Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not in Maryland so I haven't been following the issue, but I'd need clarity on what "as determined by the central committee of the relevant political party" means. Ultimately I'd want appointments made by someone accountable to the voters. There's something to be said for preserving party affiliation, but I'd be very concerned if the elected person who left the office were a moderate of the party but the unelected powers that be within the party determined that only party extremists (in either direction) were appropriate for consideration. Obviously the same argument can be made about a governor in their second term who thus won't be running for re-election, though.

This is a good point. I don't like this measure at all and find it undemocratic. The best democratic response is that there should be an election held as quickly as possible to fill the vacant seat and that anyone vacating their Senate seat during their term should take the impact of their action, as a public servant, into account.

I am registered unaffiliated, but generally vote Democratic or even Green in some cases. So I am a lefty. I'll be voting against this. It reeks of how leadership gets chosen in undemocratic places like China.

As it stands now, one man (the Governor) appoints a successor to the position. There is no special election to choose a successor. At all. A governor can appoint whoever he wants -- far-left, far-right, his roommate from college, etc. A governor in his second term isn't accountable to anyone. SO it's not like the status quo is some lodestar of democracy.

This amendment allows the party committee that the official was a member of to choose someone -- and the party can hold a caucus or firehouse primary on day 28/29. If the official dies before the middle of their term, a special election is held. This is a democratic check that is not currently in place.

Yes -- ideally you'd have "party picks a successor, special election is held the next regular Election Day or within 90 days, whichever is later (so if someone dies on October 28, they can get a special election going)." But this amendment is an improvement over the current situation, where the Governor can appoint whoever he wants, with no special election.

I see no reason to vote against this amendment.

PP here. Thanks for the clarification. But I wonder if it is too much to ask that we cannot actually have good government proposals, instead of insidery nonsense with a superficial nod democratic values. Why only a special election when someone dies? If a Senator quits in a whirlwind of corruption that also implicates allies in the party, why should the party get to choose a successor? Why not the voters?

Having a special election upon death is better. But having "the party decide" because someone wants to quit to rake in cash as a lobbyist is also worse.

I really do hate this state sometimes and this is the reason why I am unaffiliated. A party that puts up empty suits like Kennedy-Townsend and Anthony Brown as their standard bearers probably should not be allowed to make more important decisions.

More importantly, the outcome of this measure is to allow the state party to undemocratically decide the transfer of elected leaders instead of voters. I assume the idea is that Mikulski steps down mid-term and then the party gets to select her replacement and then that person gets to run four years later as a quasi-incumbent which increases the Democrats chances of holding the seat. They just don't seem to be able to trust themselves to have primaries that produce viable candidates that can win on their own merits.

I am still voting against this and would encourage everyone else to vote against it also. The ulterior motives are too obvious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not in Maryland so I haven't been following the issue, but I'd need clarity on what "as determined by the central committee of the relevant political party" means. Ultimately I'd want appointments made by someone accountable to the voters. There's something to be said for preserving party affiliation, but I'd be very concerned if the elected person who left the office were a moderate of the party but the unelected powers that be within the party determined that only party extremists (in either direction) were appropriate for consideration. Obviously the same argument can be made about a governor in their second term who thus won't be running for re-election, though.

This is a good point. I don't like this measure at all and find it undemocratic. The best democratic response is that there should be an election held as quickly as possible to fill the vacant seat and that anyone vacating their Senate seat during their term should take the impact of their action, as a public servant, into account.

I am registered unaffiliated, but generally vote Democratic or even Green in some cases. So I am a lefty. I'll be voting against this. It reeks of how leadership gets chosen in undemocratic places like China.

As it stands now, one man (the Governor) appoints a successor to the position. There is no special election to choose a successor. At all. A governor can appoint whoever he wants -- far-left, far-right, his roommate from college, etc. A governor in his second term isn't accountable to anyone. SO it's not like the status quo is some lodestar of democracy.

This amendment allows the party committee that the official was a member of to choose someone -- and the party can hold a caucus or firehouse primary on day 28/29. If the official dies before the middle of their term, a special election is held. This is a democratic check that is not currently in place.

Yes -- ideally you'd have "party picks a successor, special election is held the next regular Election Day or within 90 days, whichever is later (so if someone dies on October 28, they can get a special election going)." But this amendment is an improvement over the current situation, where the Governor can appoint whoever he wants, with no special election.

I see no reason to vote against this amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm voting for the amendment, because if I voted for a Democrat to fill a position, there is no way I want Hogan or another Republican governor to fill the vacated spot with one of his Republican buddies!!

Please voters, read the information carefully and think!!

Why?

If there's a better person for the job and s/he is an R, you would be unhappy? b/c all Rs are the same? all Ds are the same? I can't stand Hillary; I can't stand Trump. But I would definitely have voted for a sane R over Hillary.

You're limited in your thinking.

MD, predominantly Dem, voted in Hogan. That says something right there.

New PP here - this is how the Senate was lost prior to the 2010 elections...

Anonymous wrote:I'm voting for the amendment, because if I voted for a Democrat to fill a position, there is no way I want Hogan or another Republican governor to fill the vacated spot with one of his Republican buddies!!

Please voters, read the information carefully and think!!

Why?

If there's a better person for the job and s/he is an R, you would be unhappy? b/c all Rs are the same? all Ds are the same? I can't stand Hillary; I can't stand Trump. But I would definitely have voted for a sane R over Hillary.

You're limited in your thinking.

MD, predominantly Dem, voted in Hogan. That says something right there.

I'm voting for the amendment, because if I voted for a Democrat to fill a position, there is no way I want Hogan or another Republican governor to fill the vacated spot with one of his Republican buddies!!

Please voters, read the information carefully and think!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not in Maryland so I haven't been following the issue, but I'd need clarity on what "as determined by the central committee of the relevant political party" means. Ultimately I'd want appointments made by someone accountable to the voters. There's something to be said for preserving party affiliation, but I'd be very concerned if the elected person who left the office were a moderate of the party but the unelected powers that be within the party determined that only party extremists (in either direction) were appropriate for consideration. Obviously the same argument can be made about a governor in their second term who thus won't be running for re-election, though.

This is a good point. I don't like this measure at all and find it undemocratic. The best democratic response is that there should be an election held as quickly as possible to fill the vacant seat and that anyone vacating their Senate seat during their term should take the impact of their action, as a public servant, into account.

I am registered unaffiliated, but generally vote Democratic or even Green in some cases. So I am a lefty. I'll be voting against this. It reeks of how leadership gets chosen in undemocratic places like China.

OP here. I read the amendment proposed carefully today. Actually you should be voting for the amendment since the amendment is to have election instead of governor appointing someone.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not in Maryland so I haven't been following the issue, but I'd need clarity on what "as determined by the central committee of the relevant political party" means. Ultimately I'd want appointments made by someone accountable to the voters. There's something to be said for preserving party affiliation, but I'd be very concerned if the elected person who left the office were a moderate of the party but the unelected powers that be within the party determined that only party extremists (in either direction) were appropriate for consideration. Obviously the same argument can be made about a governor in their second term who thus won't be running for re-election, though.

This is a good point. I don't like this measure at all and find it undemocratic. The best democratic response is that there should be an election held as quickly as possible to fill the vacant seat and that anyone vacating their Senate seat during their term should take the impact of their action, as a public servant, into account.

I am registered unaffiliated, but generally vote Democratic or even Green in some cases. So I am a lefty. I'll be voting against this. It reeks of how leadership gets chosen in undemocratic places like China.

Anonymous wrote:I think if the people elected a democrat, then another democrat should be appointed until the next election. And vice versa. Isn't in ultimately about the "intent of the voters?"

+1

I'm not in Maryland so I haven't been following the issue, but I'd need clarity on what "as determined by the central committee of the relevant political party" means. Ultimately I'd want appointments made by someone accountable to the voters. There's something to be said for preserving party affiliation, but I'd be very concerned if the elected person who left the office were a moderate of the party but the unelected powers that be within the party determined that only party extremists (in either direction) were appropriate for consideration. Obviously the same argument can be made about a governor in their second term who thus won't be running for re-election, though.

Anonymous wrote:I think if the people elected a democrat, then another democrat should be appointed until the next election. And vice versa. Isn't in ultimately about the "intent of the voters?"

Maybe I do not understand, if people elected a democrat, why would the role be appointed? Would it not again go back to people for voting?

I think if the people elected a democrat, then another democrat should be appointed until the next election. And vice versa. Isn't in ultimately about the "intent of the voters?"

Question 1: Question 1 was designed to allow the implementation of House Bill 260, which provided for a similar process and similar requirements for filling vacancies for U.S. Senators representing Maryland, upon voter approval.

A "yes" vote supports requiring that political party affiliations be preserved when appointments are made to fill vacancies in the offices of attorney general and comptroller, as determined by the central committee of the relevant political party.

A "no" vote opposes this political party affiliation preservation requirement for appointments to fill vacancies for the offices of attorney general and comptroller, leaving the governor with wide discretion over such appointments.

I cannot decide what to vote. I support Democrat policy. Considering the Gov is Republican, will it be better to vote "yes"? I do not know the party affiliation of Attorney General and Comptroller and time line when the post might be vacant.