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.
