MD's "early voting" law unconstitutional

[MODU]

According to a Maryland judge, the early voting law passed by the General assembly in unconstitutional.

"Md. Judge Nixes Early Voting"

Early voting in Maryland is illegal because the state's constitution allows only one day to cast ballots, an Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge ruled Friday.

Judge Ronald Silkworth sided with voters who sued over the plan to allow people to cast ballots five days before the primary and general elections, starting this year.

Silkworth ruled early voting would be illegal because the constitution allows voting only on a single day in November, not for several days. Silkworth also ruled that it would be illegal to permit voters to cast ballots outside their home precincts, as allowed under the new early voting law.

(Cont...)

This is a good ruling. 

[WMS]

Wow. If that happened in NM there would be utter chaos, because there's a lot of early voting here.

[AkSaber]

There's early voting here. I'm kinda glad they have it. When I voted in 2004 there was almost no line to wait.

Or was that cause I voted in the morning......

[jimrtex]

Early voting in Maryland is illegal because the state's constitution allows only one day to cast ballots, an Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge ruled Friday.

Early voting in Texas was challenged in federal court as violating federal law designating the federal election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  The lawsuit never went anywhere, in part because the federal government also requires that absentee voting be available for federal elections (for at least overseas voters).

But it appears that the Maryland court decision is correct with respect to the Maryland Constitution.
Article I, Section 1. All elections shall be by ballot. Every citizen of the United States, of the age of 18 years or upwards, who is a resident of the State as of the time for the closing of registration next preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote in the ward or election district in which he resides at all elections to be held in this State. A person once entitled to vote in any election district, shall be entitled to vote there until he shall have acquired a residence in another election district or ward in this State.

Article 1, Section 3. The General Assembly of Maryland shall have power to provide by suitable enactment for voting by qualified voters of the State of Maryland who are absent at the time of any election in which they are entitled to vote and for voting by other qualified voters who are unable to vote personally and for the manner in which and the time and place at which such absent voters may vote, and for the canvass and return of their votes
The election dates for state officers is also set in the Maryland Constitution.

So both the time and place (ward/election district) are set in the constitution, with also the exception spelled out explicitly.

It would take a pretty liberal interpretation for "absent" to mean "not in the building where polling occurs"; or "unable to vote personally" to include "unable to vote in person, because to do so would cause me to vote twice."

[minionofmidas]

I'm all for early voting. I'm dead against postal voting except with a very good reason. Secrecy of the ballot is way too compromised otherwise.
They kind of introduced early voting through the backdoor in Frankfurt 5 years ago. What you do is go to the city elections office, file for a postal ballot, fill it in then and there in a booth looking just like a normal voting booth, and hand it back to them sealed.

[Moooooo]

I would support the law if it were accompanied w/ an id requirement; however, in MD all you need is a utility bill.  Hypothetically under the law passed a person could start in Garrett County and end up in Ocean City hitting every county in between and casting a ballot.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wouldn't you need proof of address too?

[Moooooo]

Wouldn't you need proof of address too?

As it stands now, all that is needed is a utility bill.

I usually just flash my drivers license out of common courtesy.

[Nym90]

I would definitely tend to prefer to err on the side of giving people too much time to vote rather than too little. Obviously ensureing proper ID and ensuring fraud doesn't occur is important, but the single most important thing in my opinion is ensuring that everyone who wants to put has ample opportunity to do so. I feel that issues of fraud can be corrected seperately and not be a problem with early voting.

[MODU]

I would definitely tend to prefer to err on the side of giving people too much time to vote rather than too little. Obviously ensureing proper ID and ensuring fraud doesn't occur is important, but the single most important thing in my opinion is ensuring that everyone who wants to put has ample opportunity to do so. I feel that issues of fraud can be corrected seperately and not be a problem with early voting.

Simply increase the number of voting locations and/or extend voting times on election day.  Single day voting has worked this long, no sense changing it.  If people know they won't be able to get off of work to vote, then they have access to absentee ballots/voting (like I did in 2004 when I had to travel out to Illinois due to a family emergency on short notice).

[Nym90]

I would definitely tend to prefer to err on the side of giving people too much time to vote rather than too little. Obviously ensureing proper ID and ensuring fraud doesn't occur is important, but the single most important thing in my opinion is ensuring that everyone who wants to put has ample opportunity to do so. I feel that issues of fraud can be corrected seperately and not be a problem with early voting.

Simply increase the number of voting locations and/or extend voting times on election day.  Single day voting has worked this long, no sense changing it.  If people know they won't be able to get off of work to vote, then they have access to absentee ballots/voting (like I did in 2004 when I had to travel out to Illinois due to a family emergency on short notice).

Agreed, but again, the fraud issue is one that can be handled seperately, and that would really be the only argument against it (well, the cost as well perhaps, but that is pretty minimal).

I see absolutely no problem with allowing people to vote earlier than election day if they so choose. Yes, there are other options, and I'm not going to go around saying anyone's rights are being violated by the current system, but I see no harm in making it easier to vote in and of itself. Greater participation would be encouraged and this would be healthy for democracy to have more voices heard in the eleciton.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wouldn't you need proof of address too?

As it stands now, all that is needed is a utility bill.

I usually just flash my drivers license out of common courtesy.

Well you'd think the address on the utility bill would have to in the precinct. Otherwise literally anyone could vote.

In Minnesota a utility bill can be used as proof of address, so that is really all you need to vote, but of course it doesn't work if the address isn't in the precinct. Of course, Minnesota also probably has the laxest voter registration law in the world with this: If someone already registered at the precinct says you live there as well, that's counted as proof of address.

Come to think of it, if I were to drive to Bismarck on election day, I could actually vote in both ND and MN fairly easily. I have an ND driver's license which is all that's needed to vote in ND (no voter registration) but have Minnesota residency and am registered here. I wonder how many people on the border (especially Fargo/Moorhead) vote in both states, considering how lax the laws here are.

[Sam Spade]

Wouldn't you need proof of address too?

As it stands now, all that is needed is a utility bill.

I usually just flash my drivers license out of common courtesy.

Well you'd think the address on the utility bill would have to in the precinct. Otherwise literally anyone could vote.

In Minnesota a utility bill can be used as proof of address, so that is really all you need to vote, but of course it doesn't work if the address isn't in the precinct. Of course, Minnesota also probably has the laxest voter registration law in the world with this: If someone already registered at the precinct says you live there as well, that's counted as proof of address.

Come to think of it, if I were to drive to Bismarck on election day, I could actually vote in both ND and MN fairly easily. I have an ND driver's license which is all that's needed to vote in ND (no voter registration) but have Minnesota residency and am registered here. I wonder how many people on the border (especially Fargo/Moorhead) vote in both states, considering how lax the laws here are.

Do you just like giving others reasons why their should be more voter regulations or what?

[Nym90]

Wouldn't you need proof of address too?

As it stands now, all that is needed is a utility bill.

I usually just flash my drivers license out of common courtesy.

Well you'd think the address on the utility bill would have to in the precinct. Otherwise literally anyone could vote.

In Minnesota a utility bill can be used as proof of address, so that is really all you need to vote, but of course it doesn't work if the address isn't in the precinct. Of course, Minnesota also probably has the laxest voter registration law in the world with this: If someone already registered at the precinct says you live there as well, that's counted as proof of address.

Come to think of it, if I were to drive to Bismarck on election day, I could actually vote in both ND and MN fairly easily. I have an ND driver's license which is all that's needed to vote in ND (no voter registration) but have Minnesota residency and am registered here. I wonder how many people on the border (especially Fargo/Moorhead) vote in both states, considering how lax the laws here are.

I highly doubt it's very many. Who in their right mind would risk getting caught just for the privlege of casting two votes? It's highly unlikely that the extra vote is going to make a difference, so it would seem to be quite a bad decision to run the risk of being caught, given how low the reward is.