Ballot Question #5 — The Orphans’ Court and the Trojan Horse

Melissa Pollitt Bright • October 11, 2022


If you are like most Maryland voters, you will pick up your ballot this year and towards the end of the local offices section you’ll see a category and say to yourself, “Oh yes, the Orphans’ Court — I meant to look that up.”

 

Don’t feel bad. You are far from alone. This quiet little court has been around since Maryland was a colony, with roots that go back centuries before that. And it remains the court with which more Marylanders will have dealings at some point in their lives than any other part of our state’s judicial system.

 

But it is apolitical, it generally has no public issues, and so it quietly goes about its work, far from headlines or social media attention. You will not come to, or submit papers to, the Orphans’ Court because you are accused of a crime, are filing suit or being sued, or even because you have a serious traffic ticket. You will come to get help with settling the affairs of someone dear to you, at one of the most difficult times of your life. And when your time comes, the Orphans’ Court is the court that will stand for you when you are no longer here to fight your own battles.

 

Let’s start with the name. It’s a tad misleading but makes sense when you know from whence it came. In the Middle Ages, children were “orphans” when their father died, because their mothers, being mere females, had no legal rights and were, themselves, property. In those times, family matters were handled by the ecclesiastical courts — the church. This included management and preservation of inheritances belonging to children. Eventually, the City of London established a secular Court of Orphans to take over those functions. 

 

This concept migrated to the Maryland colony. During the Revolution, probate (administration of estates) was delegated to the County Courts, and then to the Orphans’ Court and Register of Wills for each county and Baltimore City. The system remains in place today.

 

So what does the Orphans’ Court do today? Property rights are so fundamental that the responsibilities have not changed much since the first recorded London case in 1276. When you die and the fruits of your life’s work are to be distributed, who will oversee this? The Orphans’ Court will. If you have a Will, the Orphans’ Court will enforce it. If you don’t have a Will, the Orphans’ Court will protect the rights of your heirs. It will also protect the rights of your creditors and oversee the legal fees and Personal Representative commissions.

 

If your heirs are feuding (even the nicest folks sometimes do over inheritance), the Orphans’ Court will help them sort it out. Often the tension arises from some event or perceived transgression having little or nothing to do with the inheritance. In those cases, the informality of the Orphans’ Court allows people to unburden themselves and feel heard. It often helps the parties arrive at mutual agreement, rather than having the court impose a judgement. If funds or property are left to a minor, they will be safeguarded until the child comes of age. An appointed guardian may petition the court for funds if needed for the benefit of the child in the meantime. 

 

This is your court, the people’s court. You have the privilege of choosing the judges yourself from among your own community, then hiring and firing them every four years.

 

Now the Orphans’ Court’s existence is threatened. Ballot Question #5 is a referendum for a constitutional amendment that would require the Circuit Court of Howard County to sit as the Orphans’ Court, and would repeal the election of the Orphans’ Court judges. This question is not the local issue it appears to be — it is a Trojan Horse, cleverly designed to deprive Maryland citizens of a fast, inexpensive, and personal way to settle their loved ones’ estates, and to reduce their voting rights. It did not arise from the people of Howard County, and the Circuit Court, already overburdened statewide, was not consulted. The information provided by the proponents is almost entirely inaccurate; most is outright false.

 

What are they saying about the orphans’ court? The referendum sponsor has been attacking what she has multiple times referred to as a “lay court” (referring to Howard County’s Orphans’ Court) because she believes all judges should be attorneys, an opinion she has expressed in task force work sessions and in multiple recorded testimonies. Howard County’s court, for two of the last three terms, has been an attorney court by a two-to-one majority. This attack on the capability of lay courts has not been limited to Howard County.

 

The sponsor alleges that only 15 U.S. states have specialized probate courts. The senator who introduced this bill in the Senate hearing said that Maryland’s 19 lay judge Orphans’ Courts were the ONLY ones in the United States. The instigator of this attempt to abolish the Orphans’ Court has testified that only Maryland and Pennsylvania still have this “antiquated” system.

 

The truth is that only Maryland and Pennsylvania have something called the orphans’ court, but every state has a probate court, either stand-alone or merged into another court. At least six states have lay judges in some or all of their probate courts. Georgia alone has 132 counties where lay judges may serve on the probate court. Twenty-seven states — a majority of states — have lay judges serving in various specialty courts, including those handling criminal matters. 

 

Lay judges have served in specialized jurisdictional courts under English law since the 14th Century. Lay judges typically display a strong knowledge in their particular area of the law, common sense, knowledge of their community, and experience. In Maryland’s rural counties, lay judges are the best choice for part-time courts, since attorneys would have to give up their practices for these positions where pay rates start at $1,600 per year. If the Circuit Court has to absorb the work, the need for an additional judge will cost the state six figures, not counting staff and office space, equipment, and operating expenses. Meanwhile, if any party prefers to take their case to the Circuit Court, there is a provision in the statutes for doing just that by transmitting issues.

 

The part-time nature of the Orphans’ Courts has been another area of attack on false premises. The sponsor and witnesses allege that Howard County’s approximately 250 cases per year would add less than 2% to the workload of the Circuit Court. To make this argument they have chosen the number of hearings, which is not synonymous with cases. A great deal of the work of the Orphans’ Courts is administrative, meaning the court reviews files and accounts, grants or rejects motions, and otherwise monitors the progress of the estate and provides court orders when needed for administrative purposes.

 

In Howard County, as in most of Maryland, the Orphans’ Court meets only once a week unless there are urgent matters in between. But they still handle approximately 2,000 cases per year. The allegation put forth that they do not meet weekly and therefore cause delays that would be avoidable in the Circuit Court is entirely false.

 

The referendum sponsor and her witnesses have accused the court in Howard County of unnecessary delays because unanimity of opinion is required for a ruling. That is not true. Two judges in agreement can rule, and have done so.

 

Another allegation is that the court’s failure to understand the law caused two families unnecessary and burdensome delays in resolving their loved one’s estates. These two cases had to do with an attorney claiming fees before performing any work. The Orphans’ Court denied the payments, and appeals of that ruling were filed during the pandemic, when courts were closed. Had the attorney been willing to do the work before being paid, the estate would have been settled long before the appeal was decided.

 

Another egregious allegation is that the Howard County Orphans’ Court is “the worst in the state,” said on social media by the official who has pushed this referendum, although no specifics could be provided. This same person told the legislature that Howard County had the worst appeal record of all but one other Orphans’ Court in Maryland. The truth is that of approximately 10,000 or more individual orders signed by that court in the last 12 years, only 45 have been appealed. That is pretty impressive. This is typical of all of Maryland’s Orphans’ Courts — the appeals are rare, and most of those are settled or dismissed before being heard. The appeal in many cases is merely a mechanism to provide time for legal maneuvers.

 

The proponents of this proposed constitutional amendment promise that the Circuit Court would be:

  • more efficient — it wouldn’t, it takes far longer to get on a Circuit Court docket;
  • more reliable — no, most current Circuit Court judges have no background in basic probate; and
  • more compassionate — no, the informality of the Orphans’ Court is specifically designed to permit families to work out their differences, even engage in something akin to mediation, in a more relaxed, friendlier environment than the Circuit Court. 

 

This referendum was pushed through the legislature as a local bill to take advantage of legislative courtesy. Since most proposed amendments are unknown to the voters until they reach the polls, the proponents are counting on general ignorance of the truth to get this approved. The sponsor said, in her videotaped testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, “Today I am coming with the Howard County local bill. I think that what the state does in terms of Orphans’ Courts is a later issue that we should take up.” (House Judiciary Committee open hearing, March 2nd, 2022, 1 hour, 47 minutes, and 50 seconds into the tape.)

 

This proposed amendment is a Trojan Horse, designed to further personal agendas of a very few people at the expense of the citizens of Maryland. Please reject it. Vote AGAINST Ballot Question #5.

 

 

Melissa Pollitt Bright is the Chief Judge of the Wicomico County Orphans’ Court; the President of the Maryland Association of Orphans’ Court Judges (MAJOC); and the Past Chair of the Education Sub-Committee, Conference of Orphans’ Court Judges. She can be reached at truthabouttheorphanscourt@gmail.com.

 

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By John Christie December 16, 2025
When I practiced law, much of my litigation involved issues arising under federal antitrust laws. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was my frequent adversary in court. In some cases, DOJ challenged a client’s conduct as anticompetitive. In others, they claimed an intended client merger would create a monopoly. Some of these DOJ court battles were won, others were not. Overall, I had great respect for DOJ lawyers. They were professional, well prepared, and dedicated to their mission of seeing justice done. They were courteous, honest, and forthright with the courts before which we argued our cases. In those days, without resorting to social media or press conferences, the DOJ spoke entirely through its court filings. Although as an advocate I took issue with various DOJ investigatory decisions as well as decisions to initiate litigation, I never thought politics was involved. Post-Watergate internal rules strictly limited communication with any figures at the White House. Not so, it seems, anymore. Beginning last January 20, all of this changed rapidly and spectacularly . On March 14, Trump triumphantly arrived at the main DOJ building in D.C. to be welcomed by a group of carefully selected VIPs. He was greeted by Pam Bondi, his chosen new attorney general, who exclaimed, “We are so proud to work at the directive (sic) of Donald Trump.” Bondi’s boast that the DOJ now worked at the president’s behest was something never said before and, in effect, surrendered the department’s long and proud independence. And Bondi’s comment was not an empty gesture. As chronicled by reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis in their new book, Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department , within hours of being sworn in, Trump and his lieutenants began punishing those at the Justice Department who had investigated him or those he considered his political enemies. Career attorneys with years of experience under many administrations were fired or reassigned to lesser work, or they resigned. As Leonnig and Davis report, what followed was “the wholesale overthrow of the Justice Department as Trump insert[ed] his dutiful former defense attorneys and 2020 election deniers atop the department.” [Source: Injustice , p. xix.] In the place of years of experience, the new team appears credentialed simply by loyalty to the president’s causes. The DOJ’s conduct in court has since caused damage to judicial and public faith in the integrity and competence of the department. Just Security is an independent, non-partisan, daily digital law and policy journal housed in the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law. Since January 20, it has documented federal judicial concerns about DOJ conduct. In 26 cases, judges raised questions about DOJ non-compliance with judicial orders and in more than 60 cases, judges expressed distrust of government-provided information and representations. This count was taken the day after a federal court dismissed the DOJ cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. [Source: Just Security , “The ‘Presumption of Regularity’ in Trump Administration Litigation,” Nov. 20, 2025.] As summarized by the Georgetown Law Center’s Steve Vladeck, “It’s one thing for the Department of Justice to so transparently pursue a politically motivated prosecution. But this one has been beset from the get-go with errors that remotely competent law students wouldn’t make. Indeed, it seems a virtual certainty that the Keystone Kops-like behavior of the relevant government lawyers can be traced directly to the political pressure to bring this case; there’s a reason why no prosecutors with more experience, competence, or integrity were willing to take it on.” [Source: One First , Nov. 24, 2025.] Rather than accept criticism and instead of trying to do better, Bondi’s DOJ and the Trump administration lash out in a fashion apparently aimed at demeaning the federal judiciary. At a recent Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, one of Trump’s former defense attorneys, attributed the Trump administration’s myriad losses in the lower federal courts to “rogue activist judges.” He added, “There’s a group of judges that are repeat players, and that’s obviously not by happenstance, that’s intentional, and it’s a war, man.” Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller decries each adverse ruling against the Trump administration as just part of a broader “judicial insurrection.” Not to be left behind, Trump himself regularly complains of “radical left lunatic” judges. In addition to the harm these comments inflict on the federal courts, their premise is simply not true. According to a survey by Vladeck, as of Nov. 14, there were 204 cases in which federal district courts have ruled on requests for preliminary relief against the Trump administration. In 154 of them, district judges granted either a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or both. Those 154 rulings came from 121 district judges appointed by seven presidents (including President Trump) in 29 district courts. In the 154 cases with rulings adverse to the Trump administration, 41 were presided over by 30 Republican-appointed judges, fully half of whom were appointed by President Trump. No, it is no longer your grandfather’s Department of Justice. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By CSES Staff December 16, 2025
The Salisbury City Council has appointed longtime public servant Melissa D. Holland to fill the vacancy in District 2. Holland was selected on Dec. 1 after the council reviewed several applicants. A 27-year resident of Salisbury, Holland brings more than 20 years of experience in government, education, and administration. As executive assistant to the president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, she currently oversees operations, budgeting, communications, and planning. Before joining UMCES, Holland worked for nearly 11 years with the Wicomico County Council, gaining extensive experience in legislative procedure, constituent services, research, and budget preparation. Her background includes positions with the Wicomico County Board of Education, the State of Maryland’s Holly Center, and multiple early-learning programs. Approved by a 3-1 council vote, Holland was selected based on her administrative expertise and long-standing community involvement. (Salisbury’s City Council is now comprised of only women.) She has a bachelor’s degree in legal studies from Post University and an associate degree from Wor-Wic Community College. She has also served as PTA president at East Salisbury Elementary and Wicomico Middle School. In her application, Holland emphasized her commitment to maintaining transparency in city government and ensuring that District 2 residents remain informed and represented. “I plan to be well-informed on the issues that matter to the citizens of Salisbury and to listen to their concerns carefully,” she wrote. “I want to make a positive and lasting impact on our city.” Holland’s appointment restores the City Council to full membership as it faces debates over budgeting, infrastructure planning, and local governance initiatives. She is expected to begin constituent outreach immediately and participate fully in the selection of the next council president.
By CSES Staff November 4, 2025
Voters in Hurlock have delivered sweeping changes in this year’s municipal election, as Republican and GOP-aligned candidates won key races there. The results mark a setback for Democrats and a significant political shift in a community that has historically leaned Democratic in state and federal contests. The outcome underscores how local organizing and turnout strategies can have an outsized impact in small-town elections. Analysts also suggest that long-term party engagement in municipal contests could shape voter alignment in future county and state races. Political analysts warn that ignoring municipal elections and ceding them to the GOP could hurt the Maryland Democratic Party in statewide politics. Turnout increased by approximately 17% compared with the 2021 municipal election, reflecting heightened local interest in the mayoral and council races. Incumbent Mayor Charles Cephas, a Democrat, was soundly defeated by At-Large Councilmember Earl Murphy, who won with roughly 230 votes to Cephas’s 144. In the At-Large Council race, Jeff Smith, an independent candidate backed by local Republicans, secured a 15-point win over Cheyenne Chase. In District 2, Councilmember Bonnie Franz, a Republican, was re-elected by 40 percentage points over challenger Zia Ashraf, who previously served on the Dorchester Democratic Central Committee. The only Democrat to retain a seat on the council was David Higgins, who was unopposed. The Maryland Republican Party invested resources and campaign attention in the Hurlock race, highlighting it on statewide social media and dispatching party officials, including Maryland GOP Chair Nicole Beus Harris, to campaign. Local Democrats emphasized support for Mayor Cephas through the Dorchester County Democratic Central Committee, but the Maryland Democratic Party did not appear to participate directly.
By CSES Staff November 4, 2025
In what political observers are calling a clear break from Maryland’s moderate Republican establishment, Wicomico County Executive Julie Giordano chose former Gov. Bob Ehrlich — not former Gov. Larry Hogan — as the guest of honor at her re-election fundraiser in late October. Billed as Giordano’s annual Harvest Party, her event drew conservative activists from across the lower Eastern Shore and featured Ehrlich as keynote speaker. This was immediately read by insiders as a signal that Giordano will embrace the party’s right-wing base ahead of 2026, distancing herself from Hogan’s more centrist, bipartisan image. “Bringing in Bob Ehrlich instead of Larry Hogan wasn’t accidental,” one longtime Republican strategist said. “It shows Giordano wants to plant her flag with the MAGA-aligned wing of the party, the same voters who now dominate Maryland’s Republican primary base.” Hogan, who has hinted at another run for governor, was notably absent from this year’s Tawes Crab and Clam Bake in Somerset County, a high-profile gathering long considered essential for statewide contenders. Coupled with Giordano’s public alignment with Ehrlich, Hogan’s absence has fueled speculation that his influence within Maryland’s GOP is slipping. Those doubts were amplified by new polling data. A statewide survey commissioned by the Baltimore Banner found Gov. Wes Moore (D) leading Hogan 45% to 37% in a hypothetical 2026 matchup, with 14% undecided. The poll, conducted by phone and web from Oct. 7–10 among more than 900 registered voters, carries a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. The results suggest that while Hogan remains popular among moderates and independents, Moore continues to hold a firm advantage statewide, particularly among Democrats and younger voters. Giordano’s decision to align herself with Ehrlich rather than Hogan further illustrates the ideological divide defining Maryland Republicans heading into 2026. As the party drifts further to the right, analysts say Hogan’s brand of pragmatic centrism may no longer have a natural home in today’s GOP. For now, Ehrlich’s appearance in Salisbury is being seen as a symbolic moment, one that cements Giordano’s status as a leading figure in the state’s Trump-aligned movement and underscores how quickly the political winds have shifted. For Hogan, once seen as the Republican best positioned to reclaim the governor’s office, that shift may mark the end of an era.
By Jan Plotczyk November 4, 2025
Can Maryland create a new congressional map that will flip the state’s sole Republican district to the Democrats? Gov. Wes Moore has created a Governor's Redistricting Advisory Commission to consider mid-cycle redistricting and Maryland has jumped into the redistricting fray. The commission will conduct public hearings, solicit public feedback, and present recommendations to the governor and Maryland General Assembly. “My commitment has been clear from day one — we will explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps,” said Moore. “And we also need to make sure that, if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box, then it behooves each and every one of us to be able to keep all options on the table to ensure that the voters’ voices can actually be heard .” Moore’s commission is one of those options — a response to Trump’s call to Republican-led states to create more GOP House districts before the 2026 midterm elections. Three GOP states — Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina — have completed a Trump gerrymander for a gain of seven seats and three more states — Indiana, Utah, and Ohio — could create new maps with a total of four additional Republican seats. That would make 11, should they withstand challenges. Democratic-led states made a lot of noise at first about countering these GOP efforts, but only California and Virginia have campaigns for new maps underway. California wants to flip five seats and Virginia hopes for up to four. Optimistically, that could add up to as many as nine. Maryland’s goal would be to add one Democratic seat. Other states on both sides could soon follow, in some cases taking advantage of existing redistricting deadlines or ongoing litigation. Maryland State Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Balto City) is not in favor of mid-cycle redistricting, calling it too dicey. “Simply put, it is too risky and jeopardizes Maryland’s ability to fight against the radical Trump administration. At a time where every seat in Congress matters, the potential for ceding yet another one to Republicans here in Maryland is simply too great,” Ferguson wrote in a letter to Senate Democrats. Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R-MD01), whose district would be targeted by redistricting, called the effort "the most partisan thing you could do." He whined, “It just wouldn’t be fair.” Harris warned that any redistricting could backfire on the Democrats. “We will take this to court, it will go as high as necessary, and in the end, a judge could draw a map that actually has two or three Republican congressmen,” Harris said. “I’d caution the Democrats, be careful what you wish for.” Harris and his wife, Maryland GOP Chair Nicole Beus Harris, have perhaps already worked out a strategy. The Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission, last constituted by Gov. Martin O’Malley in 2011, will begin its work this month. The five-member commission includes: Chair: Senator Angela Alsobrooks Senate President Bill Ferguson or designee Speaker Adrienne A. Jones or designee Former Attorney General Brian Frosh Cumberland Mayor Ray Morriss “We have a president that treats our democracy with utter contempt. We have a Republican party that is trying to rig the rules in response to their terrible polling,” said Sen. Alsobrooks. “Let me be clear: Maryland deserves a fair map that represents the will of the people. That’s why I’m proud to chair this commission. Our democracy depends on all of us standing up in this moment.” Will Maryland’s First District finally be competitive? Can we at long last replace “AWOL Andy” Harris? Stay tuned…. Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.
By CSES Staff November 4, 2025
In strong numbers, local residents turned out last month for a community information session on offshore wind hosted by the Alliance for Offshore Wind at the Ocean Pines library. The forum heard from industry experts, environmental advocates, and labor leaders to discuss how offshore wind projects can support jobs, clean energy, and coastal resilience along Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Featured were Sam Saluto of Oceantic, Jim Strong of the United Steelworkers, Ron Larsen of Sea Ink Solutions, and Jim Brown of the Audubon Society, all of whom emphasized the long-term environmental and economic benefits of wind development off Maryland’s coast. Speakers outlined how the project, once completed, is expected to create hundreds of high-paying jobs, generate clean power for tens of thousands of homes, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels that cause pollution and coastal erosion. “The potential here is extraordinary,” said Saluto, highlighting Oceantic’s ongoing work to ensure safety and sustainability standards remain at the highest level. “We’re not just talking about wind turbines. We’re talking about revitalizing local economies and protecting the Shore’s way of life.” Union representative Jim Strong echoed that sentiment, noting that Maryland’s labor community sees offshore wind as a chance to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity while giving workers access to strong wages and long-term stability. Environmental voices, including Jim Brown of the Audubon Society, focused on how properly sited wind projects can reduce carbon emissions while coexisting with marine wildlife and migratory bird patterns. While most of the evening centered on data and community questions, the event briefly turned tense when Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan, who is leading a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s offshore wind plans, attempted to question the panel. The mayor appeared to lose his train of thought mid-sentence and later cast doubt on the reality of climate change, drawing visible concern from several attendees. Meehan, a New Yorker who moved to Ocean City in 1971 and has held public office since 1985, has become one of the region’s most vocal opponents of offshore wind. His critics argue the lawsuit represents an effort to stall progress rather than engage with the facts presented by energy, labor, and environmental experts. Despite the brief exchange, the overall tone of the evening was forward-looking. Residents lingered after the formal discussion to review informational materials, speak with industry representatives, and learn about opportunities for community involvement. For many, the message was clear: Maryland’s transition to clean energy is not only feasible, it’s already underway, and the Eastern Shore stands to benefit.
Show More