In the category of “duh…”
House and Senate Republicans today announced their opposition to the constitutional amendment that would authorize early voting in Maryland. Ballot Question 1 authorizes early voting up to 10 days prior to Election Day, allows people to vote outside of the district and precinct they are registered, and authorizes absentee balloting on demand.
“Early voting without the appropriate safeguards threatens the legitimacy of our elections,” said House Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell. “This amendment not only authorizes early voting but also allows people to vote anywhere in the State, regardless of where they were registered. Given that Maryland does not require photo identification for voting, this provision is ripe for fraud. We call on the citizens of Maryland to protect the integrity of their elections and reject this constitutional amendment.”
The Maryland General Assembly passed provisions for early voting during the 2005 and 2006 legislative sessions. The early voting statutes were challenged on constitutional grounds in Lamone v. Capozzi and were overturned by Maryland’s Court of Appeals. Currently, the only way early voting can be authorized in Maryland is through a constitutional amendment.
“There has been no significant increase in voter turnout in those states that have implemented early voting,” said Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman. “Why take such a risk that could threaten the credibility of our voting system when there is little to no benefit? We cannot jeopardize the integrity of our elections merely for the purpose of convenience.”
“Maryland does not need early voting,” said Minority Whip Christopher Shank. “We already have provisions for absentee balloting. If you are unable to vote at the polls on Election Day you may request an absentee ballot and mail in your vote. This makes the entire early voting system both duplicative and unnecessary.”
“Early voting will push another unfunded mandate on local governments, requiring higher staffing and operational costs to open polling places for up to ten days prior to Election Day,” said Senate Minority Whip Nancy Jacobs. “As we saw in February’s Primary Election, local election boards are already having major difficulties finding election judges for a single Election Day. How are they going to be able to find them for additional days?”
These are all valid points in what has seemed to become a very partisan issue. I don’t call thia “early and often” voting for no reason. Ohio’s early voting has led to a court battle because Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (a Democrat) decided that it would be too much work at this late date to check all the mismatches between voting and drivers license records. As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted:
The apparent “turn[ing] off” of this voter-registration-verification process, or at least the discovery that it had been turned off, prompted this dispute. For reasons that the record does not reveal and at a time the record does not reveal, the Secretary of State apparently chose to deactivate at least part of the process, if not all of the process, described in section 15.4 of her manual. In particular, she concedes that at some point she stopped communicating with the county boards about mismatches and stopped renewing validation requests with the BMV after obtaining a mismatch.
Perhaps she decided that the voter mismatches might help her fellow Democrats win a few close races? At least with absentee ballots, you’re sending them to someone who is already registered and there’s no need to keep polling places open all those extra days. Ohio’s example is yet another reason that I also encourage a NO vote on Question 1.
Michael,
Why the silence on Harris’s dishonest ad? I am dying to see how you could possibly support a man who would do that. Seriously, I am fascinated to hear how that can possibly be justified, and how that doesn’t reveal a significant character flaw in Andy Harris.