When elected officials face criminal charges, questions about whether they can remain in office often arise. In Maryland, the state constitution outlines a specific process for suspending or removing public officials under certain circumstances. This process balances accountability with due process, ensuring that elected leaders are not prematurely removed before a conviction while still holding them responsible once guilt is established.
How Maryland’s Constitution Addresses Criminal Misconduct in Office
Maryland’s constitutional provisions for handling criminally charged elected officials are designed to protect the integrity of public service while upholding fairness. Under Article XV, Section 2 of the Maryland Constitution, an elected official who is found guilty of a felony offense, or of a misdemeanor that is (i) related to their official duties, (ii) involves moral turpitude, and (iii) carries the possibility of imprisonment, is automatically suspended without pay or benefits.
If the finding of guilt becomes a final conviction, meaning all appeals are exhausted or waived (per the statute, “after judicial review or otherwise”), the official is removed from office by operation of law. In addition, if the official enters a guilty plea or nolo contendere to such an offense, the Constitution provides that the office shall be removed by operation of law, without waiting for finality of appeal. This distinction ensures that after an official is found guilty, they cannot exercise their duties during the appeals process, while still preserving their right to appeal.
A Two-Step System: Suspension and Removal
Maryland courts have applied this approach in two clear phases:
- Suspension: An official is suspended from office without pay after a conviction for a qualifying offense. This step occurs automatically under the law, without the need for additional votes or hearings.
- Removal: Once the conviction becomes final (after judicial review or otherwise, including exhaustion of any appeals) or a nolo contendere or guilty plea is entered, the official’s position is vacated, and normal procedures for filling the vacancy begin.
Before these steps occur, an indictment or criminal charge alone does not trigger automatic suspension or removal under this provision. It is the finding of guilt that triggers suspension, and the guilty plea or finality of that finding that triggers removal. Officials may continue to serve until a conviction is reached.
For practical purposes, the Constitution thus seeks to protect public service integrity by removing from office those elected officials who are criminally found to have committed serious offenses tied to their public duties as soon as the legal mechanism permits, while providing for reinstatement if the conviction is later invalidated.
Recent Case Example: Senator Facing Federal Charges
The recent federal indictment of Maryland State Senator Dalya Attar brought this constitutional process back into public discussion. While the senator has been indicted, she continues to hold office because no conviction has occurred.
In his analysis of the situation, Nick Copper of Maronick Law explained that while a state senator under federal indictment may remain in office, legislative mechanisms still exist to address misconduct. “There is also the threat of impeachment, which is governed by Article III, Section 26 of the Maryland Constitution, though that would typically occur after any criminal proceedings are concluded,” he told the Baltimore Sun. “If the outcome of those proceedings triggers removal according to Article XV, Section 2, the issue of impeachment naturally becomes moot.”
Copper, who previously worked in legal, legislative, and lobbying roles around Maryland state government, emphasized that removal under Article XV, Section 2 becomes applicable only when a final conviction is achieved, whereas impeachment is more of a backup process.
His interpretive insight highlights a key point: while the Maryland Constitution governs suspension and removal only after conviction, legislative bodies can still take disciplinary measures to maintain ethical standards during pending criminal proceedings.
Similar Post: What to Do if You’re Arrested for a Crime in Ocean City, Maryland
Why Indictment Alone Does Not Trigger Removal
Maryland’s system deliberately draws a line between accusation and conviction. An indictment, while serious, represents only a formal charge, not proof of guilt. Automatic removal at that stage would undermine the principle of due process and could allow politically motivated prosecutions to unfairly oust officials.
However, once an official is found guilty of a qualifying crime (in the form of a judgment, sentencing, or plea), the law moves swiftly. Suspension is immediate, and removal follows after final conviction. If a conviction is later overturned, the official is automatically reinstated and entitled to back pay and benefits.
Checks and Balances in Action
This framework reflects Maryland’s ongoing effort to balance public accountability with fairness to the accused. It prevents officeholders from performing official duties while convicted of or pleading guilty to serious crimes, yet protects against the misuse of criminal charges for political purposes.
Legislative bodies, such as the Maryland General Assembly, serve as another layer of oversight. While they cannot remove an official solely based on an indictment, they can act to preserve the integrity of the institution through internal rules and disciplinary action.
Similar Post: When Does Public Filming Cross the Line? Understanding First Amendment Auditors in Maryland
Why Someone Facing Criminal Charges Needs a Criminal Defense Lawyer
For anyone accused of a crime, especially public officials, the stakes extend beyond the courtroom. A conviction can trigger automatic suspension, loss of pay and benefits, and eventual removal from office under Article XV, Section 2. Even before a case concludes, there may be internal sanctions, reputational damage, and complex procedural choices that affect both legal rights and professional standing.
An experienced criminal defense lawyer helps clients understand how Maryland’s constitutional provisions apply to their situation, protects due process at every stage, and develops a strategy that accounts for both the legal and practical consequences of the case. Counsel can manage communications, preserve critical defenses, navigate plea or trial decisions, and position any appeals that could affect finality. In matters involving potential impeachment or internal legislative discipline, a defense lawyer also helps ensure that any nonjudicial actions do not compromise the client’s rights in the criminal proceeding.
Final Thoughts
Maryland’s constitutional process for suspending or removing elected officials facing criminal charges is a model of balanced governance. It avoids the pitfalls of reactionary politics by requiring conviction before removal, yet ensures that public trust is not jeopardized when serious wrongdoing occurs.
As attorney Nick Copper emphasized, accountability is not limited to the courts. Legislative institutions themselves have a duty to maintain ethical standards. Together, these measures form the foundation of Maryland’s commitment to integrity in public service. If you are facing criminal charges in Maryland, our firm can help. Contact us today to speak to our legal team.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended for informational purposes only and does not establish an attorney–client relationship. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please contact Maronick Law directly.