Legislative Vacancies: Amendment Being Drafted

It appears that the serious flaws in Maryland’s system for filling state legislative vacancies (see my December 13 post on the topic) will be discussed during the upcoming session of the General Assembly.

Senator Rich Madaleno has formally requested that legislation be drafted that would amend the Maryland constitution to democratize the process. Specifically, it would mandate a special election during the midterm to allow voters in a district to elect a replacement for the rest of the term.

The cost of a special election should not be high: Since the midterm for state legislators is always a presidential election year, every election board in the state is already putting on an election.

Even if the amendment is passed by the General Assembly in the upcoming session and approved by the voters in November, the first midterm where it could come into play would not be until 2012. So there is no rush: We’ll get the same result even if the amendment doesn’t pass until 2010.

That gives Madaleno and his allies three regular sessions to build support for this reform in Annapolis.

And, according to Madaleno, we may need that time.

That’s because many legislators may see this as “just a Montgomery County problem.” Given our county’s numerous unexpected legislative vacancies within the first year of the four-year term, we clearly see the need for reform. But other parts of the state have not seen such a high level of unexpected turnover so early in the term. Consequently, voters outside of Montgomery County are not demanding change. Madaleno is concerned that many legislators in Annapolis, seeing this as a Montgomery County problem, will have little incentive to change the status quo.

Madaleno sees a parallel with another electoral problem that applies statewide but which is generally categorized (and ignored) as a Montgomery County problem: the constitutional provision for adopting local charter amendments. Enacted in 1916, it establishes the minimum number of signatures needed to get a charter amendment on the ballot: At least 20% of the registered voters in the jurisdiction, but no more than 10,000 people. Back in 1916, Baltimore was the only chartered locality, had a much smaller population than today, and severely limited the right to vote, so the no more than 10,000 provision might have made sense.

But today, there are more chartered localities, and some have much larger voting populations — like Montgomery County. 10,000 signatures would represent a mere 2.5% of the county’s almost 400,000 registered voters.

That’s why Montgomery County frequently has a number of charter amendments on the ballot — amendments that do not necessarily have substantial popular support or probablity of passing.

According to Madaleno, efforts in Annapolis for a constitutional amendment to update the anachronistic 1916 provision have always run into opposition. Why? Because it’s seen as a Montgomery County problem. With its large population, Montgomery County is impacted by the no more than 10,000 people provision far more than most other parts of the state.

Similarly, the constitution’s legislative vacancy provisions may be seen as a Montgomery County problem by much of the General Assembly. And that means it could take time for the issue to get significant attention.

With that in mind, Madaleno sees the drafting of a constitutional amendment as an opportunity to start the discussion with his colleagues.

It will be interesting to see how recent events in District 35A will affect the discussion.