Amendments to the Maryland Constitution
BALLOT QUESTIONS
On November 4th, you will be asked to mark your ballot “For” or “Against” two amendments to the Maryland Constitution and two Montgomery County Charter Amendments. The text for each question as it will appear on the ballot is boxed, followed by an explanation.
|
Origin of this Ballot Question – Legislation that would allow early voting and “no-excuse” absentee voting was passed by the General Assembly in 2006, but a court decision found the legislation to be in conflict with the Maryland Constitution. Therefore, in the 2007 session, the General Assembly passed SB 1 - Elective Franchise - Early Voting and Polling Places, which amends the Maryland Constitution to allow the General Assembly to pass legislation that will establish early voting sites and allow voters to vote by absentee ballot without having to give a reason. All constitutional amendments must be passed by a majority of voters statewide.
Present Practice – Article I, Section 1 of the Maryland Constitution states that a voter “shall be entitled to vote in the ward or election district in which he resides.” As currently interpreted, this means that a voter cannot vote at an early voting location outside the voter’s election district and that a provisional ballot cast by a voter outside his or her election district cannot be counted. Article XV, Section 7 of the Maryland Constitution designates the “Tuesday after the first Monday of November” as the date of the general election. This has been interpreted by the Court of Appeals to mean that early voting is not permissible.
Absentee ballots are only for use by voters who are absent at the time of an election or who are unable to vote in person at the assigned voting precinct. The absentee ballot application requires a voter to affirm this fact.
Proposed Change – If the amendment passes, the General Assembly may enact laws to establish early voting sites. Early voting would allow registered voters to vote, in person, up to two weeks before a state-wide primary or general election at polling places outside of their normal district or precinct. Early voting sites can accommodate voters from multiple precincts or even from the entire state. However, passing this amendment only allows the General Assembly to establish an early voting process. The details of how many early voting sites will be established and how the locations for them will be determined will come in future legislation.
Passage of this amendment will also allow the General Assembly to pass legislation that enables any qualified voter to vote by absentee ballot if they choose to do so. The enabling legislation could remove the requirement to sign a statement telling why the voter wants to vote by absentee ballot.
Pros: Allows for in-person voting by voters who, due to work hours, long commutes or other reasons, are unable to vote during the limited hours on Election Day. Early voting should ease long lines and lengthy wait times at precincts on Election Day and should ease the workload of precinct workers. This measure also increases the likelihood that a voter’s provisional ballot will be counted by allowing a provisional ballot cast outside the voter’s election district to be counted for eligible races.
Cons: There will be increased costs associated with providing polling locations prior to Election Day. Voters who vote during early voting may not have access to late campaign information on which to base their election decisions. By encouraging more voters to use absentee ballots or early voting sites, some of the community interaction that takes place at precinct-based polling places may diminish.
|
Origin of this Ballot Question – For several years, efforts to enact legislation that would authorize video lottery terminals (slot machines) as a way to raise revenue for state expenditures failed in the legislature. The governor proposed, and legislators agreed, that the decision of whether to significantly expand gambling in Maryland should be decided by the voters. The Maryland Constitution allows only two ways for citizens to vote on laws. The first is to gather enough signatures on a petition to place a law that has been passed by the General Assembly on the ballot for voter approval. The second is to place a constitutional amendment, approved by three-fifths of the legislators, before the voters in a General Election. In the 2007 Special Session, the Maryland General Assembly passed HB 4, which would add a new article to the Maryland Constitution to authorize video lottery terminal gaming (slot machines) in Maryland. A majority of voters, statewide, must vote in favor of the amendment for it to go into effect.
Present Practice – Currently, the annotated code of Maryland prohibits video lottery terminal (slot machine) gambling except that certain fraternal, religious or war veterans’ organizations in a few counties may operate no more than five individual slot machines, and the revenue from them must be used for the charitable purposes of those organizations. Public education is currently funded through Maryland’s General Fund. State funding for primary and secondary education is about $5.35 billon for this fiscal year. The three main sources of revenue for the General Fund are income tax, retail sales tax and the State Lottery. School construction may be funded by the General Fund but is primarily funded by borrowing through the issuance of state bonds.
Proposed Change – If the amendment passes, Maryland may operate up to 15,000 video lottery terminals in five locations: Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Allegany, Cecil and Worcester Counties. No more than one gambling facility would be allowed in each of the authorized jurisdictions. Another bill related to gambling, SB 3, was also passed during the 2007 Special Session. It will go into effect contingent on the passage of this constitutional amendment. As defined by SB 3, 33% of proceeds from video terminal gambling would go to the licensed operators, 9.5% to the horse racing industry and approximately 48.5% to education. The remainder would be used for lottery expenses, local impact grants and administrative costs. Included in the latter is money to fight gambling addiction. The amendment also states that no additional video lottery terminals shall be authorized without another approval by voters.
Pros: In 2007, the Department of Legislative Services estimated 2010 state revenues will increase approximately $86 million from video gaming receipts and by as much as $565 million by 2013. This additional revenue could reduce tax increases that would otherwise be necessary to fund projected education expenses. Maryland residents who gamble in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware may choose to spend their gambling dollars here instead of taking them out of state. New jobs will be created in construction and the gambling industry. Jobs in the horse racing industry may be saved. Unlike taxation, gambling is a recreational choice and not a mandate.
Cons: In order to generate enough revenue to reach the projected increases to state funding, gamblers in Maryland would have to lose over $1 billion per year. To generate this level of revenue the state will have to urge its citizens to frequent slots parlors. Gambling, like other addictions, frequently leads to social (and government) costs associated with lost productivity, increased crime, broken families and even suicide. Disposable income that currently generates sales tax revenue could be spent on gambling resulting in a loss to the General Fund. The referendum would put a specific revenue source, gambling, in the state constitution. A constitution should be clear, concise and confined to fundamentals of the structure of government.
Amendments to the Montgomery County Charter
On November 4th, you will be asked to mark your ballot “For” or “Against” two amendments to the Maryland Constitution and two Montgomery County Charter Amendments. The text for each question as it will appear on the ballot is boxed, followed by an explanation.
|
Origin of this Ballot Question – This question was recommended by the Charter Review Commission and placed on the ballot by the Montgomery County Council.
Present Practice – The County Charter provides a framework for the governance of the county. Three provisions in the County Charter: 311A, 311B, and 313A currently have no legal force and do not affect how county government operates. The Maryland courts blocked implementation of 311A and 313A because each directly conflicted with some aspect of state law. More fundamentally, neither of these provisions are proper “Charter Material” because they do not address a fundamental aspect of the form and basic structure of county government. In addition, they attempt to legislate through a charter amendment, which the Maryland Constitution prohibits. Although the Maryland courts have not blocked the operation of 311B, a consistent line of Court of Appeal opinions makes clear that this provision, like the ones above, is in conflict with the Maryland Constitution’s prohibition on legislating through a charter amendment.
Proposed Change – The ballot question proposes removing these three provisions from the Montgomery County Charter.
Pros: The county charter will no longer contain provisions that are unenforceable and that are not essential to defining the basics of how county government is structured. Leaving them in the charter could create confusion because the charter would not be an accurate reflection of the form and structure of county government.
Cons: These provisions were placed in the charter by petition and reflect a vote of the people. Because of this vote, these provisions should not be removed from the charter even though they are legally ineffective.
|
Origin of this Ballot Question – The Maryland Constitution allows amendments to any charter adopted by any county to be placed on a general election ballot if a petition in support of the amendment has a minimum of 10,000 signatures. The Montgomery County Board of Elections certified that Robin Ficker collected the required number of signatures to place this measure on the ballot.
Present Practice – Under Charter Section 305, Approval of the Budget; Tax Levies, tax revenues from real property may not increase more than the rate of inflation. The charter defines which property tax revenue is included in this calculation. Under current practice, if tax revenue growth exceeds the rate of inflation, the Council must reduce the real property tax rate to bring the overall revenue growth in line with inflation. However, a supermajority (7 out of 9 votes) of the Council may override the charter limits and approve revenue growth that exceeds the rate of inflation.
This option has been used four times since it was adopted in 1990. In Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03), by a vote of 8 to 1, the Council maintained the tax rate although, due to increased property assessments, the revenue generated by the previous year’s tax rate exceeded the charter limit by $4.3 million. In FY04, the Council voted unanimously to maintain the current tax rate, when again, due to increased property tax assessments, the revenue generated exceeded the charter limit by $29.2 million. In the following fiscal year, 2005, a unanimous Council voted to reduce the current tax rate by 1 cent, but the revenue generated still exceeded the charter limit by $48 million. In FY06, 07 and 08, the property tax rate was reduced and the revenue generated was at the charter limit. For FY09, the Council adopted (8 yes votes, one position vacant) tax rates that were the same as the previous year but are expected to generate more revenue than the charter allows without the supermajority vote.
Proposed Change – To increase property tax revenues above the rate of inflation, all nine (9) members of the County Council instead of the current seven (7) would have to vote in favor of adopting a tax rate that would generate more income than the previous year’s income plus a percentage of the previous year’s property tax revenue that equals the increase in the Consumer Price Index as defined in the County Charter.
Pros: The amount of revenue collected by the county would not exceed the rate of inflation without a unanimous vote of the County Council. This might slow the rate of growth of county expenditures and reduce the impact of increased property tax assessments by making it more difficult for the Council to raise more revenue.
Cons: Requiring nine votes to exceed the charter limit could be problematic if a Council position is vacant when the tax rate needed to be approved, as occurred in this fiscal year. In addition, it gives veto power to a single member of the Council. County expenses such as education, health care for employees and transportation do not necessarily grow at the same rate as inflation. Passage of this measure could result in a reduction of county services. Restricting the Council’s fiscal options could jeopardize the county’s AAA bond rating, which means it would pay higher interest rates to borrow money for capital projects.