Question 3

I don't know if there is a question one or two on the Maryland ballot come November.  And, no, I don't know if there is a question four or more after three.  But question three is getting all the attention, so let's cut through the partisan bull - and Lord know there's plenty of that flying around - and get right to the chase: What does voting Yes or No mean on question three?

There are four ways to decide how you will vote.  Let's walk through the four ways so you can decide which way will be a responsible way for you to make your decision.

The first way you can vote is leave the question blank.  It's your constitution that affects you.  Do you want One Drunk Redneck's vote to count more than your own non-vote?

The second way you can decide is listen to your elected official and vote the way they say you should vote.  The outcome of being right or wrong is about as reliable as flipping a coin.  Personally, I would trust the coin more.

The third way you can vote is, if after reading the question, you're not sure exactly what the amendment says and will do, simply vote no.  Question 3 is an amendment to our state's constitution. A constitution should be of the people, by the people, and for the people.  That means the people should not only be able to read it, but understand it, too.  Understanding our constitution shouldn't exist only in the realm of lawyers and legal experts.

The fourth way you can vote is learn what Question 3 was supposed to fix and decide if it fixes the problem or makes the problem worse.

Back in 2021, the Democrats proposed a voting district map best described as gerrymandered, as most redistricting maps are.  Fortunately, a Democrat court shot it down as unconstitutional, not because the map was gerrymandered, but because the map wasn't drawn by constitutional standards, which the court decided was ambiguous in describing how the map should've been drawn.

The ambiguity, of course, was in how the congressional districts should be drawn.  The wording was clear for the state level districts:

“Each legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population. Due regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.”

But did "legislative districts" really mean only the state level legislative districts or did it include the congressional level districts, too?

The simple fix, and clear to understand fix, would've been to rewrite that section of the state constitution to:

“Each legislative district FOR THE ELECTION OF A MEMBER OF THE SENATE AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population. Due regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.”

But we have lawyers and conniving politicians writing the amendment, not The People.  The conniving politicians wrote the amendment in a language only they understood, with lawyers arguing that the average voter would be too stupid to understand.  They proposed:

“The proposed Constitutional Amendment clarifies that certain standards in the Maryland Constitution apply only to districts used to elect members of the General Assembly; authorizes the General Assembly to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Maryland to review the congressional districting plan of the State; and requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws.”

And, yes, a lawyer arguing against the amendment actually said the average voter would be too stupid to understand the question, not in those exact words, but close enough.

The court, apparently agreeing with the lawyer, took it upon themselves to add a clarification to Question 3 to give it the go ahead to appear on the ballot.  They added:

“Nothing in this article or elsewhere in this constitution, including the declaration of rights, provides applicable criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan.”

By now I think you can clearly see what the Democrats tried to hide from you when they wrote Question 3.  Under the guise of fixing an ambiguity in the state's constitution, an ambiguity that really exists, they wanted to make it easier to draw new voting maps that favored their party.  In doing so, they had to strip away some state voter protections, and the court wanted to make sure you understood what Question 3 really said.

Now the court's intentions may have been delivered with good intentions, but it actually solves nothing.  Democrats still control the state.  They will redistrict in their favor.  And if Question 3 is passed, republicans will sue in court on the grounds the court had no authority to rewrite the amendment.  It should have been sent back to the legislature for them to get the amendment right.

Do you get the impression that the people in government generally thinks of us as being stupid?  The Democrats tried their hardest to hide the true meaning of the amendment, republicans tried their hardest to stop the amendment from appearing on the ballot because, as their lawyers implied, the average voter wouldn't understand the question, and the court stepped in to dumb down the amendment for the average voter.

Unlike a politician. I'm not going to tell - or state or imply - how your should vote on Question 3.  I tried to lay everything out they way I see it.  If, however, you're still aren't sure how you should vote on Question 3 when you get to the polls, have a coin in your pocket just in case.

For your listening pleasure:


Posted by One Drunk Redneck