Stop Voter Suppression in Maryland - It Could Save Your Political Career

Written Testimony in reference to HB 493 – The Referendum Integrity Act

Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am here today to testify against the passage of House Bill 493, the Referendum Integrity Act.  I could spend an hour before you to discuss the unconstitutionality of the Act and the destructive changes to an already difficult petition process, but there are plenty of other people who will speak more eloquently about these quantitative issues, instead I will focus on the political ramifications of this action.

We all know that this attempt to change the Constitutional right for the people to have a say in their representative government comes from the current Governor.  The Governor, fresh off of his narrow victories on Questions 6 and 7 last November, made the following comment, “I think we have been best served in our state in the over 200 years or more of our history, by a  representative democracy rather than plebiscites.”  In other words, the poor, unwashed masses should have no say in the laws that are passed by their more enlightened leaders.

However, because of the number of signatures are mandated in the Constitution of the State of Maryland, the Governor could not raise the threshold of 3% of registered voters of 55,736 signatures in 2012 without a constitutional amendment, instead this bill was written to attack the process that facilitated the petition effort, MDPetitions.com.  

Here is why I feel it is in your best interest to let this bill die in this committee:

1)      It limits the opportunity of your constituents to address a policy problem in the future.  Not too long ago, Maryland had a Republican Governor.  If you make these restrictive changes to the petition process, it will take away one very important check and balance that the people have that may adversely impact issues that are important to progressives.

2)      It puts you on record as taking away the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the State of Maryland.  We may agree or disagree on whether or not certain issues should have been petitioned, however, a vote to take away the people’s right to have a say in their government can be used as a campaign issue that people will understand when you run for re-election in 2014 and could be used by either your challenger in the primary or the other party’s nominee in the general election.  This issue is not the same as gun control or even same-sex marriage; this bill deals with a fundamental Constitutional right, not a Civil Right. 

Connected with my last point is this political reality, the Governor does not have to stand before the voters of Maryland in 2014, YOU do!  All three ballot initiatives made a lot of noise in 2012 but the people of Maryland chose to accept all three of the laws as passed by the legislature.  Is the passing of the Governor’s agenda worth taking a gamble in jeopardizing your political career?  There are plenty of other battles that are worth that kind of risk. In my opinion, the members of this Committee would be better off by sitting on this bill and taking no action on it.

  

Right Fight, Wrong Ammunition

In the "Free State" of Maryland, the minions of Martin O'Malley in the General Assembly have taken upon themselves the opportunistic window of post-Sandy Hook America to further limit the right of the citizenry to purchase the weapon of their choice.

Earlier this week, several thousand conservatives traveled to Annapolis for a rally to support their 2nd Amendment rights.  It was a huge success and hopefully opened the eyes of a few legislators that the people are not going to let this freedom slip into the nothingness of O'Malley's presidential aspirations. While I applaud the collective action of my fellow conservatives, once again it seems that we may lose this fight because we are not using the correct message. 

Simply put, the question should not be whether the people have the freedom to exercise a governmental supported right but if we as free people have the right to defend ourselves.

The focus of the two questions are as different as night and day.  The first question gives the authority to the government to expand or limit the ability to purchase a weapon; the latter addresses the fundamental issue of self-determination.

If we stay locked into the first question, I believe that we will not be successful because the proponents of this weapon grab bill will point to the 2nd Amendment itself, which reads:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The sentence as read puts the emphasis on the security of a free State.  The free State (Republic) will be manned by a well regulated Militia made up of people who have the right to keep and bear Arms.  The 2nd Amendment was primarily designed as a vehicle to protect the Republic against foreign invasion (England) and internal insurrection.

I know some people may take offense to my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  However, it is important to keep in mind the writings of the founders - they did not trust anyone - themselves, the people and the government.  One of the principal supporting documents of the Constitution is Federalist Paper #9 says in part, "Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it."  In fact, in the same year the Constitution was passed by the Congress, the state government used militias to end Shay's Rebellion who were fighting for the farms of Revolutionary War veterans in Massachusettes.

If we are concerned about freedom, the correct question is not whether we have the right to own a weapon, it should be whether the people have the liberty to protect themselves, their families and their property.  According to John Locke, whose Two Treatises of Government is the foundation of the writing of Thomas Jefferson, "The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property."

In our Democratic Republic, we the People transfer some of the authority to protect our property (our lives, liberty and estate) to the government; however, we do not renounce or give up the authority to do so.  It is this crucial message that we are not making when we limit ourselves to just arguing that government should not limit our right to own a weapon.  The weapon is just an instrument of how we choose to protect out property which we have a God-given right to fulfill for ourselves and our families.  Even more importantly, in this debate, we are giving the government the decision whether or not to grant us the right to protect ourselves. 

I am imploring my fellow Conservatives to not ask for the government to allow you to keep a piece of hardware; instead, it is paramount that the dialogue be changed to whether the people (or any individual) have the right to protect their families, their children and their property.  Too often, we pick the right battles but pick the wrong ammunition to win the fight.