Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Referendums only impede will of voters

Maryland's referendum rules need to be changed, as leaders have suggested ("Petition process under scrutiny," Jan. 9), and opponents are quite wrongheaded as demonstrated by the letter from Raymond L. Miles ("Referendum is vital check on government power," Jan. 14).

Conservatives love to tell us America is a republic, not a democracy, by which they mean it has an elected representative government. Yet the Maryland Republicans violate their own conservative republican principles when they petition every law constitutionally passed by the people's elected representatives and signed by the governor elected by the majority of Marylanders to a plebiscite.

The two worst aspects of Maryland's referendum law are that it is an immediate veto of constitutionally passed legislation, holding it hostage until the next general election, which may be two years away, and that this frustration of popular will can be forced by such a tiny sliver of the electorate, only 3 percent of votes in the last gubernatorial election.

Advocates, such as Mr. Miles, justify referendums by the claim that our constitutional, elected government is somehow a usurpation of popular will. This claim is belied by the majority support of all Maryland voters for all three laws petitioned to referendum. Referendums are not a needed shield against tyranny; they are merely a stick in the spokes of constitutional, representative government, nothing more than a temper tantrum by those whom Marylanders have rejected.

James Kelly, Ellicott City

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • State leaders contemplate changes to referendum process
      State leaders contemplate changes to referendum process

      O'Malley, Assembly leaders consider altering aspects of petition process

    • Let Netanyahu speak
      Let Netanyahu speak

      I find it necessary to respond to Frederic B. Hill's odious and erroneous op-ed, "Boehner's unwise move" (Jan. 28).

    • Congress has right to hear Netanyahu
      Congress has right to hear Netanyahu

      In his commentary ("Boehner's unwise move," Jan. 28), Frederic B. Hill claims it was unwise for House Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress because it shows deference toward him before an Israeli election.

    • Sick leave can be a lifesaver
      Sick leave can be a lifesaver

      I'm offended by the comments of Del. Kathy Szeliga about whether Maryland should mandate paid sick days ("Lawmakers put paid sick leave on agenda," Jan. 26). I don't need paid sick days to fish. I need paid sick days and job protection because I have cancer and lost my job when I took time...

    • City schools need to re-examine spending
      City schools need to re-examine spending

      Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake recently told legislators that the budget cuts in state education proposed by Gov. Larry Hogan would harm the city and its school system ("Aid cuts hurt city, mayor says," Jan. 28). However, I believe that budget cuts might be just the catalyst needed...

    • Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise
      Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise

      Op-ed writer Frederic Hill ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 28) faults House Speaker John Boehner for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress two weeks before Israeli elections. "Democratic nations usually do not interfere in another country's vote," Mr. Hill says.

    Comments
    Loading