Maryland Senate Republican Slate
Join the Petition Drive
Under the Maryland Constitution, aggrieved citizens are allowed to petition bills passed by the General Assembly under a process known as "the referendum."
Grassroots activists are currently engaged in a petition drive to take Senate Bill 167 to referendum so that citizens can decide whether the state will allow in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. If the petition drive is successful, the bill becomes ineffective until its fate is determined at the ballot box on November 6, 2012.
The Maryland Senate Republican Caucus voted unanimously against Senate Bill 167 that would create taxpayer-subsidized tuition rights for illegal immigrants.
We encourage you to visit the website http://mdpetitions.com and use the "Sign the Petition" link to print out your personalized petition to sign and mail in.
In addition, we have posted below a column written by Senator Joe Getty (R-Baltimore and Carroll) and published in today's edition of the Northern News that describes substantive policy reasons in opposition to Senate Bill 167:
A Petition to Stop a Nightmare
By Joe Getty
Published in the Northern News, May 5, 2011
A petition drive is underway to require a ballot referendum for the recently-passed bill (Senate Bill 167) allowing illegal immigrants to qualify for reduced tuition rates at Maryland's public universities.
Under the state constitution, citizens may take bills passed by the General Assembly to referendum under a petition process that requires gathering over 55,000 signatures from registered voters throughout the state. If the petition process is successful, the bill does not take effect unless it is approved by voters in the 2012 election.
Over the course of recent elections, petition drives to take bills to referendum are rarely successful. The threshold for certifying the petitions is just too high.
First, the time-frame for gathering signatures is too short. One-third of the signatures must be collected by May 31. The remainder must be turned in to the State Board of Elections by the end of June.
In addition, the technical requirements to certify the signatures are difficult. The names must be registered voters who sign on "approved" petition sheets separated in a county-by-county basis. The printed name and signature of the registered voter must strictly match (full middle name or middle initial, etc.) the name under which they registered to vote.
The strict validation process means that many of the signatures will be rejected. Combined with the high number of signatures required and the short time frame for collecting, organizers of the petition drive face a tough challenge.
Therefore, your help is strongly encouraged. If you wish to support this effort, the easiest way is to use the automated form at the website http://mdpetitions.com. After you fill in the information, you need to print out the petition, sign it and mail it to Del. Neil C. Parrott (one of the lead organizers of the petition drive).
As a member of the State Senate, I voted against Senate Bill 167. Part of my opposition to the bill was based upon my experience in working with local residents when I served in the House of Delegates, 1995 - 2003.
As a delegate, I was surprised at how frequently I heard from parents of students about the difficulty in achieving admission to a state college or university. During the senate floor debate on March 14, I explained my opposition to the bill based upon the rationale that illegal immigrants will take away limited admission slots.
Our state rations higher education in Maryland. There are only a certain number of spots available at each institution. For many campuses, there is a stiff competition for incoming freshman admission slots.
With only a certain number of admission slots available, I would frequently receive a phone call from constituents questioning why their child was rejected from admission to a specific state college or university. The student typically had an outstanding academic record in local public schools. The student also displayed leadership qualities in varsity sports, student government and other organizations.
They may have been the first student from their family attempting to go to college. Moreover, the family had paid taxes their entire life to support the Maryland college and university system. Regardless, with a limited number of incoming slots, sometimes the best local students just don't make the cut to their top choice in higher education.
This realization is particularly hard to fathom for long-time Maryland residents. When my grandfather from New Windsor served on the board of trustees at College Park, the school was known as the Maryland Agricultural College and catered to "ag students."
When my father was applying to colleges, all that was needed was a high school diploma and you were accepted to University of Maryland College Park. For my generation of high school graduates, you only needed a "C average" in order to be accepted at College Park and it typically was your "backup" plan if you were not accepted to your first choices.
Thus, it is ironic for today's students that our families have paid taxes to make Maryland's university system one of the top-ranked in the nation while at the same time making it harder for their own children and other local students to gain admission.
The in-state tuition bill is known as the "Dream Act" for illegal immigrants based upon a similar bill in the U.S. Congress. As I explained to my senate colleagues during the floor debate, my constituents in Baltimore and Carroll counties have dreams too.
In this economic recession, many families are struggling financially while still trying to provide a college education for their children. They might desire go to a private school, in-state or out of state, but with the state of the current economy, the University of Maryland system is their best prospect financially.
Providing scarce admission slots to illegal immigrants is just not fair to the families of long-time law-abiding and tax-paying citizens of this state. Although amendments were added to the bill that would supposedly prevent the loss of in-state slots to illegal immigrants, many are skeptical that such slots can be preserved under the university system's budgetary constraints.
A similar bill for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants was passed eight years ago by the Maryland General Assembly. Immediately after the 2003 legislative session, it was vetoed by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
As policy director in Ehrlich's office, I coordinated the writing of the veto message for that bill. In addition to the fact that in-state slots would be taken from legal Maryland residents, we offered several other policy reasons for the governor's veto.
Foremost, was the conflict that existed with federal law. Granting in-state status to illegal immigrants is a direct violation of the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Ehrlich also raised concerns about the potentially large fiscal cost to the state. The fiscal note to the bill passed this year stated that there is no way to calculate the number of illegal immigrants that might qualify but estimated that the costs could reach more than $3.5 million a year by 2016.
The identical policy issues outlined in the 2003 veto letter exist today. Legal Maryland taxpayers could find their own children excluded from their higher education institution of choice while at the same time being required to foot the bill for tuition reductions (expected to cost millions of dollars) for illegal immigrants.
Whose dream is that?
Gov. Schaefer to O'Malley: DO IT NOW!
It was almost as if the words were emanating from the State House where Gov. William Donald Schaefer was lying in state.
Over six weeks ago, the Department of General Services was informed that major repairs were necessary for the fountain to work.
Nothing had been done!
Dedicated to Hilda Mae Snoops, the fountain has been a point of contention among Democrat Governors since it was installed. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., has been the only governor to insure that the cherished Schaefer fountain flowed at the governor's mansion.
As Schaefer's funeral procession arrived at the State House this morning, the fountain was empty.
Where's O'Malley Next?
TAXPAYERS TO FOOT BILL FOR OVERSEAS TRAVEL
It will not take Gov. Martin O'Malley long to head out-of-town after the last vestiges of the 2011 legislative session are over.
Soon after his last bill signing, O'Malley will be heading on a overseas junket to South Korea, China and Vietnam.
Trade missions by top elected officials are a frequent perk of their job - but the timing of this one is particularly galling to Maryland teachers, state employees, consumers and taxpayers.
After crying poor-mouth for 90 days and increasing a multitude of fees, taxes, nursing home and hospital assessments and pension contribution rates to balance the FY12 budget, O'Malley now wants to sock taxpayers to pick up the tab for him and select aides to travel to Asia for 10 days.
As if his frequent travel out-of-state during the 90-day session to promote his national profile wasn't enough, he now needs to slip out-of-country to beef up his "international" resume.
State officials refused to reveal the projected full costs of the trip according to an article in the Baltimore Sun (click here). The article also quotes Sen. Allan Kittleman's reaction to the Governor's announcement:
Critics questioned whether the state should be spending so much on overseas travel following a legislative session dominated by a bitter battle over the state's budget.
Some also criticized the notion of helping foreign companies while businesses at home continue to struggle amid the slow economic recovery.
O'Malley "will certainly defend the trip by saying he's trying to bring business to Maryland," said Sen. Allan H. Kittleman, a Howard County Republican who serves on the Senate Finance Committee. "But how about instead reducing our taxes so we can help the companies that are already here?"
The State of Affairs in "Levyland"
The most telling event on Sine Die was the failure of Gov. Martin O’Malley to pay a visit to each chamber of the General Assembly and offer congratulatory remarks. An evening visit from the governor is a long-standing tradition for Sine Die protocol in wrapping up each year’s session.
O’Malley was actually in Annapolis Monday night – spotted on the second floor of the State House and in the legislative hallways. His refusal to stand at the rostrum of each chamber reveals just how stung he felt from the rejection of key parts of his legislative agenda.
His staff has worked hard to convey a different impression. “Impartial political analysts” have described the recently-concluded session as successful for O’Malley (see “Stalled O’Malley Agenda Items Don’t Signal Failure, Some Political Observers Say” in the Gazette click here).
Contrary to the Gazette news story, political observer Barry Rascovar has an entirely different take. On the Gazette opinion page, Rascovar offers that O’Malley’s distractions with out-of-state travel signaled failure with his lackluster agenda back home and gives O’Malley a “3” out of scale of 10 for the session (click here):
Don't believe the propaganda spun by the governor's political machine. He had a disappointing General Assembly session. No major victories. No great strides toward Martin O'Malley's progressive Democratic agenda. It was a distracted, patchwork performance. On a scale of 1 to 10, give him a 3. O'Malley avoided controversy, yet failed to show he can get important things done regardless of the obstacles. This should have been a winning session for the governor, newly elected to a second term. But his attention was clearly elsewhere. He's positioning himself for his next objective — national political office.
O’Malley biggest successes of the session were in raising fees and taxes. If his future elections are determined by his advocacy for “taking more money out of taxpayer pockets,” his electoral success is assured – according to Blair Lee of the Gazette (click here):
Because this year's budget only reduces the structural deficit 40 percent, and because the state's reserve fund is now at a record low $50 million, all signs point to using the October special session programmed for redrawing congressional boundaries as an opportunity to raise new revenues as well. If gas prices fall, count on a 10 cents-a-gallon gas tax increase, which will also be indexed to inflation (automatic future gas hikes). Once this is done, O'Malley and the Democrats will have hit the liberal trifecta — in only four years a boost in every state tax: personal income, corporate income, sales, cigarette, booze, vehicles, hospitals, bus/rail fares, bridge /road tolls, tuition, pension and health care contributions, and millions in assorted fees (called taxes when levied by Republicans). This clean sweep will make Maryland ("Levyland") the envy of liberals nationwide, giving O'Malley a clear shot at his party's 2016 presidential nomination. No other candidate can say, "I raised every tax on the books and spent every cent." He'll be a shoo-in.
Unmentioned in the media is how the failures of the governor’s staff have contributed to his inability to forge a strong and successful legislative agenda. The team that he brought to state government four years ago contained his most trusted advisors and policymakers from his city administration. Many have left for the greener pastures of lobbying while they can still cash in on their high-profile “insider” contacts within the administration.
With his key staffers gone and his ambitions driving him more frequently to Washington, D.C., and out-of-state locales, many essentials of governing Maryland have gone by the wayside. After the floundering 2011 session, one can expect additional key defections of “second floor” staffers who can find better opportunities in venues different from the O’Malley lame-duck administration.
Sine Die 2011
The Governor's vehicle passed slowly near the State House last Friday as Gov. Martin O'Malley lowered the passenger window and stuck his head out of the car. "What bills of mine are you going to kill today?" he shouted sarcastically to a nearby legislator.
It has been that kind of a session for O'Malley this year.
Fortunately for O'Malley, Sine Die 2011 (i.e. the last day of the legislative session) is today.
"Momentum Fails O'Malley as Some Key Goals Falter" is a headline article from Sunday's Washington Post. John Wagner and Aaron C. Davis provide an analysis about O'Malley's inability to cajole legislators into passing his septic and offshore wind power legislation (click here):
Although O'Malley won reelection by a wider margin than any Maryland governor in nearly 20 years, he made few promises during the campaign. Lawmakers returned in January without a clear sense of what he wanted to accomplish. . . When O'Malley delivered his State of the State speech Feb. 3, the only major new initiative in the address, the plan to help the Chesapeake Bay by banning construction of most septic systems, was met with near silence. By that time, trouble had been brewing on the legislation he would push hardest: the offshore wind bill. A week before the speech, lawmakers who had backed O'Malley's reelection openly questioned whether offshore wind might cost residents more and produce fewer jobs than his administration had begun to suggest. Weeks later at a House hearing, O'Malley was faulted for what critics thought was an unimaginative and unsatisfying endorsement of the offshore wind bill, which would have forced utilities to buy wind energy at a premium and then divide the higher cost among ratepayers.
Page 1 of 9