In place of my usual LFS op-ed this Sunday (because my last one hasn’t cleared yet,) I’m going to posit another more localized idea. At least this time I don’t have a 600-word limit!
Regarding elections, Maryland’s Constitution notes in Article XVII, Section 2:
Except for a special election that may be authorized to fill a vacancy in a County Council under Article XI-A, Section 3 of the Constitution, elections by qualified voters for State and county officers shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday of November, in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-six, and on the same day in every fourth year thereafter.
This was ratified in 1922 and since then 21 state elections have been held on a four-year cycle. Barring death or resignation, this limits turnover in the legislature and seems to limit accountability, lending itself to the growth of government. (There’s always the argument that at least some experienced hands are necessary, which causes inertia.) Furthermore, since a governor goes into office with the content of the General Assembly known for the next four years, he (or eventually she) has to tailor his agenda to what he knows can pass and can’t easily make bold, sweeping changes unless they are in the direction of larger government – the Democrats have held the General Assembly since the mid-1800’s.
I think there’s a better way to instill accountability, but it would cause pain for some legislators while the process begins. Oh well.
Many states have adopted a staggered system where a portion of their legislature turns over every two years. In Maryland this idea can take form in one of two ways:
- have either the House or Senate as a body serve an interim two-year term to stagger the election cycle for each body, or
- For one election only, Delegates and Senators in odd-numbered districts (1, 3, 5…all the way to 47) run for a two-year term while those in even-numbered districts (2, 4…and so on to 46) continue on the normal 4-year cycle. As an example, if this began with the 2010 term 24 Senators and 72 Delegates would be up for re-election in 2012 and 23 Senators and 69 Delegates would run in 2014. This is my preferred method.
The advantage of this extra check and balance on a governor’s power is the opportunity to reward or punish him or her by adding or subtracting supporters midterm. For example, if a Republican won in 2010 but couldn’t pass his agenda because of recalcitrant Democrats in the General Assembly, the opportunity would exist for popular sentiment behind him to be expressed by the removal of those obstacles in 2012. If Martin O’Malley were re-elected, it would be harder to pass a budget-bloating, tax-raising agenda through the General Assembly if some members knew their re-election was nigh. It’s the accountability, stupid.
Obviously this requires a Constitutional change, and 2010 presents a unique opportunity (although it also promises to be a Pandora’s Box of sorts too.)
Normally to be amended the proposed Constitutional change goes through the General Assembly and requires a 3/5 majority vote in both the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate. But in Maryland’s Constitution, Section 2 of Article XIV notes:
It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto. Each County, and Legislative District of the City of Baltimore, shall have in such Convention a number of Delegates equal to its representation in both Houses at the time at which the Convention is called. But any Constitution, or change, or amendment of the existing Constitution, which may be adopted by such Convention, shall be submitted to the voters of this State, and shall have no effect unless the same shall have been adopted by a majority of the voters voting thereon.
2010 just so happens to be one of those years, and there is a website advocating a “yes” vote. But any change would still need to be approved by voters so the final call is up to us.
This also would present an opportunity to force the legislature to adopt other items which would serve as a check and balance, such as term limits and the possibility of a recall election for wayward members of the House of Delegates or Senate. We could even enshrine the idea of a “taxpayer bill of rights,” which would keep spending increases from exceeding the sum of inflation plus population growth without voter approval. (For example, 3% inflation and 1% population growth would mean the budget could only increase 4 percent.)
The hard part would be getting good items like those without adding bad items like overt restrictions on growth in critical areas or specifying excessive amounts of spending on education into the Constitution. Voters last year managed to muck it up with slot machines and early voting, and those will be hard to get rid of (although they could be in a new convention.) Just keep the special interests out of the room and it could go well.
