For more than 90 years, Maryland voters have had the right to petition to voter referendum most of the laws passed by the General Assembly. But this happens infrequently. Why? In large measure, it's because the state makes it exceedingly difficult to do so.
Opponents of the bill to allow automated speed enforcement cameras in work zones and near schools are learning this firsthand. Their first challenge has been to create a one-page summary of the legislation that "fairly and accurately" describes what it does and must appear on each page of signatures.
Apparently, that's easier said than done as the state attorney general's office has twice this month corrected summaries that failed to mention, for instance, that the fines collected must be used only to recover the cost of the program and for roadside police enforcement activities. They also didn't state that a county can't use a speed camera on a state road until the State Highway Administration approves it.
But such shortcomings can be fixed relatively easily thanks to this advance legal review. What happens next, when opponents go to collect signatures, is another matter.
That's because the Court of Appeals ruled last year that the constitutional standard for petition signatures is this: A person must sign as his or her name appears on voter registration rolls. Someone registered as John Smith Jones, for instance, can't sign as John Jones (although John S. Jones is apparently acceptable to the court).
Add this to all the other restrictions already placed on the referendum process - the limit on the percentage of signees from any one subdivision and the minimum number of voter signatures required (53,650 this year) - and the challenge opponents face is absolutely daunting.
Don't get us wrong. We supported the speed camera law and still do. We think it's likely to save lives, and we generally favor scofflaws paying for the cost of law enforcement. But voters should have the right to express an alternate point of view.
To try to meet the court's high standard, opponents have just weeks to collect tens of thousands more signatures than the minimum because so many are bound to be thrown out. This is no way to run a democracy. Next January, when state lawmakers return to Annapolis, they ought to put high on their to-do list a rewriting of the referendum law to set more reasonable requirements.
