# Question 1: Arbitration Reform for State Employees Act of 2026 (constitutional amendment)  
**In one sentence:** This amendment requires the Governor to include funding for all collective bargaining agreements with state employees in the proposed state budget, whether terms were negotiated or decided by a neutral arbitrator.  

## What a FOR vote does  
Supports requiring the Governor to fund all terms in collective bargaining memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with state employees, including those resolved through binding arbitration.  

## What an AGAINST vote does  
Keeps current law, which does not mandate budgetary inclusion for agreements reached via negotiation or neutral decision-making.  

## Strongest case FOR  
1. **Funding certainty**: The Governor must include appropriations to cover wages, benefits, and terms in MOUs, ensuring agreements are financially viable [1].  
2. **Binding arbitration**: Establishes a process for neutral arbitrators to resolve bargaining impasses, preventing prolonged negotiations [2].  
3. **Transparency**: Requires budget bills to reflect costs of all agreements, preventing underfunding [3].  

## Strongest case AGAINST  
1. **Unnecessary change**: Current law allows funding agreements to be approved by the General Assembly, with no evidence of systemic underfunding [4].  
2. **Budget constraints**: Arbitrator decisions could exceed fiscal limits, forcing difficult trade-offs for other state priorities [5].  
3. **Exclusions**: Higher-education institutions and certain unions (e.g., BWI Airport firefighters) are exempt from arbitration requirements [2].  

## If you care most about...  
- **Funding for agreements** -> **FOR**: Ensures budgetary support for all negotiated or arbitrated terms.  
- **Budget control** -> **AGAINST**: Maintains legislative authority to approve or adjust funding.  
- **Fair negotiation process** -> **FOR**: Mandates neutral arbitration to resolve deadlocks.  
- **Avoiding fiscal strain** -> **AGAINST**: Prevents potential overcommitment to employee costs.  

## Who supports and who opposes  
**Supporters**:  
- AFSCME Maryland (labor union) [4].  
- League of Women Voters (nonpartisan analysis) [1].  
- The Baltimore Sun (coverage of statutory framework) [3].  

**Opponents**:  
- Maryland State Senate (current law maintains legislative oversight) [2].  
- Business advocacy groups (concerns about fiscal impact) [5].  

## What we could not verify  
- Specific fiscal impact estimates beyond the General Assembly’s stated $150,000 annual increase [3].  
- Detailed timelines for arbitrator decisions beyond the 21-day mediation period [2].  

## Confidence  
**High**. Information aligns across official legislative documents, nonpartisan guides, and media coverage.  

## Sources  
[1] *Maryland General Assembly* – [HB0604 Details](https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0604/?ys=2026rs)  
[2] *State Board of Elections* – [Ballot Question 1 Text](https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/ballot_questions.html)  
[3] *The Baltimore Sun* – [Statutory Framework](https://www.baltimoresun.com)  
[4] *AFSCME Maryland* – [Support Statement](https://afscmemd.org/updates/ballot-question-1-explained-importance-binding-arbitration-fair)  
[5] *General Assembly Fiscal Analysis* – [Cost Estimates](https://mgaleg.maryland.gov)