- Home
-
Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
- Mayoral Election violations
-
Questionnaires from Community
>
- Education Questionnaire
- Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
- Emerging Youth Questionnaire
- Health Care policy for Baltimore
- Environmental Questionnaires
- Livable Baltimore questionnaire
- Labor Questionnnaire
- Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
- Maryland Out of School Time Network
- LBGTQ Questionnaire
- Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
- Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
- Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
- Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
- The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
- Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
- African American Tourism and business questionnaire
- Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
- City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
- Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
- Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
- Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
- Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
- Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
- Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
- AFRO questionnaire
- WBAL Candidate's Survey
- Blog
- Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
- Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
-
Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
- Federal Healthcare Reform
- Social Security and Entitlement Reform
- Federal Education Reform
- Government Schedules
-
State and Local Government
- Maryland Committee Actions
- Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
- Maryland State Department of Education
- Baltimore City School Board
-
Progressive Issues
-
Building Strong Media
-
Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!)
>
- anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
- "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
- Promethius Radio Project
- Clearing the Fog
- Democracy Now
- Black Agenda Radio
- World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
- Daily Censured
- Bill Moyers Journal
- Center for Public Integrity
- Public Radio International
- Baltimore Brew
- Free Press
- Far Left/Socialist Media
- Media with a Third Way Agenda >
-
Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!)
>
-
Progressive Organizations
- Progressive Actions
- Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
- Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
- State of the Democratic Party
- Misc
- Misc 2
- Misc 3
- Misc 4
- Untitled
- Untitled
- Standard of Review
- Untitled
-
WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
- Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
- Speaking Events
- Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
- Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
-
Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections
>
- Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
- Amended Complaint
- Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
- Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
- Injunction and Mandamus
-
DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint
>
-
Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals
>
- Cover Page ---yellow
- Table of Contents
- Table of Authorities
- Leniency for Pro Se Representation
- Statement of Case
- Questions Presented
- Statement of Facts
- Argument
- Conclusion/Font and Type Size
- Record Extract
- Appendix
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
- Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
-
Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals
>
- General Election fraud and recount complaints
-
Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations
>
- Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
- Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
- Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
- US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
- Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
- Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
- Viability of a candidate
- Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
- 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
- Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
- Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
- Maryland Elections ---2016
February 28, 2015
To: Senate President Mike Miller and Senate Committee Chairs:
Budget and Taxation
Kasemeyer, Edward J.
Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs
Conway, Joan Carter
Executive Nominations
Raskin, Jamie
Finance
Middleton, Thomas M.
Judicial Proceedings
Zirkin, Bobby A.
Rules
Klausmeier, Katherine
To: House Speaker Mike Busch and House Committee Chairs
Appropriations McIntosh, Maggie
Economic Matters Davis, Dereck E.
Environment and Transportation Barve, Kumar P.
Health and Government Operations Hammen, Peter A.
Rules and Executive Nominations Healey, Anne
Judiciary Vallario, Joseph F., Jr.
Ways and Means Hixson, Sheila E.
From: Cindy Walsh
Citizens Oversight Maryland
RE: Making the Maryland Assembly legislative process meet Maryland Constitution guarantees to citizens having voice in government.
I have been listening for several years to the voices of Maryland citizens and their concerns and frustrations with government and policy. We are moving forward with issues identified as critical to the economic and democratic health of the state and this is our first correspondence. As I listen to the Maryland Assembly committees talk about solutions for a 20% voter participation in elections----none of the discussions even touch on the real public frustrations. So, please listen to what the public wants and needs. Elections that cannot bring close to a majority of voters from each party to the polls are not constitutional elections of majority.
The big picture in Maryland legislative failure from a citizen prospective is the law framing the legislative session to 90 days.
Limitation on Length of Session
Article III, Section 15(1) of the Maryland Constitution permits the General Assembly to continue its session for a period “not longer than ninety days”each year. The General Assembly or the Governor may extend the session for up to thirty days.
Since 1971, Maryland has had a 90-day limit to its legislative session.
Citizens of Maryland want change----there either needs to be fewer bills in 90 days so all legislation can be considered and the public educated on policy-----or we need longer legislative sessions to meet that need.
The citizens of Maryland must have access to public testimony in subcommittee meetings as well as full-committee meetings. The 3 minute limit for full-committee meetings does not allow opportunity for citizens to attend all committee meetings and speak on all the bills for which they wish to advocate. Imagine all committees meeting at 1:00 both Senate and House and it is obvious that bills cannot be available for all. Committees and commissions are invited to subcommittee meetings but all subcommittees do not allow public testimony. Please standardize this process to allow public testimony at ALL subcommittee meetings.
2. Bills presents for hearings on the same day in both Senate and House.
A citizen wanting to advocate for a bill wants to do so in both Senate and House. When a bill is allowed to be scheduled for hearing on the same day in both chambers, citizens are being denied the opportunity to testify. This should not be allowed.
3. Legislative Services and policy analysis are presented frequently in all committee meetings. Some committees provide all material handed to committee members to the public before meetings so the public can follow the discussion during the meeting and prepare for testimony if desired. Some committees provide some material and not legislative services policy analysis and some committees do not provide any materials distributed to committee members. We are told to come at the end of the day to retrieve what is left or directed to Legislative Services for copies each day. The citizens coming to Annapolis deserve to have all material available when they are interested enough to come to the capital. The costs of printing several extra copies of these materials are minimal. I know Legislative Services does not really want the public walking in every day for policy material. Please standardize the rules for all committees to provide each day to the public the materials the committee members are reviewing.
4. Reading the list of bills to be considered in the order they will be considered at the beginning of each committee meeting allows citizens to hear when their bill will be heard in a 3 hour long meeting and this allows citizens to go to other committee meetings for other bill testimony. Ideally, posting the bill order on the digital screens most meeting rooms have would serve to the public's interest and to the scheduled speakers. Even a magnetic white board would be cheap and easy to prepare.
5. Too many bills are considered for a 90 day session. You are denying the citizens of Maryland an opportunity to know what is being presented----the opportunity to lobby effectively-----the opportunity to educate others on these bills and you have arranged an assembly line passage of legislation with little public scrutiny. This is not how democracy works.
I do thank all committee chairs for providing opportunity for testimony that is for the most part equal opportunity and open. The goal should not be to have citizens write their testimony----the goal should be for all citizens to be able to share their views in a venue that all citizens of Maryland can access. Too often the public is told to write their testimony and we know this is an attempt to silence open public discussion.
I am including a nicely written study on citizen legislatures and the time constraints of sessions vs legislative agenda. Vermont was considering a 90 day session but still has the 'no time constraint' of open sessions. It concluded that a 90 day session was not conducive to 'citizen legislatures'.
Thank you for your time,
Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert St.
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
cwals99@yahoo.com
Forgive my not taking time to format----it is easily readable.
Vermont Legislative Research Shop
State Legislative Session Length
This report examines the possible effects of a limiting the length of the
legislative session. In
order to put the issue in context, we first exam
ine the history state legislatures and the reform
movement that led to enhanced legislative pr
ofessionalism and expanded legislative capacity.
We then consider the case studies of Vermont
and Maryland to see how session length impacts
both a citizen and prof
essional legislature.
History of State Legislatures
State legislatures developed into the type of polit
ical institutions that we
are familiar with today
between 1965 and 1980. Changes in the states’ legisl
atures were triggered by a perceived need to
increase the structural capacity
and professionalism of the legi
slative institution. Prior to the
legislative reform movement, le
gislatures were deemed largel
y ineffective and often corrupt
institutions who failed to suppl
y the constitutionally designed check on the executive branch.
Increasing the capacity mean improving legislatur
es in terms of the five S’s—space, session,
structure, staff, and salary. Session days and sta
ff are the two aspects of
capacity that have a
direct impact on the professionalization of the le
gislature as an institution, whereas space,
structure, and salary all have
a direct effect on the professi
onalization of the legislators
themselves.
1
According to Alan Rosenthal (a political sc
ience professor who has published extensively on
state legislatures) legislative sessi
ons, “had to provide more time, and more flexible time so that
legislators could accomplish their objectives.”
2
So, as part of the reform movement, some states
removed the constitutional limitations that had re
stricted the length of th
e regular session and/or
the amount of time that legislators remained in the
interim. As a result legislators “spent more
time on task, both during regular and special sess
ions and in the periods between sessions.”
3
Rosenthal states that legislator
s working in shorter legislative
sessions tend to be much more
active during the interim periods
. Even a small amount of service during these periods causes
increased strain on the legislative members
who depend on outside employment for their
livelihood. This strain would likel
y arise in the Vermont state le
gislature if the session were
shortened to 90 days because it is
a citizen legislature, in which
most legislators’ livelihood is
dependent upon a full time job outside of the legislature.
The professionalization of legislat
ures (especially the higher salari
es) has led to an increase in
the number of legislators who can devote themselves
full-time to the job of being a legislator and
who, as a consequence, consider their profession to
be that of a ‘legislators.’ In other words,
legislative professionalism has led
to more “professional” legislator
s. It has also increased the
diversity of those who serve as le
gislators in the states; prior to
professionalization, only those
who held jobs from which they could take leav
e (mainly lawyers) or those who were retired
could easily serve as legislators. Additionally, “[
t]he improvement of facilities, the provision of
services, the employment of staff, and the growing power of the legislativ
e branch all appealed
to men and women who might have been
interested in political careers anyway.”
4
This increase in the professionaliz
ation of the legislators contribut
ed to public discontent because
the emphasis on the principle of teamwork has waned and is now centered on personal
achievement. The public has begun to question the motiv
ations of the legislators as well as their
individual integrity and motivations. Other f
actors that have led to
public discontent with
legislatures stem from a general
decline in trust regarding all sect
ors of society in addition to a
lack of trust in fellow citizens. Those fact
ors include; negative portr
ayals of the political
institution by the media, the increasing competiti
veness of politics, which in turn has led to
negative campaigning, and the many promises th
at have been made by candidates on the
campaign trial that are not kept once they go into office.
As Public discontent with state
legislatures increased, it eventua
lly brought modernization of the
legislatures to a halt. “The deinstitutionalization
of state legislatures in the 1990s came about not
because of the desire of the members but because of the demands of those on the outside;
principally the media and the public.”
5
The public became disappointed with legislatures as
institutions and cynical of the
legislators and their motives in
office. This disappointment
resulted in the reversal (usually via ballot measur
es) of some of the gains legislatures have made
in professionalism and capacity. A number of stat
es have imposed restrictions and limitations on
state legislatures, including, term
limits, restrictions on legislatur
es’ control of
taxes and budgets,
staff limitations, and limitations on th
e length of legislative sessions.
6
Vermont Legislature
Vermont is one of 17 states th
at have a citizen legislature.
7
Vermont has a bicameral legislature,
with 30 senators in the Senate
and 150 representatives in the
House of Representatives. The
legislative session normally runs fr
om early January to late April.
8
There is no constitutional
limit to Vermont’s legislative session, so th
e only limit on how late the session may run is
political. Vermont is one of 12 state legisl
atures that have no limit to session length
9
. Vermont
legislators work Tuesday through Fr
iday and are paid $600.78 per week
10
. Alan Rosenthal
describes the Vermont legi
slature’s session length:
Vermont’s legislature can also meet as long as it wa
nts, at least in theory. In practice, however, the
legislature tries mightily to get its work done in five or six months, both because members want to return to
their regular jobs and professions and because Vermonters simply do not want their legislators
continuously in session. The pressures
for legislators to go home are great.
11
On February 5, 2008, bill H.811 was introduced in
the Vermont House. The bill proposes a 90-
day limit on Vermont’s legislative
session unless two-thirds of th
e House and Senate vote to
extend the session.
12
Maryland Legislature
Maryland is one of 28 states that have a le
gislative session limit in its state constitution.
13
Since 1971, Maryland has had a 90-day
limit to its legislative session.
14
Maryland’s legislature
differs from Vermont in a few other ways. Mary
land’s legislature is slightly larger than
Vermont’s, with 141 representatives in the H
ouse of Delegates and a 47-member Senate.
15
Maryland’s legislature is consid
ered a “hybrid legislature,” w
ith a higher proportion of full-time
legislators.
16
Members work Tuesday through Thursday and are paid $43,500 a year
17
. Some
have expressed concerns with Maryland’s lim
ited session length; former Maryland Speaker of
the House, Cas Taylor, describes the process
as “trying to squeeze ten pounds in a five pound
bag these last two days [o
f the legislative session].”
18
Rosenthal describes the end of Maryland’s
legislative session as representative of the time pr
essures put on most states
with relatively brief
legislative sessions. Rosenthal concludes with Ca
s Taylor’s admonition that “‘time is valuable,
precious, limited.’ It is not unusua
l for the senate or house to run
until nearly the last minute,
adjourning
sine die
within twenty or thirty minutes of the constitutional deadline.”
in different states spend working per week
during the session and during the interim period.
20
The difference in the hours legislators work in
Maryland and Vermont is great. Th
is is partly due to session
length and whether or not the
legislature is a citizen legislature. While Mary
land’s legislative session is limited to 90 days,
Vermont’s legislature can last up to five months
(or more). The Vermont legislature consists of
citizen legislators, who are not
expected to invest as many ho
urs as professional legislators
during the interim period. The demands of a shor
t session are illustrated by the percentage of
Maryland legislators who work 60 plus hours a w
eek during the session versus those in Vermont:
63% compared to 16%. During the interim peri
od, 22% of Maryland legislators work 35+ hours
a week, whereas no Vermont legislator
s work more than 34 hours a week.
Given that such a high proportion
of Vermont legislators hold ot
her jobs, the longer hours (both
interim and during the session) demanded by a shor
ter session length coul
d present problems for
retaining a citizen legislature.
_____________________________________________________________________
March 27, 2015
To: Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh; Maryland Assembly Senate Leader Mike Miller; Senators Raskin, Benson, Brochin, Conway, Feldman, Gladden, Hough, King, Lee, Madaleno, Manno, McFadden, Montgomery, Muse, Pinsky, Pugh, and Ramirez
From: Cindy Walsh
Citizens Oversight Maryland
RE: Senate Bill 374
Senate Bill 374 seeks to close what may be the last avenue to public justice the citizens of Maryland have in seeking recourse from government corruption and corporate fraud connected with billions of dollars in outsourced and privatized state and local contracts. Whether corporate fraud or private non-profit fraud, Maryland is in crisis as billions of dollars are lost each year from State and City/County Treasuries. Maryland was ranked just a few years ago by highly reputable International government watchdog organizations as 40th in the nation for fraud, corruption, and lack of transparency. This Wall of Shame comes from having dismantled all oversight and accountability, defunding all states attorney and Maryland Attorney General’s offices dealing with white collar crime, and it comes from laws like Senate Bill 374 passed by the Maryland Assembly to limit the citizens of Maryland from seeking justice from these corruption and fraud schemes.
In Baltimore, the Maryland Assembly has passed laws targeting just Baltimore that limit the ability of citizens’ access to the Grand Jury. Legal Aid and Public Justice agencies have laws that keep them from taking cases against public officials, and the Pro Bono system replacing public justice in Maryland has private lawyers able to decide if they want to take a case as is true with the State’s Attorney and Maryland Attorney General. Senate Bill 374 seeks to deny even private law firms from pursuing frauds and corruptions involving public contracts. Call me crazy but this feels like a conspiracy against the citizens of Maryland by the Maryland Assembly and this Attorney General having a goal of denying Equal Protection, Rule of Law, and Due Process through the courts in Maryland. One by one, the avenues to justice from public corruption and systemic fraud have been closed though legislation passed by the Maryland Assembly. The article below stands up for the private legal sector-----I stand up for Pro Se representation. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Pro Se representation and private legal firms would help a deliberately underfunded Maryland public justice sector advance these cases of fraud.
Md. False Claims Act needs qui tam provision
By Julie Grohovsky Baltimore Sun
Brian Frosh's proposed changes to Maryland's False Claims Act need to include a qui tam provision.
Maryland Constitution
Article 1.
That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
Article 2.
The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Art. 18. That no Law to attaint particular persons of treason or felony, ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.
Art. 19. That every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the Land.
US Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Due process, a vitally important right of the American people protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, has its roots in the concept of rule of law. This means that everyone should be subject to a fair and impartial legal system, sanctions and court. The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional
To: Senate President Mike Miller and Senate Committee Chairs:
Budget and Taxation
Kasemeyer, Edward J.
Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs
Conway, Joan Carter
Executive Nominations
Raskin, Jamie
Finance
Middleton, Thomas M.
Judicial Proceedings
Zirkin, Bobby A.
Rules
Klausmeier, Katherine
To: House Speaker Mike Busch and House Committee Chairs
Appropriations McIntosh, Maggie
Economic Matters Davis, Dereck E.
Environment and Transportation Barve, Kumar P.
Health and Government Operations Hammen, Peter A.
Rules and Executive Nominations Healey, Anne
Judiciary Vallario, Joseph F., Jr.
Ways and Means Hixson, Sheila E.
From: Cindy Walsh
Citizens Oversight Maryland
RE: Making the Maryland Assembly legislative process meet Maryland Constitution guarantees to citizens having voice in government.
I have been listening for several years to the voices of Maryland citizens and their concerns and frustrations with government and policy. We are moving forward with issues identified as critical to the economic and democratic health of the state and this is our first correspondence. As I listen to the Maryland Assembly committees talk about solutions for a 20% voter participation in elections----none of the discussions even touch on the real public frustrations. So, please listen to what the public wants and needs. Elections that cannot bring close to a majority of voters from each party to the polls are not constitutional elections of majority.
The big picture in Maryland legislative failure from a citizen prospective is the law framing the legislative session to 90 days.
Limitation on Length of Session
Article III, Section 15(1) of the Maryland Constitution permits the General Assembly to continue its session for a period “not longer than ninety days”each year. The General Assembly or the Governor may extend the session for up to thirty days.
Since 1971, Maryland has had a 90-day limit to its legislative session.
Citizens of Maryland want change----there either needs to be fewer bills in 90 days so all legislation can be considered and the public educated on policy-----or we need longer legislative sessions to meet that need.
- Rules for public comment too limited and not standardized.
The citizens of Maryland must have access to public testimony in subcommittee meetings as well as full-committee meetings. The 3 minute limit for full-committee meetings does not allow opportunity for citizens to attend all committee meetings and speak on all the bills for which they wish to advocate. Imagine all committees meeting at 1:00 both Senate and House and it is obvious that bills cannot be available for all. Committees and commissions are invited to subcommittee meetings but all subcommittees do not allow public testimony. Please standardize this process to allow public testimony at ALL subcommittee meetings.
2. Bills presents for hearings on the same day in both Senate and House.
A citizen wanting to advocate for a bill wants to do so in both Senate and House. When a bill is allowed to be scheduled for hearing on the same day in both chambers, citizens are being denied the opportunity to testify. This should not be allowed.
3. Legislative Services and policy analysis are presented frequently in all committee meetings. Some committees provide all material handed to committee members to the public before meetings so the public can follow the discussion during the meeting and prepare for testimony if desired. Some committees provide some material and not legislative services policy analysis and some committees do not provide any materials distributed to committee members. We are told to come at the end of the day to retrieve what is left or directed to Legislative Services for copies each day. The citizens coming to Annapolis deserve to have all material available when they are interested enough to come to the capital. The costs of printing several extra copies of these materials are minimal. I know Legislative Services does not really want the public walking in every day for policy material. Please standardize the rules for all committees to provide each day to the public the materials the committee members are reviewing.
4. Reading the list of bills to be considered in the order they will be considered at the beginning of each committee meeting allows citizens to hear when their bill will be heard in a 3 hour long meeting and this allows citizens to go to other committee meetings for other bill testimony. Ideally, posting the bill order on the digital screens most meeting rooms have would serve to the public's interest and to the scheduled speakers. Even a magnetic white board would be cheap and easy to prepare.
5. Too many bills are considered for a 90 day session. You are denying the citizens of Maryland an opportunity to know what is being presented----the opportunity to lobby effectively-----the opportunity to educate others on these bills and you have arranged an assembly line passage of legislation with little public scrutiny. This is not how democracy works.
I do thank all committee chairs for providing opportunity for testimony that is for the most part equal opportunity and open. The goal should not be to have citizens write their testimony----the goal should be for all citizens to be able to share their views in a venue that all citizens of Maryland can access. Too often the public is told to write their testimony and we know this is an attempt to silence open public discussion.
I am including a nicely written study on citizen legislatures and the time constraints of sessions vs legislative agenda. Vermont was considering a 90 day session but still has the 'no time constraint' of open sessions. It concluded that a 90 day session was not conducive to 'citizen legislatures'.
Thank you for your time,
Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert St.
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
cwals99@yahoo.com
Forgive my not taking time to format----it is easily readable.
Vermont Legislative Research Shop
State Legislative Session Length
This report examines the possible effects of a limiting the length of the
legislative session. In
order to put the issue in context, we first exam
ine the history state legislatures and the reform
movement that led to enhanced legislative pr
ofessionalism and expanded legislative capacity.
We then consider the case studies of Vermont
and Maryland to see how session length impacts
both a citizen and prof
essional legislature.
History of State Legislatures
State legislatures developed into the type of polit
ical institutions that we
are familiar with today
between 1965 and 1980. Changes in the states’ legisl
atures were triggered by a perceived need to
increase the structural capacity
and professionalism of the legi
slative institution. Prior to the
legislative reform movement, le
gislatures were deemed largel
y ineffective and often corrupt
institutions who failed to suppl
y the constitutionally designed check on the executive branch.
Increasing the capacity mean improving legislatur
es in terms of the five S’s—space, session,
structure, staff, and salary. Session days and sta
ff are the two aspects of
capacity that have a
direct impact on the professionalization of the le
gislature as an institution, whereas space,
structure, and salary all have
a direct effect on the professi
onalization of the legislators
themselves.
1
According to Alan Rosenthal (a political sc
ience professor who has published extensively on
state legislatures) legislative sessi
ons, “had to provide more time, and more flexible time so that
legislators could accomplish their objectives.”
2
So, as part of the reform movement, some states
removed the constitutional limitations that had re
stricted the length of th
e regular session and/or
the amount of time that legislators remained in the
interim. As a result legislators “spent more
time on task, both during regular and special sess
ions and in the periods between sessions.”
3
Rosenthal states that legislator
s working in shorter legislative
sessions tend to be much more
active during the interim periods
. Even a small amount of service during these periods causes
increased strain on the legislative members
who depend on outside employment for their
livelihood. This strain would likel
y arise in the Vermont state le
gislature if the session were
shortened to 90 days because it is
a citizen legislature, in which
most legislators’ livelihood is
dependent upon a full time job outside of the legislature.
The professionalization of legislat
ures (especially the higher salari
es) has led to an increase in
the number of legislators who can devote themselves
full-time to the job of being a legislator and
who, as a consequence, consider their profession to
be that of a ‘legislators.’ In other words,
legislative professionalism has led
to more “professional” legislator
s. It has also increased the
diversity of those who serve as le
gislators in the states; prior to
professionalization, only those
who held jobs from which they could take leav
e (mainly lawyers) or those who were retired
could easily serve as legislators. Additionally, “[
t]he improvement of facilities, the provision of
services, the employment of staff, and the growing power of the legislativ
e branch all appealed
to men and women who might have been
interested in political careers anyway.”
4
This increase in the professionaliz
ation of the legislators contribut
ed to public discontent because
the emphasis on the principle of teamwork has waned and is now centered on personal
achievement. The public has begun to question the motiv
ations of the legislators as well as their
individual integrity and motivations. Other f
actors that have led to
public discontent with
legislatures stem from a general
decline in trust regarding all sect
ors of society in addition to a
lack of trust in fellow citizens. Those fact
ors include; negative portr
ayals of the political
institution by the media, the increasing competiti
veness of politics, which in turn has led to
negative campaigning, and the many promises th
at have been made by candidates on the
campaign trial that are not kept once they go into office.
As Public discontent with state
legislatures increased, it eventua
lly brought modernization of the
legislatures to a halt. “The deinstitutionalization
of state legislatures in the 1990s came about not
because of the desire of the members but because of the demands of those on the outside;
principally the media and the public.”
5
The public became disappointed with legislatures as
institutions and cynical of the
legislators and their motives in
office. This disappointment
resulted in the reversal (usually via ballot measur
es) of some of the gains legislatures have made
in professionalism and capacity. A number of stat
es have imposed restrictions and limitations on
state legislatures, including, term
limits, restrictions on legislatur
es’ control of
taxes and budgets,
staff limitations, and limitations on th
e length of legislative sessions.
6
Vermont Legislature
Vermont is one of 17 states th
at have a citizen legislature.
7
Vermont has a bicameral legislature,
with 30 senators in the Senate
and 150 representatives in the
House of Representatives. The
legislative session normally runs fr
om early January to late April.
8
There is no constitutional
limit to Vermont’s legislative session, so th
e only limit on how late the session may run is
political. Vermont is one of 12 state legisl
atures that have no limit to session length
9
. Vermont
legislators work Tuesday through Fr
iday and are paid $600.78 per week
10
. Alan Rosenthal
describes the Vermont legi
slature’s session length:
Vermont’s legislature can also meet as long as it wa
nts, at least in theory. In practice, however, the
legislature tries mightily to get its work done in five or six months, both because members want to return to
their regular jobs and professions and because Vermonters simply do not want their legislators
continuously in session. The pressures
for legislators to go home are great.
11
On February 5, 2008, bill H.811 was introduced in
the Vermont House. The bill proposes a 90-
day limit on Vermont’s legislative
session unless two-thirds of th
e House and Senate vote to
extend the session.
12
Maryland Legislature
Maryland is one of 28 states that have a le
gislative session limit in its state constitution.
13
Since 1971, Maryland has had a 90-day
limit to its legislative session.
14
Maryland’s legislature
differs from Vermont in a few other ways. Mary
land’s legislature is slightly larger than
Vermont’s, with 141 representatives in the H
ouse of Delegates and a 47-member Senate.
15
Maryland’s legislature is consid
ered a “hybrid legislature,” w
ith a higher proportion of full-time
legislators.
16
Members work Tuesday through Thursday and are paid $43,500 a year
17
. Some
have expressed concerns with Maryland’s lim
ited session length; former Maryland Speaker of
the House, Cas Taylor, describes the process
as “trying to squeeze ten pounds in a five pound
bag these last two days [o
f the legislative session].”
18
Rosenthal describes the end of Maryland’s
legislative session as representative of the time pr
essures put on most states
with relatively brief
legislative sessions. Rosenthal concludes with Ca
s Taylor’s admonition that “‘time is valuable,
precious, limited.’ It is not unusua
l for the senate or house to run
until nearly the last minute,
adjourning
sine die
within twenty or thirty minutes of the constitutional deadline.”
in different states spend working per week
during the session and during the interim period.
20
The difference in the hours legislators work in
Maryland and Vermont is great. Th
is is partly due to session
length and whether or not the
legislature is a citizen legislature. While Mary
land’s legislative session is limited to 90 days,
Vermont’s legislature can last up to five months
(or more). The Vermont legislature consists of
citizen legislators, who are not
expected to invest as many ho
urs as professional legislators
during the interim period. The demands of a shor
t session are illustrated by the percentage of
Maryland legislators who work 60 plus hours a w
eek during the session versus those in Vermont:
63% compared to 16%. During the interim peri
od, 22% of Maryland legislators work 35+ hours
a week, whereas no Vermont legislator
s work more than 34 hours a week.
Given that such a high proportion
of Vermont legislators hold ot
her jobs, the longer hours (both
interim and during the session) demanded by a shor
ter session length coul
d present problems for
retaining a citizen legislature.
_____________________________________________________________________
March 27, 2015
To: Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh; Maryland Assembly Senate Leader Mike Miller; Senators Raskin, Benson, Brochin, Conway, Feldman, Gladden, Hough, King, Lee, Madaleno, Manno, McFadden, Montgomery, Muse, Pinsky, Pugh, and Ramirez
From: Cindy Walsh
Citizens Oversight Maryland
RE: Senate Bill 374
Senate Bill 374 seeks to close what may be the last avenue to public justice the citizens of Maryland have in seeking recourse from government corruption and corporate fraud connected with billions of dollars in outsourced and privatized state and local contracts. Whether corporate fraud or private non-profit fraud, Maryland is in crisis as billions of dollars are lost each year from State and City/County Treasuries. Maryland was ranked just a few years ago by highly reputable International government watchdog organizations as 40th in the nation for fraud, corruption, and lack of transparency. This Wall of Shame comes from having dismantled all oversight and accountability, defunding all states attorney and Maryland Attorney General’s offices dealing with white collar crime, and it comes from laws like Senate Bill 374 passed by the Maryland Assembly to limit the citizens of Maryland from seeking justice from these corruption and fraud schemes.
In Baltimore, the Maryland Assembly has passed laws targeting just Baltimore that limit the ability of citizens’ access to the Grand Jury. Legal Aid and Public Justice agencies have laws that keep them from taking cases against public officials, and the Pro Bono system replacing public justice in Maryland has private lawyers able to decide if they want to take a case as is true with the State’s Attorney and Maryland Attorney General. Senate Bill 374 seeks to deny even private law firms from pursuing frauds and corruptions involving public contracts. Call me crazy but this feels like a conspiracy against the citizens of Maryland by the Maryland Assembly and this Attorney General having a goal of denying Equal Protection, Rule of Law, and Due Process through the courts in Maryland. One by one, the avenues to justice from public corruption and systemic fraud have been closed though legislation passed by the Maryland Assembly. The article below stands up for the private legal sector-----I stand up for Pro Se representation. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Pro Se representation and private legal firms would help a deliberately underfunded Maryland public justice sector advance these cases of fraud.
Md. False Claims Act needs qui tam provision
By Julie Grohovsky Baltimore Sun
Brian Frosh's proposed changes to Maryland's False Claims Act need to include a qui tam provision.
Maryland Constitution
Article 1.
That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
Article 2.
The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Art. 18. That no Law to attaint particular persons of treason or felony, ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.
Art. 19. That every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the Land.
US Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Due process, a vitally important right of the American people protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, has its roots in the concept of rule of law. This means that everyone should be subject to a fair and impartial legal system, sanctions and court. The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional