A radical proposal (or two)

I got to thinking the other day – yes, I know that can be a dangerous thing – about the 2014 electoral map for Maryland and an intriguing possibility.

Since State Senator E.J. Pipkin resigned a few months back, a sidebar to the story of his succession – as well as that of selecting a replacement for former Delegate Steve Hershey, who was elevated to replace Pipkin – is the fact that Caroline County is the lone county in the state without resident representation. However, with the gerrymandering done by the O’Malley administration to protect Democrats and punish opponents, it’s now possible the 2015 session could dawn with four – yes, four – counties unrepresented in that body based on the 2012 lines. Three of those four would be on the Eastern Shore, and would be a combination of two mid-Shore counties and Worcester County, with the fourth being Garrett County at the state’s far western end.

Granted, that scenario is highly unlikely and there is probably a better chance all 23 counties and Baltimore City will have at least one resident member of the General Assembly. But what if I had an idea which could eliminate that potential problem while bolstering the hands of the counties representing themselves in Annapolis?

The current composition of the Maryland Senate dates from 1972, a change which occurred in response to a 1964 Supreme Court decision holding that Maryland’s system of electing Senators from each county violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, Marylanders had directly elected their state Senators long before the Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1913. Over time, with these changes, the Senate has become just another extension of the House of Delegates, just with only a third of the membership.

So my question is: why not go back to the future and restore our national founders’ intent at the same time?

What if Maryland adopted a system where each county and Baltimore City were allotted two Senators, but those Senators weren’t selected directly by the voters? Instead, these Senators would be picked by the legislative body of each county or Baltimore City, which would give the state 48 Senators instead of 47. Any tie would be broken by the lieutenant governor similar to the way our national vice-president does now for the United States Senate.

Naturally the Democrats would scream bloody murder because it would eliminate their advantage in the state Senate; based on current county government and assuming each selects two members of their own party the Senate would be Republican-controlled. But that would also encourage more voting on local elections and isn’t that what Democrats want? It’s probably a better way to boost turnout than the dismal failure of “early and often” voting, which was supposed to cure the so-called ailment of poor participation.

If someone would argue to me that my proposal violates “one man, one vote” then they should stand behind the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. How is it fair that I’m one of 2,942,241 people (poorly) represented by Ben Cardin or Barbara Mikulski while 283,206 people in Wyoming are far more capably represented by John Barasso or Mike Enzi? We have counties in Maryland more populous than Wyoming.

No one questions the function or Constitutionality of the U.S. Senate as a body, knowing it was part of a compromise between larger and smaller states in the era of our founding. It’s why we have a bicameral legislature which all states save one copied as a model. (Before you ask, Nebraska is the holdout.) What I’ve done is restored the intent of those who conceived the nation as a Constitutional republic with several balances of power.

But I’m not through yet. If the Senate idea doesn’t grab you, another thought I had was to rework the House of Delegates to assure each county has a representative by creating seats for a ratio of one per 20,000 residents. (This essentially equals the population of Maryland’s least-populated county, Kent County. Their county could be one single House district.) In future years, the divisor could reflect the population of the county with the least population.

The corollary to this proposal is setting up a system of districts which do not overlap county lines, meaning counties would subdivide themselves to attain one seat per every 20,000 of population, give or take. For my home county of Wicomico, this would translate into five districts and – very conveniently as it turns out – we already have five ready-drawn County Council districts which we could use for legislative districts. Obviously, other counties would have anywhere from 1 to 50 seats in the newly expanded House of Delegates. Even better, because the counties would have the self-contained districts, who better to draw them? They know best which communities have commonality.

Obviously in smaller counties, the task of drawing 2 or 3 districts would be relatively simple and straightforward. It may be a little more difficult in a municipality like Baltimore or a highly-populated area like Montgomery County, but certainly they could come up with tightly-drawn, contiguous districts.

And if you think a body of around 300 seats is unwieldy, consider the state of New Hampshire has 400 members in their lower house. Certainly there would be changes necessary in the physical plant because the number of Delegates and their attendant staff would be far larger, but on the whole this would restore more power to the people and restrict the edicts from on high in Annapolis.

Tonight I was listening to Jackie Wellfonder launch into a brief discussion of whether the Maryland Republican Party should adopt open primaries, an idea she’s leaning toward adopting – on the other hand, I think it’s nuts. In my estimation, though, these sorts of proposals are nothing more than tinkering around the edges – these ideas I’ve dropped onto the table like a load of bricks represent real change. I think they should be discussed as sincere proposals to truly make this a more Free State by restoring the balance of power between the people, their local government, and the state government in Annapolis.


8 Responses to “A radical proposal (or two)”

  1. Brian Griffiths on October 29th, 2013 10:31 pm

    Your proposal, while interesting, still doesn’t come anywhere close to being Constitutional under the existing precedent of Reynolds v. Sims because it still violates the principle of one man/one vote and still provides for Senators to be selected based on unequal representation. I’m all about thinking outside the box, but your Senate proposal just isn’t legal.

  2. Bill Lee on October 29th, 2013 11:07 pm

    Again I like your out of the box thinking concerning the make up of our house in Annapolis. However I am on the side of open primaries. Empirical evidence aside ( which I think supports my opinion) Pure psychology begs the question. How do we prohibit others from voting in our primary, then beg their support in the general? It is a numerical certainty that we cannot win without “outsiders” voting for our candidate. Human nature is much stronger than politics. Slapping one in the face only begets a slap in return, not a kiss of support.

  3. Michael on October 29th, 2013 11:11 pm

    That assumes the Supreme Court is always correct. I think the dissenting judge in Reynolds v. Sims is in the right, as he cited the example of the United States Senate which I’m also using. In my estimation, one key step for restoring original intent would be to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment because the Senate was never intended as a “mini-me” to the House; unfortunately it has turned out that way.

  4. Michael on October 29th, 2013 11:16 pm

    I’d be more inclined to support the concept if the Democrats did it first. They seem to have no problem pandering to unaffiliated voters who can’t vote in their primary, despite the fact in Maryland they’re not necessary for a majority (although they are in other states and nationally.)

    There’s no prohibition on any registered voter voting in our primary, so long as they declare themselves Republican. If it’s that important to them, come and change your affiliation.

  5. Bill Lee on October 29th, 2013 11:26 pm

    We know that is never going to happen. Imagine just for a minute, there is a really good candidate that happens to be democrat , who is much more in line with your thought process than the republican candidate. Would you change parties just to vote for him? I seriously doubt it, I know I would not.

    What is the disadvantage of having open, or at a minimum semi open primaries? The whole they will skew our primary and advance the weaker candidate is not a strong one. If the candidate is so weak that he looses to democratic votes in the primary, how in the world was he going to win the general?

  6. Michael on October 30th, 2013 12:28 am

    It may not be as apparent in the state, but I look at how our last two presidential nominees were elected and think that’s what would happen with an open primary. If several conservatives are in a primary and one squishy moderate panders to the center to win their votes, how much help will that give the GOP brand in the end?

    The reason why a lot of these people are unaffiliated is that they’ve given up on the GOP because it’s become Democrat-lite. I don’t believe opening our primary to unaffiliated voters is going to send them a message we’re going to hew to conservative principles.

  7. Bill Lee on October 30th, 2013 1:31 pm

    Unless I am misunderstanding your explanation,the outcome is based on the premise that enough dems, or unaffiliated will vote for the republicans to skew the outcome. I propose that creates a huge dilemma for the dems themselves. If they defect to vote in our primary, who votes for their best choice? They leave themselves open for the exact same problem you are describing for us.

  8. […] Annapolis Maryland Headlines […]

  • I haven't. Have you?
  • 2018 Election

    Election Day is November 6 for all of us. However, Delaware still has to get through its primary on September 6.



    Larry Hogan (R – incumbent) – Facebook Twitter

    Shawn Quinn (Libertarian) – Facebook

    Ben Jealous (D) – Facebook Twitter

    Ian Schlakman (Green) Facebook Twitter


    U.S. Senate

    Tony Campbell (R) – Facebook Twitter

    Arvin Vohra (Libertarian) – Facebook Twitter

    Neal Simon (Unaffiliated) – Facebook Twitter

    Ben Cardin (D – incumbent) – Facebook Twitter


    U.S. Congress -1st District

    Andy Harris (R – incumbent) – Facebook Twitter

    Jenica Martin (Libertarian) – Facebook Twitter

    Jesse Colvin (D) – Facebook Twitter


    State Senate – District 37

    Addie Eckardt (R – incumbent) – Facebook

    Holly Wright (D) – Facebook


    Delegate – District 37A

    Frank Cooke (R) – Facebook

    Sheree Sample-Hughes (D – incumbent) – Twitter


    Delegate – District 37B (elect 2)

    Chris Adams (R – incumbent) – Facebook Twitter

    Johnny Mautz (R – incumbent) – Facebook Twitter

    Dan O’Hare (D) – Facebook


    State Senate – District 38

    Mary Beth Carozza (R) – Facebook Twitter

    Jim Mathias (D – incumbent) Facebook Twitter


    Delegate – District 38A

    Charles Otto (R – incumbent)

    Kirkland Hall, Sr. (D) – Facebook Twitter


    Delegate – District 38B

    Carl Anderton, Jr. (R – incumbent) Facebook Twitter


    Delegate – District 38C

    Wayne Hartman (R) – Facebook




    U.S. Senate



    Rob ArlettFacebook Twitter

    Roque de la FuenteFacebook Twitter

    Gene Truono, Jr. –  Facebook


    Libertarian (no primary, advances to General):

    Nadine Frost – Facebook



    Tom Carper (incumbent) – Facebook Twitter

    Kerri Evelyn HarrisFacebook Twitter


    Green (no primary, advances to General):

    Demitri Theodoropoulos



    Congress (at-large):



    Lee MurphyFacebook Twitter

    Scott Walker


    Democrat (no primary, advances to General):

    Lisa Blunt Rochester (D – incumbent) – Facebook Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Link to Maryland Democratic Party

    In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:

  • Part of the Politics in Stereo network.