The ACLU in Annapolis – 2005

The ACLU of Maryland’s priorities for the 2005 General Assembly were to win full funding of the Thornton education funding plan, ensure that public funds were not diverted to faith-based initiatives, protect a woman’s right to reproductive health services, extend legal protections to gay and lesbian couples, and champion the voting rights of all Marylanders.

We won a significant victory right out of the gate this year, when the General Assembly overrode Governor Robert Ehrlich’s veto of legislation that strengthens the Maryland Open Meetings Act. The ACLU also championed several other important bills that won approval, including: the Voters Rights Protection Act, which bolsters the right of voters to cast a provisional ballot while outlawing voter fraud and suppression; the Medical Decision Making Act, which creates a domestic registry for same-sex couples that gives them the right to make medical decisions for their partners; and a bill that expands the state’s hate crimes law to include gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals.

The ACLU also successfully defeated numerous attempts to roll back rights in Maryland. These included: a bill that would have promoted profiling by making it a crime to refuse to identify yourself when stopped by a police officer; measures to amend Maryland’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage; bills seeking to authorize local police to detain immigrants; subsidies for non-public school teachers; and legislation to greatly expand the types of crimes eligible for the death penalty.

There were also bills the ACLU advocated for that were ultimately defeated. These included: implementation of the Geographic Cost of Education Index in the Thornton funding formula; a legislative remedy for unaffiliated voters, who are currently shut out of the primary system in the election of Circuit Court judges; a bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception; and a state commission to study the death penalty.   

New challenges and unexpected opportunities always arise in the General Assembly’s three month session, but the ACLU’s mission remains firm: to ensure that all people in the state of Maryland are free to think and speak as they choose and can lead their lives free from discrimination and unwarranted government intrusion.

Following is a wrap-up of the ACLU’s work in Annapolis this session:

CHURCH/STATE

Sectarian Prayer in the Senate

Victory! One day after a hearing on the measure, where Board Member Sally T. Grant testified in opposition, Senate Bill 1000 was unfavorably reported by the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. The legislation purported to protect free speech rights, but actually represented a thinly veiled attempt to promote the offering of sectarian prayers before official sessions of state governmental bodies.

Current Senate guidelines call for non-sectarian prayers. In the House, divisiveness over sectarian prayer ultimately caused legislators to cease inviting religious leaders to open sessions with prayers. To the extent that there is a legislative basis for prayer, to solemnize the serious nature of the body’s work, sectarian prayers do nothing to contribute to that high calling.  Instead, they inject unnecessary tension, introducing conflict into what is and should be a collegial arena.

Clergy and legislators who wish to immerse themselves in the profession and adherence to the particular tenets of their faith can and should do so in an appropriate setting.  The ACLU believes that state governmental bodies are not a suitable environment.

Public $$ for Public Schools

Victory! (in part) The ACLU continued its fight against subsidies for non-public schools, which was particularly important when the State is not yet fully funding the Thornton education plan for public schools. The General Assembly once again subsidized private schools by allocating $3 million for textbooks and computer hardware and software. What’s more, an additional $1 million was included in a supplemental budget, contingent on the availability of “extra” funds in the Cigarette Restitution Fund, which is supposed to pay for anti-smoking programs and medical research.

Several bills designed to offer taxpayer subsidies for non-public school teachers to get advanced education were defeated, however. Also killed were efforts to give tax breaks to private school teachers who pay out of pocket for classroom expenses. The ACLU believes that it is vital that the State stay focused on fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education to students in public schools, which continue to suffer from critical needs. Marylanders cannot afford to divert funds from this important responsibility.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Emergency Contraception Over-the-Counter

The ACLU made it further than ever this year in the campaign to win legislation to allow pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception, known as EC. Senate Bill 541, sponsored by Sen. Sharon Grosfeld (D-Montgomery) and Del. Jim Hubbard (D-Prince George’s), made it out of the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee after two years of stagnation. Unfortunately, the Senate voted 21-25 against the legislation, which would have helped prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce abortions, and promote women’s reproductive health and rights.

Key votes against the bill on the Senate floor were cast by Sen. Edward Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore and Howard Counties), Sen. Nathaniel McFadden (D-Baltimore City), and Sen. Gloria Lawlah (D-Prince George’s County). These senators said they were opposed because the bill should include an exemption barring access to EC by minors. But they did not offer such an amendment, allowing the important legislation to die. We hope that next year the issue will go all the way.

Murder of Viable Fetuses

The ACLU, in coalition with our partner in Marylanders for the Right to Choose, defeated legislation that would have granted legal status to a fetus at all stages of pregnancy. The General Assembly did pass a “fetal murder” bill that included a host of amendments offered by Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-choice Maryland, and the ACLU of Maryland.

Our organizations took no position on the bill because we were comfortable that our amendments ensured that it addressed domestic violence and did not infringe on a woman's right to choose. The bill passed requires that the fetus was viable and that the perpetrator acted with the intent to cause harm to the fetus.

Pro-choice groups did enjoy an important victory this session by successfully defeating attempts to limit poor women's access to abortion services through Medicaid – a perennial challenge.

CIVIL RIGHTS

ID Profiling Bill

Victory! The ACLU of Maryland joined with the Maryland NAACP, the Maryland Justice Coalition, and the Maryland chapter of the National Organization for Women to successfully defeat House Bill 578, which would have made it a crime to refuse to identify yourself when you are stopped for questioning by a police officer.  The bill would have allowed police to arrest people who have done nothing wrong.

HB 578 would have allowed police to arrest people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. Under current law, police officers have the right to briefly detain any person for questioning if they have a reasonable basis to believe that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.  During such detention, the police are free to pose whatever questions they wish to the person.  But it has also always been the law that the person being questioned under these circumstances is free to not answer.  This “right to remain silent” has been the basis for courts to allow any statements the person makes to be used as evidence against them, because they were under no obligation to answer.

In practice, the legislation would have promoted profiling, because it likely would have been disproportionately invoked against young people, people of color, the homeless, immigrants and others who "look foreign." The bill also would have affected the rights of political protesters, who are often asked by police to identify themselves.  Many protesters are reluctant to do so, particularly if they protesting government action, because they fear that the government will keep records of who has been engaging in political activities.

The U.S. should not be a society where you have to provide your “papers” on demand to a law enforcement official.  If police have a reasonable basis, they can stop and question you.  And if through that questioning, or other means, the police have probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime, they can arrest you.  The police do not need, and should not have, the power to arrest you simply for declining to identify yourself on demand.

The Baltimore Sun published a feature on the dramatic floor fight that killed the legislation in the House of Delegates. Del. Jill Carter (D-Baltimore City) and the Legislative Black Caucus blocked the bill on the House floor after civil rights groups, including the ACLU, held a press conference in opposition. The intense pressure convinced the bill’s sponsor, Del. Kevin Kelly (D-Western Maryland), to send the issue back to committee. Such an action effectively killed the bill for this year.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE/DEATH PENALTY

Eye-Witness ID Reform

This session, the ACLU started working to reform Maryland’s process of identifying suspected criminals through eyewitness testimony. Unlike most other evidence in criminal cases, eyewitness testimony is direct evidence of guilt.  But many researchers, and studies done by the Department of Justice, have shown that mistaken eyewitness identifications are the overwhelming reason for wrongful convictions.

Maryland has had its share of innocent people who were convicted based on eyewitness identification but later proven innocent through DNA evidence. The most well known case is that of Kirk Bloodsworth, arrested and put on death row for the 1985 rape and murder of a child.  Bloodsworth had never had a criminal record and had served honorably for many years in the armed forces.  A composite sketch based on the statements of young children was the main piece of “evidence” used to convict Bloodsworth.  DNA evidence exonerated Bloodsworth in 1993, and DNA evidence spurred the apprehension of the real killer nearly a decade later.

Del. Samuel Rosenberg (D-Baltimore City) took the lead, introducing a bill that would have established the admissibility of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness ID evidence, required a record of the process by which an individual ID is made, and required that that record be made available to a defendant. Assisted by Rachel King of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project, the ACLU helped raise the profile of the legislation by bringing two national experts on problems with eyewitness identification to the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the bill. Unfortunately, the measure was killed in the committee, but will be taken up again.

Death Penalty Commission

The ACLU worked hard to pass HB 1161, which would establish a commission to study Maryland’s system of capital punishment. It has been two years since the release of the University of Maryland study finding that the race of the victim and defendant and location of the crime influence whether prosecutors seek the death penalty – but still no legislative action has been taken.

Under HB 1161, the commission would examine issues raised by the UM study, but it would also study other aspects of capital punishment, including:  social economic disparities, the risk of executing innocent people, evolving standards of decency regarding state executions and a comparison of costs associated with death sentences and life imprisonment.  Most importantly, the commission would be empowered to make recommendations for necessary statutory changes. This issue is not going away, and must be addressed before Maryland carries out its next execution.

EDUCATION REFORM

“Thornton” Education Funding

Victory! (in part) The ACLU was instrumental in ensuring an increase of $396 million in the state budget for K-12 education, as the phase-in toward full funding of the Bridge to Excellence Act, better known as “Thornton,” in the 2007-08 school year continues.  Baltimore City students, who we represent in Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education, are slated to receive $53 million in additional funding in the coming year. The ACLU defeated proposed cuts to the Thornton formula in both budget committees. In addition, legislation was passed to remove the “cap” on education spending that would have reduced Thornton funding by $37 million this year, and more in future years.

However, the original Thornton formula was not restored. Efforts to mandate funding for the Geographic Index, for counties with higher costs to provide education services, did not succeed.  This important part of the Thornton formula should have added $54 million to schools this year.  We are grateful to Del. Salima Siler Marriott (D-Baltimore City) and leaders in both houses for efforts to mandate full funding.

In addition, funds for an important Pre-K program for low-income 4-year-olds were cut by $2.4 million, the same amount as last year’s cut.  (A proposal to cut $3 million was defeated.)  Baltimore City schools lost the greatest amount – over $500,000.  The ACLU strongly opposed this reduction in funding, which will deprive more than 1,000 children from attending pre-K – the children that most need an early start.  This scaling-back of funding is particularly unfair when at the same time, the Thornton law requires school systems to offer Pre-K to all low-income children by 2007-08.  Thanks to Sen. Lisa Gladden (D-Baltimore City) for advocating for this funding on the Senate floor.

Education Adequacy for Baltimore City

Governor Ehrlich ignored the Circuit Court’s August ruling and did not devote any additional funds in the budget to meet Judge Kaplan’s ruling to make $30-45 million available to Baltimore City schools this year.  The Circuit Court order and opinion, which detailed underfunding of hundreds of millions of dollars that the State had not provided to the city schools since its 2000 ruling, did not get a response from the Governor or legislature.  Many legislators noted that the State’s appeal of that ruling, now pending before Maryland’s highest court, led them to believe they did not need to take action.  

Thanks to Del. Jill Carter (D-Baltimore City) and co-sponsors for educating legislators about the Bradford lawsuit and attempting to get needed funding.

School Construction

Victory! (in part) The ACLU contends that the quality of school facilities is a vital component of the adequacy of education provided to children by the State.  Funding for school construction and renovation has hovered in the $100 million/year range for the past several years, despite a state Task Force finding that Maryland schools need $4 billion to remedy hazardous conditions, deficient building systems, and overcrowding. Legislators added funds to the Governor’s original $157 million capital budget, and a total of $250 million was appropriated for state school projects.

Baltimore City is to receive $21.5 million of the $250 million, compared to $11 million from the State last year. Though larger, this amount does not respond to the great need of aging City school buildings, measured by the state Task Force as over $600 million. Thanks to Del. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City) for advocating for additional capital funding.

In addition, the ACLU worked to pass bills to create a Deficiencies in Schools Correction Fund, which called for spending $250 million a year for five years, in addition to the regular capital budget. Thanks to Sen. Nathaniel McFadden and Del. Keith Haynes (both D-Baltimore City), and co-sponsors, who promoted this legislation. The ACLU, along with parents and students from Prince George’s, Baltimore City, and Baltimore County, presented testimony explaining the dire need for additional funding to be made available in a short period of time to replace boilers, fix leaking roofs, and provide for additional classroom space.  Although State Treasurer Nancy Kopp has stated that bonding capacity for school capital improvements is available, the bills did not move this year.  The ACLU will work with advocates to push harder on this issue next year.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Cecil County Roadside Solicitation

The ACLU opposed House Bill 568, which authorizes the County Commissioners of Cecil County to enact a permit ordinance allowing preferred speakers to solicit donations from motorists in the roadway (an activity that was permitted in the County, and throughout Maryland except in Charles, Frederick, Harford, and Washington Counties, and permitted in limited circumstances in Anne Arundel County). The permit system allowed by HB 568 is an unconstitutional and discriminatory restriction on speech. 

First of all, solicitation of donations is speech fully protected by the First Amendment. And secondly, even assuming that the State can regulate roadway solicitation, or prohibit it altogether because of the safety concerns involved, it is clear that the State cannot create certain preferred classes of speakers who are subject to different rules in that location from everyone else. HB 568 promotes discrimination by only allowing representatives of fire companies, or “bona fide” religious, fraternal, civic, war veterans, or charitable organizations to obtain a permit once per year to solicit in the roadway. There is no basis for distinguishing “bona fide” groups provided in the legislation.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to oppose local bills sponsored by the County delegations, and the legislation was passed by the General Assembly. A similar measure for Anne Arundel County passed in 2004. 

GLBT RIGHTS

Medical Decision Making Act!

Victory! The General Assembly took a strong, bipartisan stand for fairness this session by passing the Medical Decision Marking Act. The legislation creates a registry with the state department of health for “life partners” -- same-sex couples or any couple seeking to protect their loved ones. It gives partners the right to make medical decisions for one another, visit each other in the hospital, share rooms in nursing homes, share ambulance rides and make decisions about whether to bury or cremate their loved ones after death.

These most basic protections should be available to all committed couples in Maryland. However, Del. Donald Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel) is conducting a mean-spirited attempt to thwart the law by launching a petition effort to place a referendum on the 2006 ballot to repeal the law. He is joined in this effort by TakeBackMaryland, which in 2001 fought protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

The ACLU of Maryland resoundingly defeated TakeBackMaryland’s referendum campaign. After painstakingly analyzing their petitions, the ACLU showed the court overwhelming evidence that the group did not have enough valid signatures for a referendum. Then as now, Marylanders do not support discrimination.

Hate Crimes Law

Victory! The ACLU of Maryland supported House Bill 692, which adds sexual orientation and gender identity or expression to the categories of groups protected under the state’s bias crime statute. This change to the bias crime statute gives body and meaning to the state’s anti-discrimination laws and provides recourse to those who suffer due to discrimination.

Historically, the ACLU has supported legislation intended to protect civil rights and civil liberties by providing remedies against invidious discrimination. It is ACLU policy that discrimination be made illegal when it excludes persons from access to fundamental rights or from the opportunity to participate in the political or social life of the community.

At the same time, the ACLU has consistently opposed legislation that would punish the mere expression of thoughts, opinions or beliefs, including expressions with which we vigorously disagree, such as the advocacy of racial supremacy or religious bigotry. The ACLU has also opposed legislation that would criminalize associating with other persons in order to advocate or discuss these or other beliefs. Just as these constitutionally protected activities cannot be made the subject of a criminal law, they also cannot be made the just justification for an enhanced penalty.

But the ACLU believes that HB 692 strikes an appropriate balance between these competing interests. It is properly drawn to not punish protected speech or associations. Instead, the bill reflects the heightened seriousness with which society treats criminal acts that also constitute discrimination and are intended to or have the effect of depriving persons of legal rights or of the opportunity to participate in their community's political or social life simply because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

Immigrant Detention by Local Police

Victory! Working in coalition with the Friends of New Marylanders, the ACLU testified against House Bill 1217, which would have required local police in Baltimore County to act as enforcers of federal immigration law. The legislation was a mean-spirited and unconstitutional attempt to sow fear in Maryland’s immigrant community, cynically justified by the claim that it would help protect the community from terrorists. 

Enforcing immigration law and detaining immigrants is not a job that community police are trained to handle nor is it one they can perform without exposing themselves to liability for civil rights violations.  In addition, the bill could cause residents of Baltimore County to be less safe because it would discourage immigrants from coming forward with information on crimes. The legislation was soundly defeated by the House Judiciary Committee.

Immigrant Drivers Licenses

Victory! The ACLU of Maryland opposed House Bill 1214, which sought to turn Maryland’s Motor Vehicle Administration into a branch of the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services by denying drivers’ licenses to persons who cannot prove, to the MVA’s satisfaction, lawful presence in the United States.  The bill would have not have made Marylanders safer – either from other drivers or from acts of terrorism – and would have had serious unfair consequences to immigrants, both lawful and those not lawfully present.

With respect to public safety, the legislation would further expand the pool of unlicensed (and therefore uninsured) drivers, which prevents MVA officials from being able to ensure that the people operating vehicles are able to do so safely. With respect to the stated goal of enhancing national security, the bill would have exactly the opposite effect, because it would drive people underground, making it harder for the government to find them, or for law enforcement officials to accurately identify them, and increasing the trade in fraudulent identification documents. 

It is also important to note that all of the hijackers on Sept. 11 entered the U.S. with proper immigration documents, though some had committed fraudulent acts to obtain them.  This means that even with a law like HB 1214, they would have been able to obtain drivers’ licenses, because as far as any immigration agent or MVA clerk could determine, they were here legally.

The ACLU is also concerned about the expanding use of drivers licenses beyond their intended purpose of regulating who can drive a vehicle. Once they are used for other purposes, such as to prove citizenship or legal status, they become much more like a national id card that everyone will need to carry.

HB 1214 never even received a vote in the House Judiciary Committee. But, unfortunately, our strong victory on the drivers license issue in Maryland is threatened by federal legislation currently being considered in Congress – the Real ID Act. That legislation would, among other things, create a national standard for drivers licenses and force states to link their databases – containing every licensed driver’s personal information – with other states and with Canada and Mexico. The Real ID Act takes the nation one step closer to a national ID and making the United States a “show us your papers” society.

OPEN GOVERNMENT

Maryland Open Meetings Act

Victory! Even before the 420^th regular session of the General Assembly officially opened, the ACLU celebrated a win on our legislative agenda. In 2004, a bill was overwhelming passed that guaranteed the right of any person to file a complaint in court for violations of the Maryland Open Meetings Act. The bill was filed in response to a judge’s ruling that a Howard County man had no standing to file suit against the County School Board for allegedly gathering in illegal closed sessions, failing to give proper meeting notice, and taking actions outside of its authority in private.

The ACLU believes that a government of the people and by the people must be visible to the people. Our belief was shared by a vast majority of legislators and the bill – sponsored by Dels. Liz Bobo (D-Howard) and John Leopold (R-Anne Arundel) – sailed to passage. But Governor Robert Ehrlich vetoed it. Thankfully, Maryland’s elected leaders stood their ground and again overwhelmingly supported the principle of open government by overriding the governor’s veto.

Executive Function Study Bill

Victory! The General Assembly this session also passed House Bill 295, which directs the State Open Meetings Law Compliance Board to study issues related to use of the executive function under the Open Meetings Act and issue a report on findings. The ACLU supported the legislation, introduced by Del. Michael Smigiel (R-Caroline, Cecil, Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties), because public bodies in Maryland have reportedly taken advantage of loopholes in the law to deal with contentious or potentially embarrassing issues out of the public eye.

The ACLU believes that a government of the people and by the people must be visible to the people.  In other words, American democracy is based on transparency and accountability.  HB 295 should allow a thorough examination of the issue. We hope the Board’s findings will result in public bodies being held accountable for using executive sessions as a convenient way of addressing issues behind closed doors.

PRIVACY

Forced HIV Testing

Victory! (in part) The ACLU opposed House Bill 827, which would have required hospitals to order blood tests for HIV when public safety workers have possibly suffered exposure.  The legislation would have allowed, for the first time in Maryland’s history, forced medical testing on competent, non-incarcerated patients.  This extraordinary modification of Maryland’s long-standing informed consent laws would have set a dangerous precedent.

Back in 2003, the ACLU cautioned the House Health and Government Operations Committee that any weakening of the fundamental requirement that competent patients be subjected to only those medical procedures for which they have given their informed consent would lead to calls to expand the exceptions to other settings, other groups, and other illnesses.  HB 827 proved the prediction. 

We understand that a health-care worker exposed to a patient’s blood has a strong interest in immediately knowing the source patient’s HIV status. But establishing the principle that non-consensual tests may be performed to protect third parties would have far-reaching consequences. In the end, the legislation was amended to require the informed consent of the patient.

VOTING RIGHTS

Voters Rights Protection Act

Victory! The ACLU helped to pass one of the most important bills before the General Assembly this session, the Voters Rights Protection Act. Senate Bill 287/House Bill 5 – a priority for House Speaker Michael Busch -- will bolster the right of voters to cast a provisional ballot while outlawing voter fraud and the use of misrepresentation to suppress voter turnout. The legislation was initially crafted by Del. Samuel Rosenberg (D-Baltimore City).

The right to vote is protective of all other rights, and Maryland’s election laws should be as clear as possible to prevent any partisan manipulation, while making it as easy as possible for voters to exercise the franchise. This past fall, we launched a major effort to educate voters about their rights, address minority voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, and solve problems at the polls. We established an Election Day hotline and distributed 10,000 Voter Empowerment Cards.

Most of the issues that we saw involved poll workers and election judges who were improperly turning voters away from the polls, denying voters their right to cast a provisional ballot, or inappropriately denying voters their First Amendment right to carry literature into the polls. Other problems at the polls included sites that opened late, ran out of provisional ballots, or were not accessible to disabled voters.

The Voters Rights Protection Act will address many of the problems we saw during the 2004 election. It will also address campaigns of voter intimidation and fraud, such as were seen in the 2002 statewide election. In one notorious incident reported by the Baltimore Sun in 2002, flyers were posted in some African-American neighborhoods in Baltimore and read “URGENT NOTICE. Come out to vote on November 6th [the wrong day]. Before you come to vote make sure you pay your parking tickets, motor vehicle tickets, overdue rent and most important any warrants.” Such tactics have no place in a civilized democracy. They are a shameful continuation of the era when Americans were prohibited from voting because of their race.  However, many of these activities are not currently illegal.

The ACLU, along with the Maryland NAACP and the Maryland League of Women Voters, testified in strong support of the legislation. The ACLU also helped to amend the bill to ensure that its protections were the strongest possible. We are hopeful that Governor Ehrlich will sign the VRPA for the good of all Maryland voters.

Judicial Elections

A top priority of the ACLU this session was to win a legislative fix to help ensure the process for electing Circuit Court judges is fully nonpartisan. In 2004, we filed Suessmann v. Lamone on behalf of unaffiliated voters who were barred from voting for judicial candidates because, although they run as unaffiliated, they appear on the ballots in party primaries. The case went to the Maryland Court of Appeals, which ultimately disagreed with us, reasoning that the current system represented “a policy of keeping partisanship out of judicial elections as far as possible without abandoning the long-established infrastructure of political party primaries.”

However, at least three member of the Court, including Chief Judge Bell, suggested that the current system for electing Circuit Court judges was violated the state constitution, which guarantees the right of all citizens residing in Maryland to vote in “all elections to be held in this State.” The issue was effectively thrown back into the General Assembly’s court.

The ACLU testified in support of House Bill 276/Senate Bill 730, sponsored by Del. Bobby Zirkin (D-Baltimore County) and Sen. John Giannetti (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George’s). The legislation would have made the process for electing Circuit Court judges fully nonpartisan by removing them from the primary ballot. We were joined by four of our clients in Suessmann. Registered independent voters Michael Suessmann, David Minnis, and Gregory Care came to Annapolis to testify that independent voters – which comprise more than 14% of Maryland’s electorate – should not be shut out of the selection of Circuit Court judges. Client Raymond Arent, a member of the Green Party, also testified about his dismay at being turned away from the polls last spring when he tried to vote in the competitive Circuit Court race.

An amended version of HB 276 was passed by the House of Delegates, but the legislation never made it out of the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Matters and Senate Judiciary committees. Current Circuit Court judges opposed the measure because they wanted to retain the primary system in their selection. We hope that the issue will be studied over the summer and that all parties are willing to work together to reach a fair solution that can be in place before the next election.

Voter-Verified Voting

The ACLU of Maryland supported legislation to require paper records be made available to voters when casting their ballots to ensure security, fairness and transparency in elections. The principles guiding the ACLU’s policy on electronic voting machines include accuracy and fairness, verifiability, accessibility, anonymity, security, and oversight. We counseled legislators that because electronic voting systems are a relatively new and continuously developing technology, policies should be regularly reassessed with an eye to new technological opportunities.

Unfortunately, the General Assembly did not pass a bill that would have provided for a “voter-verified paper trail.” More work needs to be done in Maryland to protect the integrity of the ballot box.

Ex-Offender Voting Rights

Joined by our partners in the Maryland Voting Rights Restoration Coalition, the ACLU continued fighting to lift a three-year waiting period imposed in legislation that reinstated the voting rights of non-violent ex-offenders. The State Board of Elections has said that current law is too vague to enforce, which jeopardizes the ability of many to vote‚ especially poor people, African Americans and Hispanics.

The ACLU fought for a more expansive bill this year, introduced by Del. Salima Siler Marriott (D-Baltimore City), that would restore a person’s right to vote immediately upon being released from prison. Unfortunately, the legislation never got of the House Judiciary Committee. 

CONTACT US | SEARCH | PRIVACY POLICY