What to Know About the 2022 Ballot Referendums
We know that many of you are making your plan to vote as we speak, so we wanted to provide a guide on navigating the ballot referendums that you’ll see on your ballot this year. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to reach out and we will be glad to assist you!
Question 1
Court of Appeals and Special Appeals -- Renaming
Changes the names of Maryland’s appellate courts from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland and from the Court of Special Appeals to the Appellate Court of Maryland. Under the new law, judges serving on the Court of Appeals will be justices of the Supreme Court of Maryland and the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals will be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Maryland.
(Amending Article II, Section 6, Article III, Sections 5, 30, and 52, Article IV, Sections 1, 3, 3A, 4B, 5A, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 44E, Article V, Section 6, and Article XVII, Section 3 to the Maryland Constitution.)
Current Law: Under the Maryland Constitution, the highest court in Maryland is called the Court of Appeals. This differs from many other states and the federal constitution, which refer to their highest court as the Supreme Court. Judges on the Court of Appeals are referred to as judges rather than justices, which is the title in states that call their highest court the Supreme Court. The Maryland Constitution also provides for a Court of Special Appeals, which hears most initial appeals from trial courts and whose decisions can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals if one of the parties appeals its decision.
Proposed Change: The name of the highest court in Maryland would be changed from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland and the judges on that court would be referred to as justices. The current name of the Court of Special Appeals would be changed to the Appellate Court of Maryland.
Origin of the Ballot Question: This amendment was proposed in a bill passed by the Maryland General Assembly (Senate Bill 666) in the 2021 session. The judges of the Court of Appeals proposed changing the name of their court to avoid confusion when their decisions are cited in arguments in lawsuits in other states. In most other states, a “court of appeals” is a mid-level appellate court rather than the highest court. Bills to make this change were considered in 2019 and 2020 before finally passing in 2021.
Arguments FOR the amendment:
• Decisions by a state’s highest court are treated as more persuasive in arguments and a reference to the Supreme Court of Maryland would be readily understood as the final decision regarding Maryland law.
• Decisions by the “Court of Appeals,” the current name of the highest court in Maryland, might be misunderstood as referring to a decision of a mid-level appellate court, instead of the highest court.
Arguments AGAINST the amendment:
• Legal research is a highly specialized field and lawyers reviewing decisions of courts in other states are presumed to understand which court is the highest court.
• There would be administrative costs associated with changing the name of both courts, e.g., revising office letterhead, directory listings, etc.
A vote FOR Question 1 means the Maryland Constitution will be amended to change the name of the highest court from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Maryland and its judges will be called justices. The name of the Court of Special Appeals, the mid-level appellate court, will be changed to the Appellate Court of Maryland.
A vote AGAINST Question 1 means that the Constitution will not be amended and the names of the courts will continue to be the Court of Appeals and Court of Special Appeals.
Question 2
Legislative Department — Eligibility to Serve as Senators and Delegates — Place of Abode
Adds to the eligibility requirements to serve as a senator or a delegate to the Maryland General Assembly by requiring a person to have maintained a primary place of abode in the district that the person has been chosen to represent.
(Amending Article III, Section 9 to the Maryland Constitution)
Current Law: Under current law, to be eligible to serve as a state senator or delegate, a person must have a residence in the district that person represents for at least six months immediately preceding the date of the person's election. However, if the district has been established for less than six months prior to the date of election, the legislators must have resided there as long as the district has been established. Residency can be established by maintaining a residence and staying there at least occasionally.
Proposed Change: The new law requires, beginning January 1, 2024, a state senator or delegate would be required to have both resided in and maintained a primary place of abode in the district for the same time periods as under current law. Primary abode means that the person stays there the majority of the time.
Origin of the Ballot Question: The proposed change is a response to a decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals that a state senator had not abandoned his residence in a district because he had established a residence in another district where he often resided. Adding “primary place of abode” would prevent a legislator from claiming residence in a district merely based on owning or renting a place where they sometimes stayed.
Arguments FOR the amendment: To understand the needs of the people in a district, legislators should live the majority of the time within the district. Merely owning a residence that they occasionally use should not qualify as living within the district.
Arguments AGAINST the amendment: The proposed change could lead to lawsuits over how frequently a person is actually living in a particular residence.
A vote FOR Question 2 means members of the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate will be required to maintain and live the majority of the time in a primary residence within the districts they are representing.
A vote AGAINST Question 2 means that the law will remain unchanged and a Delegate or Senator will be treated as residing within the district they represent so long as they own or rent a residence there and stay there at least occasionally.
Question 3
Civil Jury Trials
Authorizing the General Assembly to enact legislation that limits the right to a jury trial in a civil proceeding to those proceedings in which the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, excluding attorney's fees if attorney's fees are recoverable in the proceeding.
(Amending Maryland Declaration of Rights - Articles 5(a) and 23)
Current Law: Currently, either party to a civil lawsuit can ask for a jury trial if more than $15,000 in damages is being sought. Civil cases in which less than $30,000 is being sought are filed in District Court and are usually decided by a District Court judge. If more than $15,000 is being sought and one side requests a jury trial, the case is moved to the Circuit Court, where all jury trials take place. The decision over which Court hears the case affects discovery – the right to require the other side to present evidence before the trial to assist in preparing arguments. District Courts allow less discovery than Circuit Courts.
Proposed Change: In a civil case, the parties would have a right to a jury trial in Circuit Court only if the amount being sought was more than $25,000 (raised from $15,000). Any cases involving smaller amounts ($25,000 or less) would be decided by a District Court judge without a jury.
Origin of the Ballot Question: Legislation to increase the amount required for a right to a jury trial was proposed in 2015, 2019, and 2020 but was not successful until the 2021 session of the General Assembly. The threshold was last increased in 2010, when it was raised to $15,000.
Arguments FOR the amendment:
• Raising the dollar threshold for requesting a jury trial is necessary from time to time to keep up with rising costs.
• Preparing a case for decision by a District Court judge is less expensive for plaintiffs (the party initiating the lawsuit) and defendants.
• Jury trials take more time and require more court resources than non-jury trials, therefore, increasing the threshold for jury trials would save taxpayers money because there would be fewer jury trials.
• More cases could be resolved quickly because a decision by a judge is less time consuming than a jury trial.
Arguments AGAINST the amendment:
• Limiting the right to a jury trial by raising the threshold to $25,000 will be a disadvantage to defendants because more cases will be tried in the District Court, which has limited rights to discover evidence before trial.
• The right to a jury trial is an important right that should not be limited more than necessary.
• Concerns about the costs of discovery would be better addressed by reforming discovery rules rather than limiting the right to a jury trial.
A vote FOR Question 3 means the right to a jury trial in civil cases will be limited to those cases where more than $25,000 is being sought.
A vote AGAINST Question 3 means that a plaintiff or defendant could demand a jury trial if more than $15,000 is being sought.
Question 4
Cannabis – Legalization of Adult Use and Possession
(Adding Article XX, Section 1 to the Maryland Constitution)
Do you favor the legalization of the use of cannabis by an individual who is at least 21 years of age on or after July 1, 2023, in the State of Maryland?
Current Law: Under current State law, possession of 10 grams (0.35 ounces) or more of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana is a civil offense, punishable by a fine of up to $100 for a first offense, $250 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or subsequent offense. Marijuana is listed on Schedule I under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Proposed Change: This constitutional amendment adds new Article XX “Cannabis” to the Maryland Constitution to provide that on or after July 1, 2023, an individual in the State who is at least 21 years old may legally use and possess cannabis (otherwise known as marijuana). This authorization also requires the General Assembly to pass legislation providing for the use, distribution, possession, regulation, and taxation of cannabis within Maryland.
Origin of the Ballot Question: The Legislature passed cannabis reform legislation (House Bill 837) in the 2022 legislative session. A few of the provisions related to studies, data collection, reports, and income tax subtraction modification have been enacted. Implementation of the more substantive provisions was left up to the voters to decide by this ballot question. If Question 4 is approved, this cannabis reform legislation will take effect.
Arguments FOR the amendment:
• Eighteen other jurisdictions, including Virginia and the District of Columbia, have legalized recreational cannabis use by adults.
• Maryland has had a medical cannabis program since 2014.
• About half of Maryland residents over the age of 18 admit to using marijuana at some point in their lives.
• Black Marylanders are more than twice as likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than white Marylanders despite similar usage rates.
• Cannabis possession accounted for 57% of drug related arrests in Maryland in 2020 creating a burden for law enforcement, the courts, and the correctional system.
• Prior offenders will be able to clear their records of cannabis convictions, improving their access to jobs, education, and housing.
Arguments AGAINST the amendment:
• The amounts authorized in this legislation are significantly lower than the amounts found in the Maryland medical marijuana law, potentially creating confusion for the public.
• The law does not eliminate the illegal buying and selling of cannabis products.
• The law does not regulate the safety of cannabis products in the market.
• Use of high-potency concentrates of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active ingredient of cannabis, especially by those under the age of 21, has been linked to addiction, psychiatric disorders, and hospitalization .
A Vote FOR Question 4 means beginning July 1, 2023, possession of up to 1.5 ounces (42.52 grams) and use of cannabis by adults over the age of 21 will be legal in Maryland.
A Vote AGAINST Question 4 means possession of 10 grams (0.35 ounces) or more of cannabis will continue to be a misdemeanor crime punishable by up to six months in jail.
Question 5
Circuit Court for Howard County – Judges Sitting as Orphans’ Court
Repeals county elections of Howard County orphans' court judges and requires the Howard County Circuit Court judges to sit as the orphans' court for Howard County. The current law provides for the voters of Howard County to elect three orphans' court judges. Under the amended law, a party could no longer appeal a final judgment of the Howard County Orphans' Court to the Howard County Circuit Court and would instead take an appeal directly to the Court of Special Appeals.
(Amending Article IV, Sections 20 and 40 to the Maryland Constitution)
Department of Legislative Services Non-Technical Summary: Constitutional Amendment Summaries
Current Law: The Orphans’ Court (similar to probate court in other states) supervises the property and finances of deceased residents. This includes the payment of debts, the distribution or transfer of property, and the guardianship of minor children and their property. It resolves disagreements and contested questions about an estate and also approves the payment of fees.
Currently, the Maryland Constitution establishes an elected Orphans’ Court of three judges in all counties, except in Harford and Montgomery counties, which chose to abolish their Orphans' Courts and have those cases heard in Circuit Court. Any citizen over the age of 18 who has lived in Howard County for at least one year may be elected a judge of the orphans’ court. A dissatisfied party may appeal a decision of the orphans’ court to the Circuit Court for Howard County.
Proposed Change: This amendment would eliminate the election of orphans’ court judges in Howard County and would instead require the Circuit Court judges to also serve as the Orphans’ Court. If this amendment passes, a dissatisfied party wishing to appeal an Orphans’ Court decision in Howard County would take the appeal directly to the Court of Special Appeals. This amendment must be approved by BOTH a majority of statewide voters and a majority of the voters in Howard County before it can take effect.
Origin of the Ballot Question: The Howard County Delegation requested the Amendment, which was then approved by the Maryland General Assembly as House Bill 868.
Arguments FOR the amendment:
• Moving the orphans' court function to the Circuit Court will result in the cases being heard by judges with a professional legal background and more closely align with the practice in most other jurisdictions. Only Maryland and Alabama currently allow non-lawyers to serve as elected judges in non-routine or contested probate matters. All other states require such judges to be lawyers admitted to the bar, as do Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Prince Georges’ County.
• The Circuit Court, sitting as an orphans’ court, will be able to easily integrate the workload into its schedule and resolve the issues more efficiently. The Orphans’ Court currently operates on a part-time basis, one day per week. The Circuit Court operates full-time, 5 days per week.
• The Maryland State Bar Association and most of the judicial reform commissions that have considered the matter have recommended the abolition of the Orphans’ Courts.
Arguments AGAINST the amendment:
• Much of the work of the Orphans’ Courts consists of approving a variety of orders dealing with the administration of estates that may not require the expertise of an attorney.
• More sweeping changes may make this amendment unnecessary. A 2021 Task Force to Study the Maryland Orphans Courts made recommendations that are currently awaiting action by the Maryland General Assembly, and which would also require an amendment to the Maryland Constitution.
A vote FOR Question 5 means Circuit Court Judges will serve as the Orphans’ Court in Howard County.
A vote AGAINST Question 5 means the Howard County Orphans’ Court will continue to operate as it has in the past, with elected lay judges serving on a part-time basis.
Source: League of Women Voters, Vote411.org
