Posted on 11/04/2010 3:58:11 PM PDT by JustSurrounded
A ballot question asking voters to call a convention to revise the state's constitution was supported by 55 percent of those who voted on the question, but the measure did not pass because too many voters abstained.
For a convention to be called, the number of people voting "yes" on the question would need to be more than 50 percent of the total number of Marylanders who voted.
Although 55 percent, or about 845,021 voters were in favor of calling a convention, outnumbering the 703,426 who opposed, 191,548 voters did not vote on the question at all, essentially working against the measure that requires a majority of all voters, according to preliminary figures from the state board of elections Thursday.
In several elections, including in 1950, more people voted in favor of a convention than voted against, but the measure still did not win support from the majority of voters.
The referendum is called every 20 years in Maryland, with the last convention being called in 1968, after the Supreme Court ruled that Maryland's legislative districts were unconstitutional, but the changes from the convention were rejected.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Though I wrote this in opposition to a federal Concon, I’m certain — given Maryland’s proximity to DC and its high population of federal bureaucrats — you have your counterparts to the national hacks I mention and, ergo, are subject to the same dangers.
While an excellent argument can be made for term limits (which, in principle, I also favor), I would offer that, currently, our chances of getting them are somewhere between slim and none. The sad fact that we are even discussing them is a manifestation of the even sadder fact that, until recently, Americans have grown complacently inattentive to the actions of and abuses by government at all levels. The phrase “Let George do it” springs to mind. More folks know the names of the characters on “Lost” than know who allegedly “represents” them in the House.
Having said that, I must respectfully disagree with calls for a Constitutional Convention. I do so for the same reasons I joined with others to repel the push for a ConCon during the Carter maladministration.
Please recall that the FIRST ConCon was convened to REVISE the Articles of Confederation and, while it produced a radically different – and arguably superior – national charter, the problem to which I referred at the top would almost certainly lead to a loss of even more of the freedoms too many of us now take for granted.
A second ConCon would be populated by current political elites who have been selected BY their fellow political elites. Think Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, John Kerry, Fortney “Pete” Stark, etc. Be afraid. Be VERY AFRAID!
Unfortunately for us and our liberties, General Washington, Messers. Madison, Franklin, Adams, Sherman and the others will not be there this time. Once in session, THERE WOULD BE NO PRACTICAL WAY TO CONTROL THEM.
But, say you, the PEOPLE would have to ratify any such actions. Please recall that, today, these would be the same people who gave us Barrack Obama and hundreds of “progressives” on Capitol Hill.
No, I’m not giving up on the people. In our system, they should, within Constitutional constraints, have the last word.
Mr. Jefferson’s advice in that area comes to mind:
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.”
Those of us who wish to save this nation and return it to a condition the Founders would again recognize must continue to “…inform their discretion.”
No doubt it would be a disaster. I don’t think anybody really thinks like a statesman these days, so it would probably be a botched mess.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
I agree with your entire post. It would be an horrendous exercise in political correctness and "inclusion", to the exclusion of the rights of whites, Christians, heterosexuals and taxpayers.
Thanks for the ping on this issue. What a relief.
It’s amazing how naive the voters can be on the practical implications of these seemingly obscure issues. Thank God earlier generations believed in checks and balances.
“The referendum is called every 20 years in Maryland, with the last convention being called in 1968, after the Supreme Court ruled that Maryland’s legislative districts were unconstitutional, but the changes from the convention were rejected.”
Was this call non-referendum? Because I don’t understand how “the voters” vote on the ConCon question in 1950 and 2010, but somehow a ConCon happened in 1968, 2 years before a referendum.
Yes, this confused me, too. This is what I found. Basically, the Supreme Court invalidated part of our constitution, the gov convened a commission to see if we needed a convention, they came back with recommendations for one, voters got to vote on a referendum to have one and passed that, the convention happened, but then the voters did not approve the new constitution.
Here are some snips from some sources I found:
“Maryland's constitutional provision on apportionment was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964. By executive order on June 16, 1965, Governor J. Millard Tawes created the Constitutional Convention Commission, chaired by H. Vernon Eney, to study the need for constitutional revision.”
“The commission was divided into ten committees, including convention procedures, elective franchise, finance and taxation, local legislation, and the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The commission and its committees prepared the specific recommendations requested by the governor and incorporated them into a draft constitution. The commission held its last formal meeting in December 1966, published its interim report on 26 May 1967 and its final report on 25 August 1967, and then disbanded. Acting on the recommendations of the commission that the present constitution required revision and that a convention should be called, the General Assembly enacted legislation to that effect in 1966 (Chapter 500, Acts of 1966). In a referendum held on 13 September 1966 to determine whether Marylanders wanted a convention, the electorate voted overwhelmingly in favor of a convention. “
“In a referendum held on 14 May 1968, the constitution failed ratification. “
So it sounds as if it had nothing to do with the 20-year question.
I guess they still had to ask the question again 2 years later?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.