Last month, as Maryland lawmakers considered a bill that would ban transgender students from playing in girls’ sports, something was notably missing from the House Ways and Means Committee hearing room: the public’s voice. Neither supporters nor opponents were permitted to provide oral testimony as the committee reviewed the legislation. Unfortunately, this silence wasn’t an anomaly — it’s becoming an alarming pattern in our state’s legislative process.

As a long-time Maryland resident who has witnessed countless legislative sessions, I’ve observed a troubling shift in how our General Assembly conducts its business. Despite Democrats controlling both chambers and wielding the power to defeat bills they oppose, they’re increasingly choosing to bypass public discourse altogether. The transgender sports bill will likely die in committee, but that doesn’t absolve our legislators of their responsibility to maintain an open, democratic process.

The House Ways and Means Committee has developed a concerning habit of restricting public participation when it comes to controversial legislation that doesn’t fit the Democratic Party’s agenda and ideological priorities. In many cases, oral testimony from Maryland citizens has been significantly limited or replaced entirely by written submissions. While the committee might view this as a matter of efficiency, it represents a fundamental departure from the principles of representative democracy. The actions of the committee are reflective of single-party control and a lack of respect for the core values of democracy.

This isn’t just about controversial conservative proposals or whether the proposed legislation is unique or similar to previous proposals. Consider Senate Bill 926, the physician-assisted suicide legislation introduced by Democratic state senators. Despite significant changes from last year’s version — including the removal of the Maryland residency requirement — the Senate committee limited testimony to just two witnesses on each side. Such restricted debate on a literally life-and-death issue demonstrates that this isn’t a partisan tactic but rather a troubling shift away from robust public discourse. When even majority-sponsored bills receive such limited public scrutiny, it suggests our legislative bodies are prioritizing control of their narratives over democratic deliberation and public scrutiny.

Each year, many Marylanders look to the legislative session as an opportunity to directly engage with the lawmaking process and feel like they get to have a voice. This isn’t just a bureaucratic tradition — it’s an extension of our constitutional right to petition our government. When citizens make the journey to Annapolis, often taking time off work and arranging child care, they do so believing their physical presence and spoken words carry weight in the democratic process.

The current practice of limiting testimony to bill sponsors and occasional opposing viewpoints effectively silences the very constituents these lawmakers are meant to represent. Written testimony, while valuable, cannot replace the dynamic exchange of ideas that occurs during in-person hearings. When a citizen testifies in person, legislators can ask questions, seek clarification and engage in the kind of substantive dialogue that often leads to better legislation.

This shift away from public testimony is particularly concerning given Maryland’s single-party control of the legislature. With the Democratic Party holding significant power, it becomes even more critical to maintain robust public oversight and participation. The committee room should serve as an equalizing space where all voices — regardless of political affiliation or position — can contribute to the legislative dialogue.

The argument for efficiency in legislative proceedings has merit, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of democratic participation. By restricting public input, we risk creating an echo chamber where important perspectives and real-world implications of proposed legislation go unheard. This practice not only undermines public trust but also raises questions about the quality of our legislative outcomes.

As we move forward, I call on the House Ways and Means Committee to recommit to the principles of open government. Restore meaningful opportunities for oral testimony. Create clear, consistent guidelines for public participation that prioritize citizen engagement over procedural expediency. Most importantly, remember that every silenced voice represents a missed opportunity to craft better, more responsive legislation for all Marylanders.

Our democratic process is strengthened, not weakened, by the diverse voices of our citizens. It’s time for our legislators to stop choosing partisan control and silence over democracy and open dialogue.

Josue Sierra is a marketing and communications executive and consultant to the Maryland Family Institute. He is a long-time resident of Cecil County.