UPDATEx2: A Little Bit of Math

Okay, since the MD State Board of Elections hasn’t yet come to the final count, I thought I would try a little comparison.

So the figures I am now working with are as of “Last updated: 11/23/2010 8:35:05 PM.”

The only reason I make this comparison is to demonstrate how the percentages may shift. That, and the fact that the line of reasoning for one constitutional question shows the inconsistency when looking at other constitutional questions in recent past (2008). The prime reason for this comparison is that, at least, I can get an approximation of total vote counts (from 2008) to use as if they were 2010 (we will see how close this can be once we get the final numbers for 2010).

All that is being done is comparing the total votes for questions 1, 2 and 3 against total votes cast for each question. Then comparing the total votes “For” against the total votes cast for the winner in the 2010 Governor’s race, the total votes cast for all Gov./Lt. Gov. candidates [ed: updated] and, then, making the comparison of the “For” votes against the two winning questions on the 2008 ballot as well as the Presidential race.

In this way, you will see how the percentages fall when calculated against ever increasing totals.

Notice that, should the 2010 grand total votes cast (statewide) approach that of 2008, the majority votes for 2010 Question 2 falls well below 50%.

So, one question is – at this point, why is Question 2 considered a win when the totals haven’t yet been achieved and posted publicly?

Likewise, applying the “double majority” rule against all three 2010 ballot questions it looks like question 2 should not be declared a winner at all – given the grand totals have yet to be achieved and publicly posted. One last point to make here – the Constitutional Convention question only asks to determine if a convention is wanted. The other two ballot questions are actually determining changes to the Constitution. One question’s sense of majority is different from the other two. Allow me to be even more blunt. Questions 2 and 3 are being accepted by a simple majority, regardless of the overall number of electors. Question 1 is not being accepted by a simple majority.

Is that what you want? Is that acceptable?

Updatedx2: Let’s put another spin on this, shall we? As of the latest posted vote counts 209,418 voters have disenfranchised 897,239 voters that wanted a Constitutional Convention. Those 209,418 failed to mark For/Against for ballot Question Number 1. And this assumes that the grand total of statewide voters actually voted for a candidate in the Governor’s race. Just saying. That could well be true, but I wonder.

Hey, I’m just doing a little math here and posing questions. Anyone have a better answer? Anyone that is, except a member of, or working for, the General Assembly?

Remember now, the section in the Maryland Constitution (Article XIV Sect 2) reads as follows:

It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto. Each County, and Legislative District of the City of Baltimore, shall have in such Convention a number of Delegates equal to its representation in both Houses at the time at which the Convention is called. But any Constitution, or change, or amendment of the existing Constitution, which may be adopted by such Convention, shall be submitted to the voters of this State, and shall have no effect unless the same shall have been adopted by a majority of the voters voting thereon (amended by Chapter 99, Acts of 1956, ratified Nov. 6, 1956).

Here is the screen shot (click on the picture to enlarge):


MD AG Against Open Carry

Md. high court hears state gun law arguments

Associated Press
10/07/10 7:00 PM EDT

ANNAPOLIS, MD. — Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler told members of the state’s top court Thursday that recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings prove state laws restricting people’s right to carry guns in public are constitutional, despite the arguments of a man seeking to overturn the law.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

ATF Redefines Transfers – Why?

This calls for a lot of reading. In context and beyond.
Largely because … can we trust the ATF for the sake of our rights?

Atty General Issues Opinion On .22 Rifles

Some good news for a change.

The Office of Attorney General issued a favorable opinion Monday, May 24, as what constitutes a “copy” of a so called “assault weapon.” These firearms are subject to Maryland’s “regulated firearm” law.

The issue at hand was whether .22 caliber rimfire rifles that may cosmetically resemble any firearms defined as “assault weapons” in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Public Safety Article § 5-101, should be regulated under that section as “copies” of the listed center-fire models.

According to the opinion, a copy must be similar “in its internal components and function to the designated weapon” and “cosmetic similarity to an enumerated assault weapon alone would not bring a weapon within the regulated firearms law”.

The opinion also states that the Maryland State Police will make the initial decision as to whether the gun’s internal parts make it a “copy” of an “assault weapon.”

This is a victory for Maryland’s law-abiding citizens who use these common rifles for competition, sport shooting and home defense.

You can read the opinion in full by clicking here.

Meyer Marks: Opposing Frosh

[Ed.: In this case, while I am not necessarily endorsing this political announcement, I think it is an option you may wish to consider.]

BETHESDA, MARYLAND – Maryland’s #1 advocate against guns and Jessica’s Law now has a Republican challenger. In Maryland’s District 16, Meyer Marks, a government affairs consultant for health care and tort reform, will file with the Board of Elections to run against a personal injury lawyer. As a State Senator, Marks’ goal is to create a more conducive environment for businesses with greater fiscal accountability and government transparency. Marks is also concerned that Maryland ranks as a violent haven for criminals in the United States.

“Frosh has grown seriously out of touch with the needs of the voters,” says Marks. “Probably because of being a personal injury lawyer, he has not adequately addressed crime issues in Maryland, either. Frosh seems more interested in protecting criminals than he is protecting victims of crime.”

Frosh has been in the General Assembly since 1994 and has opposed broadly-supported legislation to tighten restrictions on criminals with Jessica’s Law, a bill that strengthened sentences for sexual crimes committed against children. For instance, during a hearing on the bill by the Senate Judicial Committee, chaired by Frosh, advocates of the bill were treated so poorly that the President of the Maryland Senate later apologized. When the bill came to a vote by the entire Senate, Frosh was one of only three people to vote against strengthening the sentences. In the Maryland House, the bill was adopted unanimously. In addition, Frosh is an ardent supporter of gun control laws, declaring that anyone who wishes to carry a gun (other than police) is “nuts.”

Meyer Marks was raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he received a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Central Arkansas. In addition, he is pursuing a Master’s Degree in European Studies from Georgetown University. In 1988, he founded Marks and Associates, a government relations firm that specializes in health care and educational issues. He is also the caregiver for his mother, who has Alzheimer’s Disease, sensitizing him to the illness. In 2008, Marks was a candidate for U.S. Congress in Maryland’s Eighth District. For over 25 years, Marks has worked to craft public policy on the state and federal levels. He resides in Bethesda, Maryland.

Marks’ event will be on Maryland Day, Thursday, March 25 from 7 to 9 p.m. at 4242 East-West Highway in Chevy Chase. Street parking and public parking is limited. Contact him at 240-476-5533 or meyer@marksformaryland.org or www.MarksForMaryland.org.

March 9 Legislation To Be Heard

Please Contact Members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee!

On Tuesday, March 9, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee will hear two bills seeking to codify the “Castle Doctrine” principle into Maryland state law.

Senate Bill 386, sponsored by State Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34), would provide civil immunity to a person who uses force, including deadly force, against someone who enters their dwelling or business with the intent to commit first, second or third degree burglary or a crime of violence.

Senate Bill 411, sponsored by State Senator Thomas Middleton (D-28), would provide immunity from damages when force, including deadly force, is reasonable under the circumstances to repel an attack.

Over the years the Chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, State Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) has consistently put these bills in his pocket, never to be brought up for a vote.

It is time for Senator Frosh to bring these bills up for a vote! Please contact the members of the Committee and respectfully urge them to support your right to self-defense and to bring these bills up for a vote.

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee:

State Senator Brian E. Frosh (D-16), Chair
(410) 841-3124, (301) 858-3124, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3124 (toll free)

State Senator Lisa A. Gladden (D-41), Vice Chair
(410) 841-3697, (301) 858-3697, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3697 (toll free)

State Senator Alexander X. Mooney (R-3)
(410) 841-3575, (301) 858-3575, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3575 (toll free)

State Senator Larry E. Haines (R-5)
(410) 841-3683, (301) 858-3683, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3683 (toll free)

State Senator Norman R. Stone, Jr. (D-6)
(410) 841-3587, (301) 858-3587, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3587 (toll free)

State Senator Jennie M. Forehand (D-17)
(410) 841-3134, (301) 858-3134, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3134 (toll free)

State Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20)
(410) 841-3634, (301) 858-3634, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3634 (toll free)

State Senator C. Anthony Muse (D-26)
(410) 841-3092, (301) 858-3092, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3092 (toll free)

State Senator Bryan W. Simonaire (R-31)
(410) 841-3658, (301) 858-3658, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3658 (toll free)

State Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34)
(410) 841-3158, (301) 858-3158, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3158 (toll free)

State Senator James Brochin (D-42)
(410) 841-3648, (301) 858-3648, 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3648 (toll free)