In Maryland, transparency in government is enshrined in the Open Meetings Act, which requires public bodies like the state legislature and county councils to conduct hearings in the open, provide adequate notice of hearings and make minutes available for inspection. Such “sunshine laws,” first introduced in the late 19th century, were designed to increase public participation in the democratic process and boost government accountability.

But after analyzing testimony patterns from hearings in the Maryland General Assembly, we confirmed a troubling reality: Open meetings fail to democratize participation because legislators are not hearing representative voices from the public.

To understand who participates in legislative hearings, our research team at the University of Maryland’s Saul I. Stern Civic Engagement Lab analyzed 955 testimonies on 194 environmental bills in hundreds of hours of hearings during the 2021 legislative session. That year, because of the pandemic, all hearings were held online. Even with unequal access to broadband and technology, this innovation should have made the hearings more accessible to Maryland residents, bypassing obstacles such as limited public transportation to Annapolis and the significant free time required for in-person testimony. Since then, the General Assembly has allowed people to testify either in person or online.

The results were sobering.

Despite Maryland having one of the nation’s most diverse legislatures, those testifying were overwhelmingly male and white. For every woman who testified, 1.4 men spoke. The racial disparity was far more pronounced: White testifiers outnumbered non-white testifiers by a ratio of nearly six to one. Over 85% of those who testified were white, while only 11% were Black. These are stark differences from the state’s population, which is about 52.5% female, 52% white and 35% Black.

The concern isn’t only who testified, but who these individuals represented. The average Joe does not follow the legislative calendar. While hearings are “open,” understanding posted agendas and how to sign up to testify is complicated. Interest groups from the NAACP to the Chamber of Commerce track legislation and get their members to testify. Their presence could help mitigate bias, as they do the work that hired lobbyists and businesses do for themselves. However, we did not find evidence that interest groups facilitate equitable representation.

Unsurprisingly, only 6% of testimonies were by individuals unaffiliated with a group. The vast majority of witnesses represented formal organizations — predominantly businesses (27%) and public interest groups (27%), but also other governments and government agencies (19.3%).

The racial and gender makeup of these groups shows that not all bring representative voices to the legislature. Government agencies and business organizations sent predominantly male testifiers (75.5% and 72.3% respectively), while public interest groups and charitable organizations sent more women (59.9% and 85.4%). Business organizations also sent the whitest contingent of representatives (91.1%), and while public interest organizations were somewhat more diverse (81.2% white), they were not at all representative of the state’s population. Interestingly, those testifying without organizational affiliation were the most diverse group, with only 72% presenting as white and 25% as Black. Nearly a third of Black testifiers were not affiliated with a group — a much higher proportion than any other demographic. This suggests that interest group organizing is currently insufficient to overcome the challenge of getting a representative subsample of those who are affected by legislation to testify. Instead, their activity makes hearings even less representative of Maryland than they otherwise would be.

These disparities become even more significant when we consider how testimonies were positioned. Research shows that opposing legislation is more effective than supporting it. We found that business organizations were most likely to oppose bills (40% opposition), followed by occupational organizations (31.8%). White testifiers also opposed legislation at significantly higher rates than non-white testifiers, with an almost 9 percentage point difference between the groups. If opposition testimony is the most effective, then not only are white testifiers and businesses more likely to testify than other groups, but they are also more likely to be effective at changing outcomes when they do.

These findings challenge the fundamental premise of open meeting laws. While the COVID-19 pandemic forced these hearings onto Zoom — theoretically making participation more accessible by removing geographic barriers — our data suggests that virtual access alone doesn’t solve the underlying representation gap.

What emerges is a picture of legislative hearings dominated by white male representatives of powerful organizations who are more likely to oppose legislation than their counterparts. Meanwhile, individuals from marginalized communities — particularly those without organizational backing — remain significantly underrepresented.

The implications are clear: Merely opening the doors to participation doesn’t ensure equitable access or influence. Instead, open meetings, as they are currently held, may inadvertently amplify the voices of those already possessing the resources, networks and institutional knowledge to navigate legislative processes. To be blunt, the process of identifying bills and developing testimony is extremely challenging for anyone not paid to do it.

For lawmakers serious about truly gaining representative input into proposed policy changes, holding hundreds of hours of hearings isn’t enough. They must actively work to remove barriers to participation, particularly for underrepresented communities. This might include seeking out testimony from under-resourced groups likely to be affected by the legislation and providing technical support for virtual participation. At the very least, elected officials should be aware that the sea of voices present in public hearings is far more white, male and resourced than their constituents.

If you’re interested in weighing in on legislation that matters to you, a few groups offer concise guidance on how to track bills and participate. Public interest groups committed to fostering meaningful political engagement can help by making sure their websites list bills of interest and explain how to testify, offering trainings on how to follow and contribute to the legislative process and recruiting community members to track and share information about bills of interest, particularly those likely to generate opposition, to their friends and neighbors.

Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz is the Saul I. Stern Professor of Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Kasey Vangelov is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Public Policy. Liora Petter-Lipstein has a bachelor’s degree in public policy from the University of Maryland and is focused on increasing civic engagement and strengthening democracy.