Lurching Rightward

In our state in 2006, a Democratic challenger managed to defeat a Republican incumbent governor, while Democrats enlarged their already ridiculously large legislative majorities. The partisan (im)balance in the Senate is 33-14, while in the House it is even more lopsided: 104-37.

So with a Democratic governor and huge Democratic majorities that give the party the best opportunity they will ever have to pass laws responsive to the ideals of the Democratic Party, what did they do this year?

Take a political right turn, of course!

During the 2008 session of the General Assembly, our state’s Democratic leaders repeatedly abandoned principle in a shameless attempt to woo the right wing. They left their liberal base — the party’s most fervent members and most active foot soldiers — wondering what it was we fought so hard for in 2006.

The DNA bill that David blogged about is a perfect example.

The suspension of the Fourth Amendment pushed by O’Malley and party leaders in both houses was a shameful betrayal of the United States Constitution. If the state can take DNA samples from a person simply because he was arrested, without waiting for a conviction, then where is the limit? After all, even someone who is arrested and awaiting trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Like David, I have to agree with Alex Mooney on this one.

Of course, the DNA collection system pushed by O’Malley and Democratic legislative leaders unquestionably makes it much easier to catch bad guys. But that’s really not the point. Our society made a fundamental decision when we ratified the Bill of Rights that we would limit the power of the state to intrude into our homes, our bodies, and our lives. Our freedom comes at a cost: some crimes won’t be prevented, and some crimes won’t get solved. On the other hand, we have privacy, and our liberties are much safer from a potentially oppressive government. Personally, I think that our nation’s founders made the right choice.

Clearly, O’Malley and other Democratic leaders disagree. For them, safety from crime trumps liberty. Or, perhaps more accurately, political pandering trumps the Constitution. Designed to appeal to the right and make people forget the tax increases of the special session, this bill was an anathema.

It’s not like this bill was a surprise. When the state’s liberal bloggers met with Senate President Mike Miller back in January, he told us outright that the Democratic Party was going to be pushing conservative bills in order to jack the governor’s sagging popularity back up. And this one was the first one he mentioned.

On the flip side of the coin, party leaders did what they could to squash much-needed progressive legislation. Marriage equality and even separate-and-unequal civil unions were met with hostility or, at best, stony indifference. Even bills granting very limited domestic partnership rights got little if any help from the governor.

In an overwhelmingly pro-choice state like Maryland, a bill to require “crisis pregnancy centers” (anti-abortion fronts that provide misinformation to vulnerable women who need help) to inform their clients that they are not medical facilities should have passed easily. But Democratic leaders kept it in committee, fearful of angering the Catholic Church.

And there are other examples. Of course, there’s always a lot to complain about when session is over. In that respect, this year is hardly unique. No one ever gets everything they want.

But what really angers me is how much of the bad stuff was planned at the top by a governor I voted for and volunteered for in 2006.

Like that DNA bill. It really takes the cake.

Speaking of which, the bill designating Smith Island cake as the official state dessert passed. We may not have our constitutional rights, but we have an official dessert.