ve got to give more breathing room to middle class, more than this currently, across the board. We’ve got to make sure that the middle class are getting more financial support, right?”

Lawmakers are racing against the clock to finish the budget by April 7, the last day of the 2025 session.

The House on Wednesday passed its version of the budget, and the Senate is expected to begin debate Monday, with an eye toward finalizing its work by midweek. That will allow lawmakers to go to a conference committee to work out their differences and have a final budget by April 7.

During the conference committee meeting, lawmakers are expecting a second supplemental budget from Moore that includes nearly $100 million in additional cuts the legislature asked the governor to make.

When asked to reconcile the $1 billion in new taxes in the House and Senate versions of the budget with his “North Star” priority of bringing  economic relief to the middle class, Moore focused on income tax relief.

“And so, when I hear things like, you know, who are we fighting for? The answer is pretty clear,” Moore said. “We’re fighting for middle-class families, and we’re fighting to make sure the middle-class families and working families can get a little extra financial breathing room.”

Moore repeatedly pointed to his tax plan — which was watered down by the General Assembly.

The plan, as it stands, will provide a meager tax cut to some middle-class taxpayers. An estimated 94% of taxpayers would pay less or see no change in their state income taxes under the plan while so-called high earners, those earning $500,000 or more, would pay more after being shuffled into two newly created tax brackets.

The House plan also eliminated Moore’s proposed corporate tax cut. The governor proposed lowering the rate from 8.25% to 7.99% in two years, contingent on the adoption of combined corporate income tax reporting. The House adopted combined reporting, but nixed the rate reduction.

“I think it’s necessary, and I think that it actually coincides with so many of the other things that we are doing to make Maryland more economically competitive,” Moore said in a separate meeting Friday with broadcast reporters. Audio from that meeting was shared with Maryland Matters by Fox45.

Republicans said the income tax cut is not significant and is ultimately gobbled up by other tax and fee increases in the budget.

For those who get a tax break, the average amount would run between $50 and $60, about one-third of what was in Moore’s January budget proposal.

But the budget also contains a number of tax increases including a tax on IT and data services that will hit consumers and businesses alike. Other new taxes include a 6% sales tax on vending machine purchases, a tax on rental cars, an increase in the sales tax on car sales and faster implementation of higher vehicle registration fees passed in 2024.

“We think it’s still a net more than it is a net less for taxpayers,” said Senate Minority Leader Sen. Stephen S. Hershey Jr. (R-Upper Shore). “He’s only looking at one side of the ledger and saying we reduced personal income tax rates here, rather than acknowledging that they’ve raised taxes and fees on the other side.”

Senate Budget and Taxation Chair Sen. Guy Guzzone (D-Howard) cast doubt on any late attempts to increase the size of a tax cut in the final days of the session, however.

“The budget is very tight,” he said.

Moore is also taking heat from some quarters over the services sales tax. The $500 million that will be raised by the data and IT services tax is part of an effort to offset part of a $3 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year.

Moore did not propose the tax, and had hinted at a veto if it affected businesses only. But a deal announced last week with Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) and House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D-Baltimore County) said the tax would be levied on both businesses and consumers.

Del. Mark Fisher (R-St. Mary’s) Wednesday had a message for businesses.

“Don’t move into Maryland, and if you have a small business or a medium-sized business, get out of Maryland now,” Fisher said during House debate on the budget. “The Democrat Party sees you as an ATM machine, and they will never stop until such time as they have the perfect socialist government that will then collapse upon itself, because there is no revenue left.”

Moore, in his meeting with broadcast reporters Friday, called the comments “embarrassing and disappointing,” and called on Fisher to apologize to Marylanders and residents of Calvert County.

“This is what people hate about politics, that you’re willing to root against your hometown for political purposes, for click bait,” Moore told the broadcast reporters.

“I just think it’s embarrassing for him, and frankly, if he doesn’t believe in the state, if he doesn’t believe in his constituents, if he doesn’t believe in the democratic process and in having open debates, then I don’t know why you are in a seat … because the Marylanders I know, they believe in Maryland. They root for Maryland, and they want to support Maryland,” he said.

When asked for comment Thursday, Fisher shared a link to a video he posted on social media.

“Why do people want to leave, Wes Moore?” Fisher asked in the video. “They want to leave because all they see is it being harder and harder to live in Maryland.”

Concerns are not coming strictly from Republicans.

Del. Brian M. Crosby (D-St. Mary’s) is not only the vice chair of the House Economic Matters Committee, he’s also a military veteran and a small business owner involved in defense industry IT contracts.

He checks a number of boxes when it comes to Moore’s priorities and North Star values, including being a veteran and a small-business owner in the technology industry.

Last week, Crosby moved much of his physical business out of Maryland. He plans to reincorporate in Georgia, where he has a warehouse, to avoid the tech tax in the budget, which he said would bankrupt his business.

Moore, when asked about the move, insisted Crosby’s business remains “a Maryland business.”

“We’re making historic investments in the business community, and also in industries like the one that Brian is a part of,” Moore told print and radio reporters. “So, I know that we have worked with the business community. We have worked with individual Marylanders, and we know this is a deeply responsible budget that we’ve landed on, and one that we think that the people of the state will appreciate.”

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: scrane@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and Twitter.

Until last week, that business was based in Maryland.

But Crosby was already in the process of moving his business to Virginia when the governor and legislative leaders announced a budget deal that includes a 3% tax on IT, among other services, a tax that critics say poses an existential threat to businesses such as Crosby’s that contract with federal agencies.

“I listened to the announcement in the truck,” he said, describing the move that came on the same day as the budget announcement.

“I’ve raised these issues,” Crosby said. “I don’t know what to say. I think people are still convinced that you’re getting 50 cents of $1 or something.”

Instead, he said the tax would mean businesses such as his would lose money on every transaction.

“All I can say is you’re not taking 50 cents on $1,” Crosby said. “You’re taking $1.50 from $1.”

Crosby told his story Tuesday, minutes after his Democratic colleagues muscled through a two-bill spending plan on a preliminary vote. That plan includes the tax on data and IT services that is expected to raise nearly $500 million annually, part of the $1 billion in new revenues — and $2.5 billion in spending cuts — needed to close a $3 billion gap in the fiscal 2026 budget.

Crosby noted the irony of the situation. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore and other legislators say they want to grow private industry and attract IT jobs to the area. One of the largest components of that industry are the numerous defense facilities in the state — Patuxent River, Fort Meade, Fort Detrick and others.

“On one hand, we’re saying we’re the IT-cyber corridor,” said Crosby. “On the other hand, the industry, which I’m a part of, is saying if you’re in the DoD [Department of Defense] segment, which is the state’s number one industry, you can’t make it on that [tax].

“The commercial companies, they can pass it off,” he said. “It’s not the same for the DoD guys, especially the smaller guys, it’s not as easy.”

Smaller companies such as Crosby’s often work as subcontractors to large prime contractors that are based out of state and, thus, not subject to the proposed tax, that is soon to head to the Senate. Subcontractors based in Maryland are not exempt.

Crosby’s 5-year-old company — he asked that it not be named — has been growing. He has a warehouse location in Georgia, where he plans to register his company while keeping a small presence in Maryland and a new office in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

The new out-of-state company will deliver on its contracts as before to its larger prime, typically exempt, contractor partners that will deliver services to the federal facilities in Maryland.

“We know the numbers,” Crosby said when asked about how the change would affect companies that do the same type of contracting. “All I can say is that within a year, we’d file for bankruptcy.”

So Crosby acted fast. The House and Senate have an agreement on the tax. Delaying a move would mean needing more trucks, as materials needed for third-quarter projects are soon to arrive. There’s also the matter of bidding on future contracts.

Delaying a move was too risky, Crosby said.

Crosby may not be alone in his move should the tax pass as expected. The state Cybersecurity Association Inc. estimated that about 800 businesses similar to Crosby’s could be affected by a services tax. The Maryland Chamber of Commerce estimates more than 15,000 businesses that employ an estimated 100,000 people would be subject to the new tax.

During Tuesday’s floor debate in the House, Republicans tried to strip out the IT services tax — one of more than a dozen failed amendments offered during a sometimes testy four-hour debate.

Republican Del. Todd Morgan, who represents Calvert and St. Mary’s counties, stood feet away from Crosby as he described the choice faced by his Democratic colleague.

“Now I’m going to bring this home, ladies and gentlemen, to this room, to our colleagues, to one of my friends on the other side of the aisle,” Morgan said. “That individual is moving his business to Virginia.

“I’ll say this again, one of the colleagues in this room, who’s our friend on the other side of the aisle, is moving his business to Virginia as we speak,” he said. “So I just want that to sink in when we look at how big this picture is.”

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: scrane@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and Twitter.

Kamenetz’s last three campaign finance reports, filed with the State Board of Elections, show the payments, but lists them all as lump-sum payments to a payroll company in White Marsh, rather than to individuals. The campaign released the names of paid staffers on Friday in response to media inquiries.

Kamenetz, a four-term councilman, is one of three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in the primary election Tuesday. Neither of the other two Democratic candidates — Joseph Bartenfelder, also a four-term councilman, and former county employee Ronald E. Harvey — reported any salary expenditures.

Jared DeMarinis, director of candidacy and campaign finance at the State Board of Elections, said state law requires that campaigns provide itemized reports of individuals who were paid, along with the dates and amounts of each payment.

Kamenetz campign manager Peter Clerkin said Friday that “we have received no official communication” from the elections board that finance reports have been improper.

Clerkin said Friday that he and four other staffers have received payments, some of which date to April 2009. The workers are field director Jon Akchin, special assistant Stephen Knable and paid interns Ethan Hunt and Sean Rutherford.

Baltimore Sun staff contributed to this article.

Some community leaders say measures proposed by 5th District County Council member Vince Gardina are a good start in addressing conduct issues, but don’t go far enough because they would only affect properties listed under the county’s rental registration law — and wouldn’t include apartment complexes.

Gardina said he decided to propose tougher public nuisance laws after hearing about drunken students wandering through neighborhoods near Towson University during its annual Tigerfest celebration April 24.

“Landlords aren’t watching their tenants like they’re supposed to,” he said.

Officials at Towson University did not return a call seeking comment.

Current county nuisance laws are limited mostly to issues such as domestic noise. Gardina’s bill focuses on problems arising from complaints about the occupants of rental housing.

Under a bill being proposed at the County Council, complaints of disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace — as well as violations of animal control laws and drug or alcohol violations — would all qualify as public nuisances.

Owner of rental properties would receive a written warning from the county after two such complaints regarding tenants in their properties.

If a third complaint occurs within six months of the warning, the county could seek to have the rental registration suspended or revoked, or reject an application for renewal of the license.

Gardina said he plans to also submit an amendment that would allow the county to suspend rental licenses for up to one year.

The bill is scheduled for a hearing Tuesday and could go to a vote Aug. 2.

Under the proposal, property owners would be able to protect their licenses if they show they took steps to correct nuisance issues, were not the owner of the property when it occurred or didn’t know the violations had occurred but took steps to fix the problem once they were notified by the county.

Trish Mayhugh, president of the Riderwood Hills Community Association, applauded the proposal as a starting point — but said the bill could result in unruly students being funneled into area apartment complexes.

Riderwood Hills is home to several apartment complexes, including two housing some students who attend Towson University and other area colleges — the Colony and the Kenilworth at Charles complexes.

The Kenilworth at Charles abuts a neighborhood of single-family homes. Area neighbors have complained in the past of unruly students living in overcrowded apartments.

“When you live near an apartment complex, there’s always someone holding a heavy metal vomit party in your backyard,” Mayhugh said, adding that fireworks, intoxicated students and food thrown into yards have not been uncommon in her neighborhood.

Mayhugh said the owner of the complex has worked hard to keep up the property and work with the community when there have been problems with tenants.

Still, she said, she would like to see Gardina’s bill amended to apply to apartment complexes — and to add limits to the number of people who can live in an apartment.

But Kathy Howard, an attorney for the Maryland Multi-Housing Association, said an amendment specifically for apartments isn’t needed because the county has mechanisms in place that oversee apartment operations.

“Enforcement mechanisms applicable to multifamily developments regarding myriad issues already exist and work well — which is why the council did not include multifamily developments in the licensing law to begin with,” she said.

Koontz is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death June 19 last year of her estranged husband, Ronald G. Koontz, and with the attempted murder of her daughter, Kelsey Koontz, who was 16 at the time.

Police were called to the Koontzes’ Glen Arm home after Kelsey called 911 to report that her mother had shot her father. Mary Koontz had moved out of the home 19 months earlier.

Koontz has pleaded not criminally responsible — essentially admitting participation in the crime but asking the jury to find that she is not responsible because of mental illness.

On Wednesday, Baltimore County Circuit Judge Thomas J. Bollinger sent the jury home about 5 p.m. after asking the forewoman if she believed a verdict could be reached in the next half-hour. When she did not respond, Bollinger asked jurors to resume deliberations at 10 a.m. today.

After more than a week of testimony, the jury began its deliberations Tuesday.

On Wednesday afternoon, jurors sent a message to Bollinger, asking for a definition of intent and for examples of “conscious and unconscious intent.”

Bollinger told the jury that such language was not part of his instructions and he couldn’t answer the question.

“[Intent] is not really in this case,” Bollinger said. “I don’t know where you’re getting that from.”

Bollinger went on to instruct the jury on state law regarding intent — saying that they can’t know what is in the mind of the defendant, but they can draw conclusions based on statements and surrounding circumstances.

“You may also infer a person’s intent from the natural consequences of their acts or omissions,” Bollinger said before sending them back to deliberate.

Before lunch, the jury sent a note asking four separate questions, including whether Koontz had purchased a return airline ticket to Florida before the slaying, and who would pay for her psychiatric care if she is sent to an institution.

Bollinger told the jurors they should not concern themselves with those questions if the answers were not in their notes or part of evidence that was introduced.

“You have to decide the case on what’s in evidence, and not on what you’d like to be in evidence,” he told the jury.

Bollinger said questions about who would pay for psychiatric care “have nothing to do with the case, and are of no concern.”

The jury also asked about a getting a timeline of voice mails, some angry and threatening, that Koontz left for both her daughter and her estranged husband. Bollinger told the jury that only one set of voice mails introduced by the prosecution had such a timeline, and he referred them to the introduced evidence.

The jury also asked about Ronald G. Koontz’s education.

Ruth Goldstein, who lives in the Midfield community in Pikesville, said she received a small, cream-colored envelope in the mail Tuesday that looked like an invitation to an event.

“I felt like I had been violated,” said Goldstein during a phone interview Wednesday.

After getting a copy of one of the fliers, Bartenfelder e-mailed a statement to reporters Wednesday evening.

“The fact that my supporters whose signs have been removed and have been subjected to this scurrilous letter are of the Jewish faith make these actions all the more disgraceful,” Bartenfelder wrote.

“While I do not feel the need to defend myself against these outrageous charges, I think it is fair to point out that my support transcends all racial and religious groups and is truly representative of the citizens of Baltimore County.”

Goldstein, who lives near the center of Pikesville, recently had a Bartenfelder campaign sign stolen from her lawn. She replaced the sign.

Goldstein said she has no idea who would send such a flier.

She said she quickly realized that the flier “was a smear on Joe Bartenfelder. A person might get a flier like this and look at the photo and say, ‘Joe Bartenfelder is an anti-Semite and I’m not voting for him.'”

Goldstein called to alert the Bartenfelder campaign, as well as the police to file a report of harassment.

Lt. Robert McCullough, a Baltimore County police spokesman, said Pikesville detectives are investigating the flier, but it is considered an isolated incident.

It is unknown how many of the anti-Bartenfelder fliers were mailed.