Maryland Constitutional Convention Question, Question 1 (2010)

Maryland Constitution
Articles
Declaration of Rights • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XI-A • XI-B • XI-C • XI-D • XI-E • XI-F • XI-G • XI-H • XI-I • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX

A Maryland Constitutional Convention Question, also known as Question 1, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Maryland as an automatic ballot referral, where it was defeated.d The ballot measure would allow the state's voters to say whether they wanted a constitutional convention to be held to consider amendments to the Maryland Constitution. The measure was signed to the ballot by the Governor of Maryland on April 13, 2010.

Section 2 of Article 14 of the Maryland Constitution requires the Maryland General Assembly to refer this question to a statewide ballot every twenty years.

The Maryland State Senate Rules Committee approved the ballot measure after being told by Dan Friedman, an assistant Attorney General of Maryland, that they were legally required to vote in favor of placing the measure on the ballot: "My legal advice is very simple. It is your constitutional obligation to pass this bill. You don't have a choice."

Maryland voters said "no" to the idea of calling a constitutional convention in 1990 and 1970. In 1930 and 1950, voters said "yes", but Maryland's state legislators declined to call the requested convention on the assertion that the vote required a double majority to pass, not just a simple majority.

Marylanders had previously held a state constitutional convention in 1967, after the U.S. Supreme Court said that the way Maryland's legislative district boundaries were drawn was unconstitutional. Maryland's voters approved the convention itself, but rejected the proposals for constitutional change that emerged from that convention.

Aftermath

With most precincts reporting in the state, the measure's results showed 55 percent of voters in favor, with well over 1.5 million voting on the question. However, the measure did not pass. The measure, according to the state constitution, needed to have the approval of those who turned in an election ballot for the position of Governor and not just the majority of those who simply voted on the measure. Reports stated that the proposal fell short and a constitutional convention would not be held. Only 48% voters who voted for the position of Governor voted 'yes' on the question, essentially voting down the measure, according to preliminary figures from the Maryland State Board of Elections.

J.H. Snider, president of iSolon.org, and who also wrote for the MarylandConCon.org blog, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post urging the constitutional convention to be held, in his opinion, due to the results of the measure. The op-ed, entitled, "Give Marylanders the constitutional convention they voted for", argued that Governor of Maryland Martin O'Malley and state lawmakers should have held a constitutional convention, citing O'Malley's response to a pre-election question that asked him if he supported such a convention. The response by O'Malley, according to the op-ed, was, "If that's what people want to do, then that's what we should do." Snider pointed out that the 'yes' votes outnumbered the 'no' votes, and that the voters indeed did vote for a convention. Snider highlighted a rule in the Maryland Constitution that essentially counts "blank votes" as 'no' votes for a con-con, "This undemocratic rule exists because incumbent legislators from both parties hate con-cons, which serve as a check on their power. As George Mason, one of the delegates to the 1787 U.S. con-con, put it in arguing for a con-con mechanism for amending the Constitution: 'It would be improper to require the consent of the [legislature], because they may abuse their power and refuse their consent on that very account.'"

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Note: For Question 1 to be approved, it required a double majority, or the approval of all of those who voted in the election (not just those who voted on Question 1). Only 48% those who turned in such ballots voted for the measure, essentially defeating the measure.

Official results of the measure follow:

Question 1 (Con Con)
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		897,239	48%
No		751,228	40%

Results via Maryland State Board of Elections

Text of measure

Ballot language

The ballot language that voters saw on their ballot read:

Should a constitutional convention be called for the purpose of changing the Maryland Constitution?

Under Article XIV, Section 2 of the Maryland Constitution the General Assembly is required to ask the voters every 20 years whether a constitutional convention should be called for the purpose of altering the Maryland Constitution.

For a Constitutional Convention

Against a Constitutional Convention

Constitution

The Article XIV, Section 2 of the Montana Constitution stated:

It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto. Each County, and Legislative District of the City of Baltimore, shall have in such Convention a number of Delegates equal to its representation in both Houses at the time at which the Convention is called. But any Constitution, or change, or amendment of the existing Constitution, which may be adopted by such Convention, shall be submitted to the voters of this State, and shall have no effect unless the same shall have been adopted by a majority of the voters voting thereon.

Details of state constitution

The details of the Maryland Constitution follow:

• Ratified by the people of the state on September 18, 1867, replacing the short-lived Constitution of 1864.
• The state's current constitution is the fourth constitution under which the state has been governed.
• Last amended in 2006.
• At approximately 47,000 words (including annotations), the Maryland Constitution is much longer than the average length of a state constitution in the United States, which is about 26,000 words (the United States Constitution is about 8,700 words long).

Support

Supporters

• Governor of Maryland Martin O'Malley and former Governor Robert Ehrlich stated support of a constitutional convention. According to Ehrlich, "An opportunity to modernize state government, an opportunity to engage in this process, might be beneficial to the state. We'll see. It's something that has not been, quite frankly, a major issue in our campaign, but I think people need to have an open mind about it." O'Mally agreed, stating, "If that's what people want to do then that's what we should do."

Arguments

In a column published by the Washington Post, Aaron C. Davis wrote that a Constitutional Convention should be held in order to rewrite the problems currently found in the Maryland Constitution. In the column, published on July 5, 2010, Davis wrote, "In the past 143 years, more than 200 amendments have been added to the Constitution, turning it into a mishmash of dead vestiges and small-bore regulatory issues and addressing few modern-day concerns. At 47,000 words, it's nearly eight times longer than the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights."

Opposition

Opponents

Opponents of a Constitutional Convention were as follows:

• Senate President Thomas Mike Miller, Jr. was against a Constitutional Convention, stating, "There's got to a be a real reason to undertake a constitutional convention. Quite frankly, I don't see it. Government has worked well in Maryland since the American Revolution, through ups and downs."

• According to Susan Turnbull, the chairwoman of the Maryland Democratic Party, “Personally, I don’t think there’s a need” for a constitutional convention. "We’re working pretty well in the state of Maryland.”

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Maryland ballot measures, 2010

Opposition

• The Baltimore Sun editorial board stated its recommendation to voters, arguing, "In 1990, voters also had the opportunity to convene a constitutional convention. The Sun advised at the time that, given the failure of the 1967 effort, it would be wiser to pursue whatever reforms are needed as individual amendments through the normal legislative process. Indeed, many of the ideas the convention came up with in the 1960s eventually became law that way. We think that’s still good advice."

Similar measures

Constitutional conventions on the ballot in 2010

According to reports, the state of Maryland is one of 14 states that ask voters once in a decade or more whether or not to hold a constitutional convention. The other states that have this requirement in their constitutions are:

Every 10 years

Five states have a Constitutional Convention question on the statewide ballot every ten years:

• Alaska
• Hawaii
• Iowa
• New Hampshire
• Rhode Island

Every 16 years

One state has a Constitutional Convention question on the statewide ballot every sixteen years:

• Michigan

Every 20 years

Eight states have a Constitutional Convention question on the statewide ballot every twenty years:

• Connecticut
• Illinois
• Maryland
• Missouri
• Montana
• New York
• Ohio
• Oklahoma

See also

Suggest a link

• Maryland 2010 ballot measures
• Maryland Constitutional Convention Amendment (1990)

Articles

• Myths and realities of Constitutional Conventions discussed in Washington D.C.

External links

• Maryland 2010 General Election Ballot Questions, prepared by the Maryland State Board of Elections

Additional reading

• Article explaining Constitutional Convention
• Should States Hold New Constitutional Conventions?
• Constitutional Convention Proposal On Md. Ballot
• Md. voters to again decide constitutional convention

Opinion

• Give Marylanders the constitutional convention they voted for