Four Statewide Ballot Questions
For those in a hurry my view is: 1 (NO); 2 and 3 (Yes) and 4 (NO).
The official ballot language and background is located on the State Board of Elections website:
http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2006/questions/index.html
I’ve been getting quite a few last minute questions and commentary on the four statewide Maryland ballot questions.
I’m not aware if any of the Maryland Blogger Alliance members did anything on this – if they have, call it my attention and I’ll link it…
On Thursday, October 20th, 2006, the Washington Post (WaPo) did an editorial about the four questions – and a colleague also did an analysis…
- there appears to be some varying views on question number 1(WaPo – Yes; Me – NO; and my constitution-scholar colleague – NO). I’ve been told that Governor Ehrlich supports – says Yes to question No.1. The Governor supports this amendment because it memorializes the statutory requirements that already exist. I guess my suggestion to vote NO comes from being a former elected Chief Executive Officer who grew tired of legislative bodies that have enough votes to usurp and/or intrude upon executive function. It is already statute…;
;
And some firm consensus on the questions 2 by all three of us… (Yes); 3(Yes) and 4(NO).
_____
Actually, questions number 2 and 3 really are housekeeping and everyone ought to consider Yes on both questions.
As far as question 1, it just seems to me that if the governor were to be a Democrat, the Maryland General Assembly would have never passed the bill requiring the question… It just seems like so much of the situational ethics employed by a Maryland General Assembly pre-occupied with gotcha politics.
Question number 1 involves the perception that “Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s (attempted) to sell a parcel owned by the state to a business executive…”
In 2003, Governor Ehrlich asked state agencies to review all state assets to identify surplus assets that could be disposed of because they were no longer essential for state use. It is a typical management technique taken by any executive searching for greater efficiencies in operations.
I have had too many folks, who are strait-shooters; whose judgment I accept as objective, say that question number 1 is all about gotcha politics and making a mountain over a molehill.
_____
The Washington Post suggests Vote yes on the first three, no on the fourth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501664_pf.html
Four Maryland Questions
Vote yes on the first three, no on the fourth.
Thursday, October 26, 2006; A24
MARYLAND VOTERS face four statewide ballot questions this year -- three constitutional amendments and a decision on whether to retain changes the General Assembly made this year to election law. The amendments should all pass, but voters should reject the election law changes.
Question 1 asks voters to approve a constitutional amendment to prohibit the Maryland Board of Public Works from allowing the sale of state land without the approval of the General Assembly.
Following an uproar over Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s attempt to sell a parcel owned by the state to a business executive, the legislature passed a law requiring that it sign off on land transfers.
Writing the rule into the constitution represents a basic check on the authority of the board -- an authority that is itself a part of the constitution. The amendment is far from onerous, allowing the General Assembly to delegate this power to a committee. Its adoption makes sense.
Questions 2 and 3 are both judicial housekeeping measures that ought to pass.
Question 2 makes constructive technical changes to the state's appeals process.
Question 3 ups from $5,000 to $10,000 the amount a plaintiff in a civil case has to seek in damages before he can demand a jury trial in a circuit court rather than a trial before a judge in a district court.
Question 4 deals with changes to election law that were so controversial that the state's highest court has already thrown out their centerpiece, an early voting system.
By the time the court acted, however, opponents of the measure had already gathered enough signatures to put the law on the ballot -- meaning voters get to decide whether to ratify its residue, which has already gone into effect.
They should vote it down.
The most important provision remaining requires the State Board of Elections, which has five members, to act on all matters by supermajority vote. This could disable the board from doing much of anything, requiring bipartisan agreement for every step. The law also gives the elections administrator, Linda H. Lamone, new powers to go to court to force local election boards to comply with the rules.
The cumulative result would be to shift power into Ms. Lamone's hands. As the General Assembly already has to go back to the drawing board on early voting, it makes sense to start over with the rest of the bill, too.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
_____
The colleague who made the most understandable analysis on the four questions says: - No on question number 1; - yes and questions 2 and 3; and No on question number 4. I have pasted that colleague’s analysis here:
Understanding the Statewide Ballot Questions
The November ballot has four statewide ballot questions. The first three of the questions are Constitutional Amendments passed by the General Assembly and referred to the public for adoption. The fourth question is a referred bill on election law that was successfully petitioned to referendum by Marylanders for Fair Elections.
The official ballot language and background is located on the State Board of Elections website: http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2006/questions/index.html
Statewide Question 1 – Constitutional Amendment - Disposition of Park Lands
This question is a totally political ploy by the Democrat Party to stick it to Ehrlich. The policy is currently in place by statute.
There is no reason for it to be incorporated into the State Constitution.
But the Democrats wanted a rallying cry to bring the environmental community out to the polls against Bob Ehrlich in 2006 – so they made the bill a Constitutional Amendment.
In 2003, Governor Ehrlich asked state agencies to review all state assets to identify surplus assets that could be disposed of because they were no longer essential for state use.
It is a typical management technique taken by any executive searching for greater efficiencies in operations.
Over the last four years, the Democrats in the legislature placed a premium on finding issues to make the Governor look bad. They made sure that the Governor’s slots initiative did not pass. They spent over $1 million to determine that at-will employees were legally dismissed from their positions.
And they exaggerated the circumstances under which surplus land sales were being considered, including one instance in St. Mary’s County, in order to undermine the Governor’s significant accomplishments with the environmental community through his Chesapeake Bay initiatives.
The Governor supports this amendment because it memorializes the statutory requirements that already exist.
But it is simply surplusage to add it to the Constitution, it restricts Gubernatorial powers, the policy adds a layer of bureaucracy through General Assembly intervention into executive decision-making and it is on the ballot only for it’s value to turn out anti-Ehrlich vote.
It deserves a big “AGAINST” the referred law.
Statewide Question 2 – Constitutional Amendment – Circuit Court In Banc Decisions
Typically, a case heard in a county circuit court is heard by one judge. The Constitution provides that a party may appeal a circuit court decision to the circuit court sitting “in banc.” “In banc” literally means the entire bench but in contemporary practice provides for an appeal hearing before a panel of three circuit court judges. In the early history of Maryland, “in banc” review saved the time, travel and expense of traveling to Annapolis for an appeal before the Maryland Court of Appeals.
While making some substantive change to appeal rights in Maryland, this Constitutional Amendment can be characterized as housekeeping. When the Court of Special Appeals was created as an intermediate appellate court in 1966, it left a question that has not been addressed until this bill. If you are a party in a circuit court case and the other party appeals for an “in banc” review, you could lose your right to appeal the “in banc” decision because it would go directly to the Court of Appeals where the appeal is not automatic but instead is discretionary by certiorari. This bill guarantees the party that did not request an “in banc” review to have an appeal right to the Court of Special Appeals.
Bottom line: this amendment is needed to insure that the party that did not request the “in banc” review continues to retain an automatic appeal right. Vote “FOR” the referred law.
Statewide Question 3 – Constitutional Amendment – Civil Jury Trials
This is another bill that can be characterized as housekeeping. In 1998, the General Assembly increased the amount-in-controversy threshold under which one is entitled to request a jury trial in a civil case from $5,000 to $10,000. However, in a recent case, the Court of Appeals ruled that there is a common law right to a jury trial and that the General Assembly did not have the authority to establish the amount-in-controversy threshold because of a conflict between the Constitutional language and the common law in the Declaration of Rights.
This bill resolves this conflict and would allow the General Assembly to pass a bill next session to set the threshold – more than likely at $10,000. Some people would oppose this bill on the premise that anyone should be allowed to request a trial of one’s peers no matter what is at controversy.
However, under a greater efficiency in the courts rationale – I say vote “FOR” the referred bill.
Statewide Question 4 – Statewide Referendum – Election Law Revisions
Don’t let the preface to this bill fool you! Many of you signed petitions to bring this bill to referendum so that it could be defeated.
Even though the biggest atrocity in the bill – early voting – was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals, there is still bad stuff in this bill for which the rest should be struck down by the voters.
Again, the Democrat leadership of the General Assembly injected pure partisan politics into our election laws.
The bill requires a supermajority vote (4 of 5 members) for the State Board of Elections to make any decisions – with 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats on the board, it means that the Democrats totally control any actions at the State level. It also handcuffs the Board’s powers thus yielding greater power to the incumbent State Administrator (who was given a job for life by an earlier bill passed by the Democrat leadership).
The law also consolidates considerable new powers in the State Administrator to be able to sue local election boards, to hold veto power over basic decisions made by local election boards and assist registered voters to sue their local boards.
Need we also remind you that this bill requires that every polling place be outfitted with the epollbooks that performed so poorly for the Primary election.
TrueVote Maryland and other good government election’s organizations say vote “AGAINST” this law – and so do I.
####
