Introduction
At the general election on November 2, 2010, Marylanders were asked to vote on many propositions in addition to the high-profile elections for Governor, General Assembly, and Congress. One of those other propositions was whether to convene a state constitutional convention (con-con), a proposition Maryland’s Constitution mandates be placed on the ballot every twenty years.
54.4% of Maryland voters voting on the proposition voted yes. Prior to the election, the General Assembly was strongly opposed to convening a con-con. For example, not a single member spoke up publicly in favor of a yes vote, although many spoke out publicly in favor of a no vote.
The Governor and General Assembly have subsequently refused to convene the con-con, arguing that they don’t have to because Maryland’s Constitution requires an extraordinary, not ordinary, majority to mandate that they convene the con-con.
During the past year, I have read through many thousands of pages of archival documents and legal cases relevant to their interpretation of Maryland’s Constitution. What I have determined is that theirs is a self-serving and incorrect reading of Maryland’s Constitution, albeit one that other incumbents in their position have also supported when it was politically convenient to do so.
What’s To Be Done
The Governor and General Assembly should keep their oath of office to uphold Maryland’s Constitution. If they won’t, they should be sued to force them to do so.
Regardless of the outcome of any lawsuit, they should be reminded daily that a majority of Maryland voters, the supposedly sovereign We The People, supported convening a con-con. Out of respect for this expressed will of the people of Maryland, they have a democratic responsibility to convene the con-con, which is wholly within their power to do with a simple majority vote of the General Assembly. Regardless of any claims they might make that they are not legally obligated to convene the con-con, they have a moral obligation to the people of Maryland to do so.
To be sure, state legislatures and their special interest allies are strongly opposed to con-cons because they are a populist institution liable to pursue democratic values at the expense of incumbent and special interest entrenchment. That is, they are liable to operate the way their Framers’ intended.
No one is saying con-cons are perfect. But if you want to create a more modern, competitive, and accountable democracy in Maryland, a con-con is the most efficient and effective democratic instrument to achieve those ends. Some democratic reforms, including independent redistricting and legislative term limits, cannot, as a practical matter, happen any other way. And that’s why incumbents, special interests, and their allies fear and oppose con-cons.
Marylanders for a State Constitutional Convention would ideally like the Governor and General Assembly to voluntarily convene the con-con a majority of Marylanders supported. But if they continue to violate both democratic values and Maryland’s Constitution by not convening the con-con, then we have no choice but to sue them.
Please consider contributing money, legal expertise, or any other resource that you feel could help this campaign.
Thank you for any help you can provide.
Sincerely,
J.H. Snider, Founder
Marylanders for a State Constitutional Convention
* * *
February 18, 2012
Letter to the editor on the editorial page (p. A18) of today’s print edition of the Washington Post:
* * *
February 13, 2012
Marylanders for a State Constitutional Convention launches a petition asking the Maryland General Assembly “to uphold Maryland’s Constitution and the People’s Will.” This replaces the trial petitions launched on February 11, 2012, described below.
* * *
February 12, 2012
The print edition of the Washington Post publishes J.H. Snider’s commentary, It will take a con-con to untangle Maryland’s gerrymanders, describing the Maryland General Assembly’s conflict of interest in solving the gerrymander problem, which is the type of democratic reform problem constitutional conventions were invented to address.
* * *
February 11, 2012
Marylanders for a State Constitutional Convention launches a petition asking the Maryland General Assembly “to uphold Maryland’s Constitution and the people’s right to convene a state constitutional convention.”
The petition may be signed on any one of three different petition websites:
1. Care2 Make a Difference (this is the default, recommended petition website)
2. Signon.org
3. Change.org
* * *
February 10, 2012
The online edition of the Washington Post publishes J.H. Snider’s commentary, It will take a con-con to untangle Maryland’s gerrymanders.
* * *
January 18, 2012
The Baltimore Sun publishes J.H. Snider’s commentary, State ignores voters on constitutional convention; Majority voted in favor of con-con in 2010, yet it hasn’t been convened, arguing that the refusal of Maryland’s Governor and General Assembly to convene the con-con voters supported violates Maryland’s Constitution.
