[E]ach generation… [has] a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness. –Thomas Jefferson
* * *
Marylanders for a State Constitutional Convention (MarylandConCon.org) supports a “Yes” vote on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot referendum on whether Maryland should convene a state constitutional convention.
(For background information, see the Baltimore Sun op-ed, Maryland’s Ballot Surprise.)
* * *
August 3, 2010 (Forthcoming)
J.H. Snider will be discussing Maryland’s constitutional convention ballot item at the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, to be held in San Francisco, California from July 30 to August 3, 2010.
* * *
July 14, 2010
Accompanying the Washington Post‘s July 5, 2010 article below was a poll asking readers whether they would support a yes vote on the November 2, 2010 ballot. The poll was unscientific in that only a self-selected group of readers answered it. I’ve checked the poll several times during the past week and only a few people added their votes after the initial group that did so when the article came out. The poll question reads: “Should the state of Maryland hold a constitutional convention?” As of July 14, 2010, 238 people voted, with the results:
yes (57%)
no (43%)
In addition to the poll, the article contained a link to the various sections of Maryland’s Constitution and asked readers to write comments on the Constitution suggesting changes. The Post then said it would “highlight some of our readers’ proposals later this week.” Unfortunately, no such article appears to have been published, and the comments are not available on the website.
Source: How would you change the Maryland Constitution, accessed July 14, 2010.
* * *
July 5, 2010
The Washington Post discusses revising Maryland’s state constitution and convening a state constitutional convention in a front page story: Md. to vote in November on whether to hold constitutional convention. MarylandConCon.org founder, J.H. Snider, is quoted and used as a primary source for the article.
* * *
July 1, 2010
The new law mandating that the question whether or not to convene a state constitutional convention be placed on the November 2, 2010 ballot becomes effective today. In an article highlighting the most important laws becoming effective in Maryland on July 1, 2010, the Baltimore Sun reports: “ A law enabling voters to choose this fall whether they want to convene a convention to rip up and redo the state Constitution also takes effect today” (see New state laws take effect July 1, Baltimore Sun, June 30, 2010).
* * *
April 18, 2010
J. H. Snider’s commentary, Maryland’s Fake Open Government, published in the Washington Post on April 18, 2010, describes the conflict of interest Maryland’s elected officials have in passing and enforcing open government laws. It also proposes simple revisions to Maryland’s Constitution to address this problem. The commentary follows:
Maryland’s Fake Open Government
By J.H. Snider
Severna Park
Sunday, April 18, 2010; C05
Throughout the world, democracy has more legitimacy than authoritarianism. That’s why so many rulers profess more adherence to democratic norms than they practice. Classic illustrations include Russia, Iran and Venezuela, which political scientists characterize as “facade,” “pseudo” and “fake” democracy. America lacks such blatant democratic fakery, but less obvious forms can still thrive.
Fake transparency occurs when officials seek the democratic legitimacy but not the accountability that comes with open government. Fortunately, new information technology, which allows public records to be posted online the moment they are created, can deter such practices.
Laws requiring transparency are most effective in fostering democratic accountability when they force disclosure of politically controversial decisions. Unfortunately, right-to-know laws in Maryland and elsewhere tend to be weakest on exactly this type of access.
Over the years, I’ve made many requests for such information at all levels of government. Although federal transparency is hardly perfect, my worst experiences with government secrecy have been at the local level. Consider my experiences with the implementation of Maryland’s right-to-know laws in Anne Arundel County, where I live.
– To find out how my County Council member voted during her term, I had to identify myself, pay $400 (25 cents a page for four years of written minutes) and endure an inquisition by council staff members who assumed that I had to be running for council.
– To find out how much county public employees are paid (including benefits), I had to identify myself and endure harassing phone calls from employees (whom the public information officer alerted to my request), and then I didn’t even receive the information I was entitled to under Maryland law.
– In response to my request for a copy of a printed public document, I was told that to save the county money, I had to access it online. But I was not told that the controversial part of the document was omitted from the online version.
– When I alerted Maryland’s Open Meetings Law Compliance Board that the chair of a public body had held a special meeting to discuss controversial issues without the legally required public notice, the chair’s mere claim to have sent such notice — backed by no corroborating written evidence or testimony — was deemed adequate to satisfy the law.
– While investigating whether members of a public body were violating the spirit of Maryland’s Open Meetings Law by conducting business via e-mail, I discovered that getting an answer to that question was impossible because the county destroys centralized e-mail records after 30 days and Maryland’s Public Information Act allows officials 30 days to respond to a request.
Admittedly, my county government has an award-winning Web site and happily provides tons of noncontroversial information. But in a democracy, the test of right-to-know laws is accessibility to the information that public officials don’t want to give you.
To address the problem of fake transparency, the simple principle that public equals online should be adopted. A bill recently introduced in Congress, the Public Online Information Act of 2010, attempts to do this for the federal government and points the way for local governments, too.
During the just-concluded session of the Maryland General Assembly, a half-dozen government transparency bills were introduced (and failed to pass), but none was remotely as ambitious or simple in aspiration. The default transparency standard in the state should be that all documents subject to a Public Information Act request should be online and free to the public from the moment of their creation. Indeed, this transparency principle should be incorporated in the state constitution.
A key feature of the federal transparency bill is its separation of public record creation from control. Until now, the only practical option was to give the foxes control of the chicken coop; that is, creators of public records also had control of access to them. But with the advent of the Internet, this argument no longer holds. After a record is created, it can now be transferred to an independent body for immediate archiving and posting online, including automatic redaction of confidential information. In Maryland, the Maryland State Archives could take on such a role. This checks-and-balances principle of separating public record creation from control should also be made part of Maryland’s constitution.
Unfortunately, practical politicians have an incentive to care about the appearance but not the reality of open government. As a result, they have been slow to exploit the potential of new information technologies to reduce fake transparency and strengthen democracy. It is the job of voters to demand that they do so.
The writer is president of iSolon.org.
* * *
April 2, 2010
At the Almost 7:30 Club meeting held in Annapolis, Maryland, an audience member asked Kumar Barve, Majority Leader of the Maryland House of Delegates, whether he supported a yes vote on the November 2, 2010 ballot item to convene a constitutional convention. He replied: “I oppose a state constitutional convention. It is unnecessary. We already have a good constitution. Changing it would endanger Maryland’s Triple A bond rating. As a matter of principle, I’m also opposed to the initiative. Look what it has done to California.”
* * *
March 18, 2010
The Center for the Study of Local Issues at Anne Arundel Community College released its semi-annual public opinion survey (see pages 12 and 21). The survey was sent to 640 randomly selected citizens aged 18 and above in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. For the first time, the survey included the following question:
Every 20 years, the Maryland General Assembly is required to include on the ballot a question about holding a constitutional convention to revise the state‟s constitution. Would you favor or oppose holding such a convention at this time?
The results were:
Favor: 44%
Oppose: 42%
Don’t know enough: 9%
No answer: 5%
In other words, a plurality but not a majority of voters supported a constitutional convention. However, with a margin of error of 4%, it was a statistical dead heat.
Even more interesting was the cross tabulation including ideology: 58% of liberals but only 40% of conservatives favored convening a state constitutional convention. Moderates, the middle category, came in at 42%. The results caught me by surprise because I would have thought that conservatives, who are in the minority in Maryland, would have been the strongest supporters. Generally, it is members of the minority party who are the strongest supporters of democratic reform. My only explanation for this result right now is that classical conservatives generally are more suspicious of government change than progressives, and the purpose of a state constitutional convention would be to change the status quo.
My guess is that once the special interests and incumbent party leaders–the two groups with the most to lose from convening a state constitutional convention–begin to publicly oppose a yes vote, these numbers could dramatically change.
* * *
February 9, 2010
Hourlong segment on WYPR Radio ‘s Midday program (88.1 FM ) discussing the pros and cons of a Maryland Constitutional Convention with iSolon.org President J.H. Snider, Maryland Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman, and Maryland Legislative Counsel Dan Friedman.
* * *
January 8, 2010
J. H. Snider’s commentary, Md’s Ballot Surprise (scanned copy of the print version; click here for the online version), published in the Baltimore Sun on January 8, 2010, marks the inaugural event for this website. As November 2, 2010 approaches, this website will be updated increasingly frequently. The Baltimore Sun commentary follows:
Md.’s ballot surprise
Voters in November will have a rare opportunity to shape the state’s constitution
By J.H. Snider
January 8, 2010
This November, Marylanders will have a once-in-a-generation chance to shake up the political process. Yet few know about it, and even fewer are talking about it.
Maryland’s Constitution stipulates that, every 20 years, the General Assembly must place on the general election ballot a binding referendum asking voters whether they want to convene a constitutional convention. If it passes, it could be the most politically momentous event in Maryland during 2010.
Since the U.S. was founded, states have convened more than 230 constitutional conventions, five of them in Maryland. During the 20th century, Marylanders had six ballot opportunities to convene one. Three times supporters outnumbered opponents, but only once was a convention convened because Maryland’s Constitution requires a majority, not a plurality, of voters. In 1950, for example, 200,439 voters supported a convention while only 56,998 opposed it, but the referendum failed to pass because 388,284 voters in the election left the ballot item blank.
The only convention referendum to win the necessary votes occurred in 1966. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Maryland’s legislative districting violated the U.S. Constitution’s one-person, one-vote requirement. For example, many rural legislators had far fewer constituents than urban legislators. Maryland’s governor, over the legislature’s initial objections, strongly supported holding a convention. Convention delegates, elected in a special election, convened during 1967-68 and placed their proposal on the ballot for ratification in 1968. Opponents successfully focused public attention on the proposal’s most controversial features, and it was defeated – although many of the proposed changes were subsequently adopted through constitutional amendments.
Constitutional conventions have been held for many reasons, including expanding white male suffrage (the early 19th century), expanding black suffrage (the late 19th century), expanding direct democracy (the early 20th century), and reapportioning legislative districts (the mid-20th century).
One common argument in their favor during the 20th century in Maryland was the current constitution’s style, which is suitable for lawyers and lobbyists, not average citizens. Many Marylanders have read the U.S. Constitution, but few have read the Maryland Constitution, which at approximately 47,000 words is more than five times as long as the U.S. Constitution.
Another justification for a convention – one that I prefer – is that it is the preferred venue to propose democratic reforms where elected officials have a blatant conflict of interest with the public. Such issues include term limits, redistricting, campaign finance, ballot access and legislative transparency. When no conflict of interest exists, the constitutional amendment process, controlled by the legislature, is satisfactory.
The conflict-of-interest rationale for constitutional conventions goes back to the framers of the U.S. Constitution. As George Mason of Virginia explained the need, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power and refuse their consent on that very account.”
Another remedy for legislative conflicts of interest is the ballot initiative, by which citizens can put items on the ballot that incumbents oppose. But Maryland is not one of the 24 states that use ballot initiatives. In any case, a constitutional convention, if designed well, can be superior to a ballot initiative, partly because elected rather than self-appointed representatives craft the proposals and because the process is more transparent and deliberative.
In 2010, the best argument for a constitutional convention could be the redistricting triggered by the next decennial U.S. Census taken in April. Maryland’s legislators will no doubt use redistricting to entrench themselves, creating partisan and pro-incumbent gerrymanders that disenfranchise moderates and suppress political competition. A convention could propose an independent body, such as a redistricting jury or bipartisan commission, to constrain gerrymanders.
Like any other democratic process, a constitutional convention is no panacea. Delegates would be elected in districts that mimic the size and district geography of Maryland’s current General Assembly, and incumbents and special interests would be sure to influence the elections to favor their own interests. Nevertheless, no better vehicle is available for voters to break up Maryland’s incumbent protection racket. And if voters don’t like the convention’s recommendations, they need not ratify them.
In 1967-8, the convention delegates were elected in a nonpartisan election, with candidates trying to distance themselves from the elected legislature’s partisan, special interest and pro-incumbent politics. The nonpartisan election system should be retained, although enhanced with instant runoff voting.
Mobilizing the public on democratic reform issues is well known to be very difficult. Thus, compelling reasons, such as combating gerrymandering, must be found to capture the public’s attention. Those who seek to create a more democratic political system in Maryland should now begin the process of educating the public about the issues at stake in this once-in-a-generation opportunity.
–J.H. Snider, a resident of Severna Park, is the president of iSolon.org and has written widely on democratic reform. For more information, see www.MarylandConCon.org.
