The Democrats who control Maryland have tipped their hand regarding their view of the referendum process ("State leaders contemplate changes to referendum process," Jan. 8).
Your article quoted state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller as saying "our forefathers never imagined everything that we did in Annapolis would be subject to referendum."
Oh, really? What does Senator Miller think a duly elected representative government is subject to? Unquestioned loyalty? Absolutely not.
Mr. Miller, along with the rest of the legislatures and the governor, are elected to represent us, not to serve their own purposes. As elected representatives, all their work is subject to scrutiny, discussion, opposition, objection and rejection under the law.
Mr. Miller's comment reveals that he and the Democratic leadership don't want to be scrutinized or listen to their constituents.
They felt the noose tightening around their collective necks last year when three pieces of legislation were subjected to referendum. Last year demonstrated that there really are checks and balances built into our Constitution — and that our state's founding fathers got it right the first time.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Michael E. Busch argued that voters send lawmakers to Annapolis to make decisions and that "we can't have a referendum every time someone doesn't like one."
Why not? That is a right the constitution gives to its citizens. What is the Democratic party so afraid of?
So now the governor and legislative leaders will initiate a review of the referendum process to consider making it harder for Maryland citizens to have their voices heard.
I agree that the process should be looked at to prevent fraud, etc. But that shouldn't mean taking away our right to scrutinize, oppose and, if necessary, reject the work our elected representatives perform.
Raymond L. Miles, Sykesville