From the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
Contact: Marjorie Roher, 240-777-8525
For Immediate Release: April 9, 2009
Five Ways to Ensure Your Voting Rights
Montgomery County Election Director, Margaret Jurgensen, encourages registered voters to vote and offers assurances that voters’ rights will be protected. To help make the voting process smoother on April 21, 2009, Jurgensen suggests that voters follow instructions and allow enough time to cast a ballot, especially during the peak voting hours immediately before and after the workday.
Jurgensen offers these Election Day reminders:
1. BE ON TIME – Polling hours for all precincts are 7 a.m. until 8 p.m.
2. VOTE IN THE CORRECT PRECINCT – It is important for voters to go to the polling site for the precinct in which they are registered to vote. The correct polling location is listed above the mailing address on the sample ballot or you may contact the Montgomery County Board of Elections office at 240-777-VOTE or visit www.777vote.org or www.montgomerycountymd.gov/elections (select Polling Place Locator on our home page).
3. ID MAY BE REQUIRED – First-time voters in Montgomery County may be required to show proper identification. A driver’s license or official document including the voter’s name and address are acceptable. It is also helpful to bring voter registration cards, however, it is not required to vote.
4. FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE VOTING DEVICE - Citizens are encouraged to visit http://www.mdvotes.org/demo.php for a live demonstration of the Touchscreen Voting machine. Becoming familiar with the voting machine prior to arriving at the polling place will help make the voting experience as seamless as possible.
5. FILL OUT SAMPLE BALLOT AND TAKE TO THE POLLING PLACE – Sample ballots contain important information on which candidates will appear on a ballot, how to operate the voting machines, and where voters are assigned to vote. Voters should read it carefully, make selections, and take it to the polling place to use as a guide – the voting process will be easier as a result.
Voters should not hesitate to ask for assistance. Election officials are trained to assist voters with physical disabilities and answer questions about the voting process. The ballot is available in both English and Spanish. Voters for whom English is a second language are encouraged to bring an interpreter to the polling place to help them with the voting process. In addition, if a mistake is made on a ballot, the voter should notify the election official immediately and corrective measures will be taken.
For clarification of these, or other voting questions, contact the Montgomery County Board of Elections at 240-777-VOTE.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Five Ways to Ensure Your Voting Rights
Friday, February 13, 2009
DC Voting Rights Marches Onward?
The bill to give D.C. a U.S. House member is headed to the floor of the Senate. Read Rick Hasen's piece in Slate about why he thinks the bill is unconstitutional but Congress should pass it anyway.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Legislating Around The Constitution, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
In Part One we talked about Maryland’s participation in the National Popular Vote effort. But Maryland is also heavily involved with another effort to legislate around the Constitution, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.
Students in Poli Sci 101 can tell you that the House has 435 members. But in truth, it has 435 voting members. Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC all have a representative, though not a full Congressmember, in the House. While these representatives can introduce legislation and serve and vote on committees, they cannot vote on final passage of legislation on the House floor. Thus, the DC license plate phrase “Taxation Without Representation.”
DC has a long history of being treated as a step child. It did not receive electoral votes until the 1960s and the major home rule reforms providing for self government did not pass until the 1970s. There have been varied failed efforts to give DC voting rights in Congress. Congress even passed a constitutional amendment granting DC House and Senate representation in 1978, but it expired without being ratified by the requisite number of states.
The latest effort would use a statute to give Washington, DC a single voting seat in the House of Representatives, but no representation in the Senate. The legislation is supported by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who testified in favor of the bill recently, giving it bright prospects for passage.
The bill would increase the House from 435 to 437 members. One seat would go to DC and the other would go to the next state eligible for a seat based on population, which is currently projected to be Utah. Utah’s involvement is the key to the bill. Republicans know that DC is overwhelmingly Democratic, with President Obama winning 93% of the vote there. But the almost inevitable gain of a Democratic House vote would be offset by the likely gain of a Republican vote from conservative Utah, a state John McCain won with 63% of the vote.
But there are those who oppose the bill. For example, some Members of Congress support returning DC to Maryland and Virginia, the two states that originally provided the land for the national capital. I’m not sure Maryland would be crazy about that, but there is some precedence for retrocession, as Virginia had 31 square miles of land ceded to DC returned in 1847.
Although the statute offers the path of least resistance to House representation for DC, there are those who question its constitutionality. The Constitution says that states shall have representatives in Congress, but DC is not a state. Proponents of the bill say that is a matter for the courts, not Congress to settle. But ideally, Congress would not spend a lot of time passing unconstitutional legislation.
Personally, I support both elimination of the antiquated Electoral College and full voting rights for DC. Were anyone to ask me how to vote on these bills, I would say vote for them. But my hope would be that these statutes would spur action for Constitutional amendments. Amending the Constitution for these two noble goals is much safer ground.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Legislating Around The Constitution, Part One
By Marc Korman.
Maryland is at the forefront of two pieces of legislation, one state and one federal, which creatively use statutes to deal with issues that are arguably constitutional. Maryland is one of four states to have adopted the National Popular Vote legislation into law, part of a reform effort to eliminate the Electoral College. Nationally, Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer is leading the effort to give Washington, DC a voting member of the House of Representatives. In Part 1, we will examine the National Popular Vote. In Part 2, we will take a look at the DC House member reform effort. While I support both statutory efforts because of their noble goals, I hope they launch a constitutional amendment process that settles these issues more decisively.
The National Popular Vote would effectively eliminate the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. Four times in US history the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. That election has led to sustained efforts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. Many, including myself, view the Electoral College as an anachronistic institution that can subvert the democratic result of the only national election we hold. Of course, there are forceful arguments on the other side that the Electoral College ensures small states get a voice in presidential elections. I’m not sure Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, and Maine, nine of the ten smallest states by population, would agree. I’m not sure a presidential candidate has visited those states during a general election in my lifetime.
Constitutional Amendments have been proposed in Congress to move to a national vote. But an amendment requires 2/3 of both the House and the Senate (or 2/3 of special state conventions that have never been used) to pass it and then three quarters of the states must ratify it. No Electoral College amendment has ever come close to that threshold.
The National Popular Vote proposal provides that states pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It does not require every state to join, but rather becomes effective once states with electoral votes totaling 270 sign on. Of course, 270 is a majority of the electoral votes, the amount needed to win the Electoral College. That ensures that the participating states would be able to swing the election. To explain how this would work in practice, if the agreement had been in force in 2004, the electoral votes of Maryland would have gone to President Bush since he won the popular vote. That would happen regardless of how President Bush did in Maryland.
Thus far, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii have put the proposal into law. But it has also passed through twenty-two different legislative chambers and received the endorsement of 1,246 state legislators. In Maryland, the legislation passed the Senate 29-17 and the House 85-36 before being signed by the Governor. In Montgomery County, Senator Mike Lennett and Delegate Luiz Simmons were the only nay votes. Then Delegate Marilyn Goldwater was absent from the vote.
The proposal is clever and provides a method to eliminate the Electoral College while avoiding the timely, and possibly futile, Constitutional amendment process. Of course, a court could potentially find the law unconstitutional. The Constitution does give states lots of leeway in how it chooses its electors, but there is also a substantial body of voting rights law that may clash with state electoral votes going for a candidate the state did not vote for. There is also an open constitutional question as to whether states can bind those chosen as electors by law, or whether they can act independently.
But even if the law is constitutional, as legal scholar and State Senator Jamie Raskin has argued, what type of precedent does it set? Does it make sense to legislate around entire sections of the Constitution? What other creative ways will state legislature’s find to ignore Constitutional provisions?
Friday, December 21, 2007
How MoCo Does Special Elections
Montgomery County Council vacancies are filled by special elections. So why shouldn’t we do the same for state legislator vacancies?
Here’s how the county process works. When a council vacancy occurs, a special election must be held if the vacancy “occurs before December 1 of the year before a year in which a quadrennial state election will be held.” (County code, Chapter 16, Sec. 16-17(a)(4)) So, if a county council member stepped down on 11/30/09, a special election would have to be held. But if a council member stepped down on 12/2/09, the rest of the council would appoint a replacement who would serve out the rest of the term (County charter, Sec. 106).
When a special election is held, it “must be conducted in a manner consistent with provisions of state law that govern special elections to fill vacancies in the office of representative in Congress.” (County code, Chapter 16, Sec. 16-17(c)(1)) The council must adopt a resolution that sets the dates of both the special primary and the special general election.
However, “if the Council vacancy occurs during the period beginning 120 days before the next regular or special primary or general election conducted in the County under state law and ending 40 days before that election, the special primary election provided for by this Section must be held on the same date as the other election. If a second regular or special primary or general election conducted in the County under state law is held more than 30 but less than 60 days after the special primary election referred to in the preceding sentence, the special general election held under this Section must be held on the same date as the second other election.” (County code, Chapter 16, Sec. 16-17(d)(2))
So by using the same dates as other elections, the cost of special elections can be reduced and turnout can be elevated.
The last time a county council vacancy occurred was when District 5 council member Derick Berlage stepped down in June 2002 to become the county’s Planning Chairman. As the date was too late to trigger the special election requirement, the county council appointed Donnell Peterman to serve out the remaining months of Berlage’s term. Peterman was appointed on the condition that he not leverage his appointed incumbency to seek office that year. Peterman honored that commitment in 2002, choosing instead to run (unsuccessfully) for an at-large seat in 2006.
Now doesn’t this sound a lot better than the appointment process for state legislators, which brought us this and this and this?
The excuses for why we should not hold special elections for state vacancies are rapidly disappearing.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Real Vote in District 18
So the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee has picked the next delegate. Activists are already running wild, yelling, “It’s undemocratic! The people were not able to vote!”
Say what? Of course the people could vote. Right here, on the Maryland Politics Watch Internet poll. Hey, what the state constitution takes away, we give back to you. Maryland Politics Watch is the REAL home of democracy.
So what if the Internet poll was imperfect? So what if we failed to check for legal residency. Or District 18 residency. Or Planet Earth residency. It was a vote! And voting is our civic duty, right? You betcha hanging chads it is!
Here’s a secret: the Internet poll allowed multiple votes from the same computer. It wasn’t supposed to, but it did. How do I know this? I’m not telling. It’s not like I pushed the button more than once.
What was that you said? You only voted once? Heh heh.
I can just imagine the scenes at the competing campaign headquarters. Al Carr, yelling at the other Town of Kensington council members, “Keep pushing those buttons! We’ve gotta stay ahead!” And Hugh Bailey (Roz Pelles’s son) looming over a team of button pushers, bellowing, “We can take those guys! Click faster!” Maybe the reports of those people running up and down Connecticut Avenue looking for extra keyboards and mice are related to all this.
I’ll say one thing for our Internet poll: there were more votes on there than in a “real” District 18 election. And you say we can’t figure out how to boost voter turnout!
Well, the race is over now. The losing candidates are already filing appeals with the Board of Elections. But we here at Maryland Politics Watch are moving on. It’s time to set up a new Internet poll for 2010. It’s never too early to start voting, you know!
I’ll bet we get more Internet poll votes than the entire population of Pennsylvania.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Long Ago and Far Away
Many centuries ago, in the Kingdom of Mary-Land, a member of the Grand Council of Elders representing the kingdom’s Eighteenth Duchy passed away. The people were in mourning. But soon enough, the Lesser Council of Elders of the Barony of Montgomery met to select a replacement. After all, these decisions could not be made by the peasants, who were too uneducated, ill-fed and unwise to be trusted on matters such as these.
The Baroness of Montgomery, leader of the Lesser Council, convened the meeting at the council’s castle in the Principality of Kensington. After a long feast in the Royal Banquet Hall, the council proceeded to the Order of Business: selecting the next royal representative.
“Bring in the pretenders!” cried the Baroness to the page. Appearing before the royal court were Sir Kessler, Sir Cooper and the slightly wobbly Sir English.
“Sire, these gentlemen report to the council from the House of Blanc,” announced the page.
“The House of Blanc!” growled the Baroness. “But we have given them the last two seats on the Grand Council. They’re being a bit greedy, don’t you think?”
“But your highness,” protested Sir Kessler, “I have cleaned the Royal Stables for twenty years and if you select me, I will dredge the Royal Pond!”
“Silence!” yelled the Baroness. “We tolerate your possession of tongues so long as you use them only with permission. Guards, send them to the dungeon!”
Just then, the Royal Court heard a pounding at the doors. “Your majesty, I believe the peasants are trying to get in!” whispered the page.
The Baroness reached down on her plate and grabbed a crumb. “Here, give them a scrap of the Royal Meatloaf. That should hold them! Who’s next?”
“Your reverence, these are Sir Carr and Lady Pelles. They come to us from the House of Noir, which has not been awarded any seats in ages. Sir Carr has been attempting to install a sidewalk in the Principality of Kensington to protect the peasants on the street.”
“Interesting…” pondered the Baroness. “I have heard that many peasants have been run down by the wagons on Georgia Avenue. But this is none of our concern. We’ll just have to tell them to breed faster!”
“Very good, your highness. And Lady Pelles is also renowned throughout the land.”
“This is taking too long,” muttered the Baroness. “It is almost time for the Royal Back Massage and the Royal Bon Bon. Have them draw lots. Either of them will serve the interests of the empire well enough.”
BOOM! BOOM! “Sire!” screamed the page. “The peasants are about to break through the doors!”
“Oh rot!” sighed the Baroness. “Wheel out the Royal Telly into the courtyard and turn on America’s Top Model. That will placate them well enough!”
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Steele for DC
Yesterday, Michael Steele joined former Republican Rep. J.C. Watts in advocating for D.C. voting rights in an opinion piece in the Washington Times. The bill, drafted by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in the Senate, would give one seat to DC and one at-large seat to Utah, thus preserving the partisan balance even while finally giving the nation's capital real representation in the House. Utah would have received the 436th seat in 2000 according to the Census.
Republicans refused to bring up the bill for a vote in the previous Congress but Speaker Pelosi brought it up for a vote and the House has passed it. The Senate should pass it and President Bush should sign it. It's a good bill and it's long overdue.
