# Question 1: Arbitration Reform for State Employees Act of 2026 (constitutional amendment)
**In one sentence:** This decides whether Maryland’s Constitution must require the governor’s proposed budget to fund state employee labor agreements, including terms set by a neutral decision-maker. [1]

## What a FOR vote does
Requires proposed funding for each memorandum of understanding (MOU)—a written labor agreement—including pay, hours and benefits, whether negotiated or set through binding arbitration. [1]

The funding rule covers state employees, state higher-education institutions and the Maryland Environmental Service. [2]

Approval also activates HB 604’s binding arbitration process for stalled negotiations, excluding higher-education employees from that new process. [2]

This is not automatic spending approval: terms needing money still require lawmakers’ approval; terms needing law changes require legislation; wage awards remain subject to state budget limits. [2]

## What an AGAINST vote does
Keeps current funding rules and prevents HB 604’s voter-dependent changes from taking effect. [1][2] For employees covered by the proposed new arbitration process, current dispute resolution uses nonbinding recommendations rather than an arbitrator’s binding order. [2][3]

## Strongest case FOR
- **A possible argument:** Labor agreements should come with proposed funding to carry them out, rather than leave pay and benefits without enough money in the governor’s budget. [1]
- **A possible argument:** A neutral decision-maker gives workers and the state a way to settle stalled talks before budget preparation, rather than leave disputes unresolved. [2][3]

## Strongest case AGAINST
- **A possible argument:** Requiring funding proposals for arbitrated terms reduces the governor’s freedom to balance employee costs against other needs, even though lawmakers retain spending authority. [1][2]
- **A possible argument:** Choosing arbitrators matters, but those selection rules sit in ordinary law, not the constitutional amendment; lawmakers could change them without another statewide vote. [2][3]

## If you care most about...
- **Funding labor agreements** -> FOR fits, because it requires the governor to propose money for negotiated and arbitrated terms. [1]
- **Neutral decisions when talks stall** -> FOR fits, because approval activates binding arbitration for covered employees. [2]
- **Governor’s budget flexibility** -> AGAINST fits, because it avoids the new constitutional funding requirement. [1]
- **Keeping current dispute rules** -> AGAINST fits, because HB 604’s new process depends on voter approval. [2]

## Who supports and who opposes
Named organizations or officials explicitly urging a FOR or AGAINST vote: Not found in sources checked.

## What we could not verify
A reliable dollar estimate of future arbitration awards, resulting budget tradeoffs, or tax effects: Not found in sources checked.

## Confidence
**Medium.** Official sources establish the legal changes, but future costs and named campaign positions were not verified. [1][2]

## Sources
1. [1] Ballot Questions for the November 3, 2026 Election - Maryland State Board of Elections - https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/ballot_questions.html
2. [2] Chapter 155, HB 604: Arbitration Reform for State Employees Act of 2026 - Maryland General Assembly - https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/Chapters_noln/CH_155_hb0604t.pdf
3. [3] Question 1: Arbitration Reform for State Employees Act of 2026 - Maryland Matters voter guide - https://marylandmatters.org/voter-guides/ballot-measures/question-1-arbitration-reform-for-state-employees-act-of-2026/