The Maryland Ballot

Early voting, a telephone tax and local referendums

IN PREVIOUS editorials, we endorsed for Congress in Maryland: Frank M. Kratovil Jr. (D) in the 1st District, Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D) in the 4th, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D) in the 5th and Rep. Chris Van Hollen in the 8th. In another editorial, we recommended Marylanders vote no on Question 2, which would bring slots to the state. These are our endorsements for other questions on the ballot Nov. 4.

Statewide

Question 1, early voting : yes. The referendum would allow voting at certain polling locations up to 10 days before an election. It would also permit voters to cast ballots at locations outside their home precinct.

Opponents contend that early voting would lead to increased election fraud and allow the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to tilt state elections. They also assert that voters could miss out on information that might sway their vote. But 30-plus states already allow some form of early voting, and there's no evidence to bear out these concerns. In these states, voters are turning out in record numbers, with minimal controversy.

It will be up to state legislators to determine the specifics of early voting, including where to open polling stations. Two years ago, before a judge blocked legislation that would have allowed early voting, Democrats in Annapolis showed few scruples in trying to manipulate the process, opening a disproportionate number of polling places in liberal-leaning areas. If the measure passes, lawmakers should put the democratic process ahead of partisanship.

Montgomery County

Circuit Court 6: Mary Beth McCormick and Robert A. Greenberg are running unopposed for two seats.

Question A, repeal of legally ineffective provisions: yes. These provisions dealing with landfills and sewage have never been exercised because they conflict with state law. They offer no real protection for the environment and should be removed from the county charter.

Question B, property tax limit: no. Voters new to the area may not be familiar with Robin Ficker, the ex-state legislator and anti-tax zealot. Mr. Ficker has crusaded against spending in Rockville for years; this is his latest misguided attempt to shackle Montgomery lawmakers. The proposal would make it more difficult for the County Council to override the limit on a property tax increase, requiring a unanimous vote by the nine-member body. (It currently takes seven votes to exceed the limit.) Voters, unhappy that the council voted to override the limit and raise property taxes by about 13 percent this year, may be tempted to support the measure, and we sympathize. But this is the wrong way to send a signal to Rockville. The referendum would allow one council member to hold the body hostage and would limit the council's options in fiscal emergencies.

Prince George's County

Circuit Court 7: Andre M. Chapdelaine, Larnzell Martin Jr., Crystal D. Mittelstaedt, Albert W. Northrop and Nicholas E. Rattal are running unopposed for five open seats.

Court of Special Appeals: Deborah Eyler and Robert A. Zarnoch, for continuance in office -- yes .

Board of Education: Amber Walker (unopposed).

Questions A-E (bond referendums): yes. These would allow the county to raise funds for the maintenance and construction of libraries, public safety facilities, including fire stations, county government buildings, transportation projects, including roads and bridges, and community college facilities.

Question F, telecommunications service sales and use tax: yes. Under outgoing Superintendent John E. Deasy, the Prince George's school system made considerable strides. Mr. Deasy improved test scores and brought accountability to the system; now, a countywide budget crunch threatens this progress. Question F would help fund many of the effective programs started by Mr. Deasy by generating $17 million for the school system. The proposal would raise the tax on phone bills from 8 percent to 11 percent, increasing monthly bills by an average of $2.

Question G, extension of time for notice of public hearing on a bill: yes. A common-sense proposal, Question G would lengthen the notice period for public hearings on proposed legislation from five days to 10.