Maryland Reports Few AI Election Complaints

Maryland election officials have received five complaints under the state’s law targeting AI-generated election disinformation and found one violation: a campaign advertisement that gave voters the wrong Election Day date. The law, enacted in June, gives the State Board of Elections limited authority over certain false election information.

Board spokesperson Lexy Rhoden said officials review complaints and work with the attorney general’s office to seek removal of inaccurate information and issue corrections. The board’s authority covers false information about an election’s time, place or manner, its results, or voting rights. Complaints outside that scope go to the state prosecutor’s office, which declined to discuss ongoing investigations or its review process.

The law requires a deepfake (AI-altered media depicting a person or event) to be created with intent to harm someone. Donald Tobin, an election law professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, said legal challenges will test how courts apply that requirement. He said lawmakers had to balance regulating harmful AI uses with constitutional protections for political speech.

Several campaign-related incidents have surfaced. Just weeks after the law took effect, former Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Hale posted an AI-generated image showing his then-primary opponent Dan Cox embracing Gov. Wes Moore. Moore spokesperson Carter Elliott said the post was reported to the board, which had not provided an update. Earlier this month, Moore’s lawyers reported an advertisement that they alleged falsely used his likeness to suggest he opposed November’s redistricting ballot measure; the board had not answered questions about its status. In Anne Arundel County, a restaurant owned by District 7 Democratic candidate Spencer Jones posted an AI-altered Capital Gazette front page on Facebook on Thursday. It incorrectly called Jones the incumbent and added praise of his restaurant that was absent from the newspaper’s story. Jones said an advertising agency used AI to improve the real page’s clarity, but the system hallucinated (generated unsupported information) the additions. He apologized, removed the post and issued a corrected version on Friday.

Violations can bring up to five years in prison or a $5,000 fine. Candace Turitto, director of the University of Maryland’s Applied Political Analytics Program, said those penalties may not deter every campaign: deceptive material could attract media coverage or persuade voters who do not recognize it as false. She described a hypothetical candidate deciding that potential gains outweigh a $5,000 fine and legal action that might come after an election.

The Baltimore Sun contacted nine local election directors and four responded; none reported an AI-generated election disinformation case this election season. Cecil County’s Gary Holmes said he had seen AI-generated campaign content but nothing he considered reportable election disinformation. Baltimore County’s Ruie Marie Lavoie said she was surprised her office had not encountered such content, after worrying AI could speed false claims on social media. Her office did address a non-AI claim that voters had to pay postage to return mail ballots. Lavoie continues to monitor social media and urges voters to verify claims with local election offices. Carroll County’s Erin Perrone likewise recommended checking election dates, polling places and hours directly with local officials. Caroline County’s Allison Murphy said suspected election misinformation can be reported through a board website form, whether or not AI created it.

Maryland election officials have received five complaints under the state’s law targeting AI-generated election disinformation and found one violation: a campaign advertisement that gave voters the wrong Election Day date. The law, enacted in June, gives the State Board of Elections limited authority over certain false election information.

Board spokesperson Lexy Rhoden said officials review complaints and work with the attorney general’s office to seek removal of inaccurate information and issue corrections. The board’s authority covers false information about an election’s time, place or manner, its results, or voting rights. Complaints outside that scope go to the state prosecutor’s office, which declined to discuss ongoing investigations or its review process.

The law requires a deepfake (AI-altered media depicting a person or event) to be created with intent to harm someone. Donald Tobin, an election law professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, said legal challenges will test how courts apply that requirement. He said lawmakers had to balance regulating harmful AI uses with constitutional protections for political speech.

Several campaign-related incidents have surfaced. Just weeks after the law took effect, former Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Hale posted an AI-generated image showing his then-primary opponent Dan Cox embracing Gov. Wes Moore. Moore spokesperson Carter Elliott said the post was reported to the board, which had not provided an update. Earlier this month, Moore’s lawyers reported an advertisement that they alleged falsely used his likeness to suggest he opposed November’s redistricting ballot measure; the board had not answered questions about its status. In Anne Arundel County, a restaurant owned by District 7 Democratic candidate Spencer Jones posted an AI-altered Capital Gazette front page on Facebook on Thursday. It incorrectly called Jones the incumbent and added praise of his restaurant that was absent from the newspaper’s story. Jones said an advertising agency used AI to improve the real page’s clarity, but the system hallucinated (generated unsupported information) the additions. He apologized, removed the post and issued a corrected version on Friday.

Violations can bring up to five years in prison or a $5,000 fine. Candace Turitto, director of the University of Maryland’s Applied Political Analytics Program, said those penalties may not deter every campaign: deceptive material could attract media coverage or persuade voters who do not recognize it as false. She described a hypothetical candidate deciding that potential gains outweigh a $5,000 fine and legal action that might come after an election.

The Baltimore Sun contacted nine local election directors and four responded; none reported an AI-generated election disinformation case this election season. Cecil County’s Gary Holmes said he had seen AI-generated campaign content but nothing he considered reportable election disinformation. Baltimore County’s Ruie Marie Lavoie said she was surprised her office had not encountered such content, after worrying AI could speed false claims on social media. Her office did address a non-AI claim that voters had to pay postage to return mail ballots. Lavoie continues to monitor social media and urges voters to verify claims with local election offices. Carroll County’s Erin Perrone likewise recommended checking election dates, polling places and hours directly with local officials. Caroline County’s Allison Murphy said suspected election misinformation can be reported through a board website form, whether or not AI created it.