09/30/2026
Starting with the Reparations Bill
By Dr. Qin Wang
While following the 2026 midterm elections, I came across SB 587, a bill passed by the Maryland legislature in 2025. The bill called for the creation of a commission to study reparations for Black Marylanders whose ancestors were enslaved or who suffered certain forms of historical injustice, with a report due in 2027. Incumbent State Delegate Chao Wu voted Yes on the bill.
Interestingly, the bill was later vetoed by the Governor. The Governor’s position was not that there should be no reparations for Black Marylanders, but rather that enough studies had already been conducted and that it was time to move toward action. The Maryland House and Senate subsequently overrode the governor’s veto, and by the end of 2025, SB 587 became law. In other words, the issue of reparations is currently under study.
What interests me is this: Why did Chao Wu vote Yes?
In his own political biography, Wu emphasizes that he is a data scientist and that he values fact-based policy solutions. Yet the bill itself raises many obvious factual and practical questions.
Consider a few examples:
- Roughly 30% of Maryland’s population is Black. Determining which individuals among that population have ancestors who were enslaved or subjected to particular historical injustices would be an enormous undertaking.
- The “study” required by SB 587 is not a study without fiscal implications. Whether reparations ultimately take a direct or indirect form, the commission is examining proposals that could carry substantial fiscal costs.
- As a first-generation immigrant himself, has Wu considered this question: If Maryland ultimately decides that today’s taxpayers should finance compensation for historical injustices, how many of today’s taxpayers in an immigrant nation such as the United States actually had any connection to the slave trade? If the answer is that the state or nation, as a continuing political community, bears responsibility for historical wrongs, then where are the boundaries of that responsibility? Why should that financial responsibility extend to taxpayers living today?
Faced with all these factual considerations, why would a highly trained professional who emphasizes data-driven / fact-based policy choose to support the creation of this commission? Does his Yes vote mean that he believes a future reparations program would be fiscally feasible? Or does he simply believe that “study it first and decide later” is the politically safer choice and one that keeps him aligned with Maryland’s Democratic majority?
Here is a brief digression that is not entirely off topic. Fitzgerald Mofor, another candidate in District 9A, who is himself Black, has said the following about the reparations bill:
“This reparations committee is a complete waste of time and the legislature is passing it to signal virtue to the legislative black caucus and to the 30% of black residents in Maryland. If they truly cared about the social and economic advancement of black communities they would build a stronger education system, expand school choice, develop the black workforce, create more jobs, fix our broken juvenile justice system, etc.”
Now, back to Chao Wu.
Looking at Wu’s voting record over the past several years, I find that on politically contentious issues, his votes appear to follow the Democratic Party’s positions rather than what I consider a fact-based approach.
Consider a few more examples.
HB 457 — Free menstrual products in college restrooms. During the debate, advocates explicitly argued that these products should be available in restrooms regardless of gender in order to accommodate transgender students. Wu voted Yes. So what is the relevant fact? Is it that a biological male who identifies as a woman begins menstruating? Or that a biological female who identifies as a man may still menstruate and therefore may need access to menstrual products in a men’s restroom?
Repealing 287(g) cooperation. Legislation restricting cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE weakened mechanisms for local-federal immigration enforcement, and Wu voted Yes. Later, HB 444 further restricted local government cooperation with ICE, and Wu again voted Yes.
The fact is that here in Howard County, we have seen crimes involving people who were in the country illegally. One nationally reported example involved a Honduran national accused of killing his girlfriend in Columbia before being arrested in Texas.
What I find illogical about these policies is this: When someone commits a crime, the criminal does not first consider whether he is an illegal immigrant. Yet when law enforcement arrests that person, government policy may treat immigration status as a reason to restrict certain forms of cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Then came SB 791 in 2026, which removed key mechanisms for identifying and transferring certain undocumented offenders to ICE. In my view, this increases the possibility that undocumented offenders who may pose public-safety risks will be released back into the community. Wu once again voted Yes.
Finally, consider another issue that can be grouped with the menstrual-products debate. In 2025, the legislature passed HB 161, restricting parents’ ability to opt their children out of certain curriculum involving gender and sexuality. Wu once again voted Yes.
To those who believe that Chao Wu will necessarily represent the interests of Chinese Americans simply because he is Chinese American: Wake up. Political representation should be judged by a candidate’s policies and voting record, not simply by shared ethnicity.
Vote Fitzgerald Mofor and Spencer Rhoda Republican candidates for State Delegate 9A
Author: Qin Wang, a longtime resident of Howard County, is currently retired, enjoying travel and writing. She holds a PhD of Political Science from Southern Illinois at Carbondale.
