In Maryland, it is illegal to influence a voter’s decision to go to the polls or vote through the use of force, menace, intimidation, bribe, reward, or offer of reward.
That became our law after the General Assembly overrode Governor Ehrlich’s veto of Senate Bill 287 in 2005.
The Voter’s Rights Protection Act of 2010, sponsored by myself and Senator Lisa Gladden, authorized a judge to issue an injunction to prevent voter intimidation if there are reasonable grounds to believe such actions are about to happen.
However, this bill did not become law because Senator Andrew Harris objected to its consideration during the final hour of the 90-day session.
He was not alone. Nine Republican senators and 34 Republican delegates voted against this legislation.
In light of the controversy over the actions of members of the new Black Panther Party at a polling place in Philadelphia, I welcome bipartisan support when we reintroduce this legislation next year.
Showing posts with label voting rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, March 2, 2009
Snow Jobs
You can get a lot done when it snows…
If you drive to Annapolis before the snow starts and spend the afternoon in your office pecking away at your laptop, with no phone calls or other distractions, provided you don’t read the Sunday NY Times until 5 pm.
If the snow stops in time on Monday for people to make it to your meetings to discuss…
* Your bill requiring the state to inform people that they are eligible to vote after serving their prison sentence and successfully meeting the conditions of their parole and probation. We agreed on how this could be done, without having to enact my legislation; and
* Your bill clarifying when and if a notice must be published if human remains or cremations are moved within a cemetery or outside its boundaries. With bureaucrats, the cemetery industry, and religious groups at the table or participating by conference call, we reached agreement. This time, we need to pass my bill and amend the existing law.
----
My first state senator was Rosalie Silber Abrams. She died this past Friday. I spoke about her on the House floor tonight.
In her second year in the House, Rosalie introduced and passed House Bill 273, which authorized the Governor to develop a mechanism for Comprehensive Health Planning.
“That legislation is the foundation for Maryland’s all-payer hospital system,” I stated. That system means that all patients pay the same rate, whether they have private insurance, are Medicaid eligible, or are uninsured.
If you drive to Annapolis before the snow starts and spend the afternoon in your office pecking away at your laptop, with no phone calls or other distractions, provided you don’t read the Sunday NY Times until 5 pm.
If the snow stops in time on Monday for people to make it to your meetings to discuss…
* Your bill requiring the state to inform people that they are eligible to vote after serving their prison sentence and successfully meeting the conditions of their parole and probation. We agreed on how this could be done, without having to enact my legislation; and
* Your bill clarifying when and if a notice must be published if human remains or cremations are moved within a cemetery or outside its boundaries. With bureaucrats, the cemetery industry, and religious groups at the table or participating by conference call, we reached agreement. This time, we need to pass my bill and amend the existing law.
----
My first state senator was Rosalie Silber Abrams. She died this past Friday. I spoke about her on the House floor tonight.
In her second year in the House, Rosalie introduced and passed House Bill 273, which authorized the Governor to develop a mechanism for Comprehensive Health Planning.
“That legislation is the foundation for Maryland’s all-payer hospital system,” I stated. That system means that all patients pay the same rate, whether they have private insurance, are Medicaid eligible, or are uninsured.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
State of Mind
If you know you’re breaking the law, you’ve committed a crime.
Without that knowledge, it’s only a civil violation.
For certain provisions of our election law, I was reminded today, you can be found guilty of a criminal or civil violation, depending upon your state of mind.
My tutorial arose in an email exchange about the Voter’s Rights Protection Act.
My bill would add a new provision to the law, making it a crime to use a foreclosure list to challenge people’s right to vote because there has been a foreclosure at the address on their registration card.
That’s already illegal, I was informed the day before my bill hearing, because the only grounds on which to challenge a potential voter on Election Day is that person’s identity, not his or her address.
That makes using the foreclosure list a violation of the prohibition on influencing or attempting to influence “a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls to cast a vote” through the use of fraud. (My voting rights legislation in 2005 made that a crime – if done “willfully and knowingly,” but only a civil violation otherwise.)
While reviewing these provisions, I came across the language making it a felony to “vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote” while on parole or probation after being convicted of a felony.
Informing people when they can register after they’ve been released from jail is the purpose of my House Bill 483.
“Why shouldn’t there be a civil alternative for those who are unaware of this prohibition?” I emailed.
“Do we treat dirty tricksters more leniently than we do ex-cons?” I later said to myself.
Without that knowledge, it’s only a civil violation.
For certain provisions of our election law, I was reminded today, you can be found guilty of a criminal or civil violation, depending upon your state of mind.
My tutorial arose in an email exchange about the Voter’s Rights Protection Act.
My bill would add a new provision to the law, making it a crime to use a foreclosure list to challenge people’s right to vote because there has been a foreclosure at the address on their registration card.
That’s already illegal, I was informed the day before my bill hearing, because the only grounds on which to challenge a potential voter on Election Day is that person’s identity, not his or her address.
That makes using the foreclosure list a violation of the prohibition on influencing or attempting to influence “a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls to cast a vote” through the use of fraud. (My voting rights legislation in 2005 made that a crime – if done “willfully and knowingly,” but only a civil violation otherwise.)
While reviewing these provisions, I came across the language making it a felony to “vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote” while on parole or probation after being convicted of a felony.
Informing people when they can register after they’ve been released from jail is the purpose of my House Bill 483.
“Why shouldn’t there be a civil alternative for those who are unaware of this prohibition?” I emailed.
“Do we treat dirty tricksters more leniently than we do ex-cons?” I later said to myself.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Devious minds and technology
Two of my most important bills this session will have public hearings this week.
The Voter’s Rights Protection Act passed the House last year but not the Senate. The opposite was the case for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.
Preparing for this week’s testimony, however, entails a lot more than just changing the date on last year’s testimony.
Devious minds and technology produce new types of dirty tricks designed to prevent people from voting.
Last November, the Michigan Republican Party tried to prevent every one from voting whose home had been foreclosed – if they lived in a certain suburb of Detroit.
I added a provision to my voting rights bill that would prohibit using an “unverified match list” in this manner unless there is a “signature, photograph or unique identifying number” ensuring that the same individual is on the voter rolls and the foreclosure list.
I left a voice mail this afternoon with someone who has decades of experience in housing and neighborhood preservation, asking if he could testify on Wednesday about the many instances where people live in their homes for a significant period of time after they are foreclosed and remain eligible to vote from that address.
Why do we need this bill?
That’s the question a bill sponsor must always answer.
Why do we need a Lilly Ledbetter law in Maryland if President Obama has already signed the undoing the Supreme Court decision that prevented her from recovering from her employer for giving her male co-workers a higher salary?
I asked the Attorney General’s Office if Maryland courts are likely to rule that the restrictive Supreme Court standard still applies if we don’t revise our law to reflect the changes the Congress has made.
I expect to have the answer before Thursday’s hearing.
The Voter’s Rights Protection Act passed the House last year but not the Senate. The opposite was the case for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.
Preparing for this week’s testimony, however, entails a lot more than just changing the date on last year’s testimony.
Devious minds and technology produce new types of dirty tricks designed to prevent people from voting.
Last November, the Michigan Republican Party tried to prevent every one from voting whose home had been foreclosed – if they lived in a certain suburb of Detroit.
I added a provision to my voting rights bill that would prohibit using an “unverified match list” in this manner unless there is a “signature, photograph or unique identifying number” ensuring that the same individual is on the voter rolls and the foreclosure list.
I left a voice mail this afternoon with someone who has decades of experience in housing and neighborhood preservation, asking if he could testify on Wednesday about the many instances where people live in their homes for a significant period of time after they are foreclosed and remain eligible to vote from that address.
Why do we need this bill?
That’s the question a bill sponsor must always answer.
Why do we need a Lilly Ledbetter law in Maryland if President Obama has already signed the undoing the Supreme Court decision that prevented her from recovering from her employer for giving her male co-workers a higher salary?
I asked the Attorney General’s Office if Maryland courts are likely to rule that the restrictive Supreme Court standard still applies if we don’t revise our law to reflect the changes the Congress has made.
I expect to have the answer before Thursday’s hearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)