A referendum denied...

This has surely upset several people…

A citizens referendum challenging scores of rezoning cases has suffered a major, and perhaps fatal, setback now that Maryland's second-highest court has invalidated the ballot measure on grounds that it gave residents too little information about what the measure would do.

The decision, by a three-judge panel of the state Court of Special Appeals, will stand without a successful last-minute appeal to the Court of Appeals, Maryland's highest court. Because the referendum was scheduled for the November ballot, the case is being handled on an expedited basis, giving the Howard County Board of Elections until July 6 to appeal.

…The ruling by the Court of Special Appeals, made June 21, addresses neither the county's process nor its approval of the rezoning cases, but only whether citizens were properly informed of Comp Lite's provisions when signing a petition seeking the referendum.

Maryland law, the judges wrote in their opinion, requires that a referendum petition contain either an accurate summary of the provisions being challenged or the full text of the legislation enacting the zoning changes.

I’ve always thought petitions were somewhat suspect. Legal notifications aside, it seems to me that many people sign petitions almost reflexively or in an effort to placate the person holding the clipboard.

Regardless of my petition misgivings, it’s not surprising that adequately informing signers of the Comp Lite referendum presented problems.

The Comp Lite legislation, approved by the County Council last year, contains 38 separate and distinct map amendments and 49 pages of text amendments, totaling 91 pages, the court's opinion notes.

The opinion also points out that the organizers of the petition drive had considerable difficulty in writing a summary of the Comp Lite provisions. The Board of Elections, the court noted, rejected their first five attempts as legally insufficient.

In the final version, the organizers used essentially the title of the Comp Lite legislation, which the board accepted.

Even that language, critics of the ballot measure claimed, was "not comprehensive in scope" and thus could not meet state requirements. The court agreed. "We conclude . . . [the petition] does not satisfy the 'fair and accurate summary' requirement imposed by state law," the three-judge panel ruled.

Was there something prohibiting the petitioners from attaching a copy of the legislation to the petition forms? To be sure, a 91-page report is a lot to carry around on a clipboard, but it would guarantee that your signatures pass muster, right?

Well, I’m not sure how I feel about this. While I wasn’t necessarily a supporter of this (or really any, for that matter) referendum, I’m sympathetic to COPE and others who worked so hard to get signatures and put the Comp Lite decision up to the voters. That said, I did find this bit revealing:

Chief Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr., who wrote the opinion, said previous courts have held that the public must be informed of whether rezoning "upzoned" or "downzoned" property, and he noted that the petition's summary failed to tell voters that few of the Comp Lite cases were controversial and faced no opposition from nearby residents.

I understand that it’s hard to engage potential signers in a lengthy discussion about the good and bad parts of Comp Lite and certainly when you’re advocating you want to paint your side in the best possible light. But laws like these serve to ensure that those with only a momentary interest in an issue at least have some objective idea of what's going on.

Meanwhile, here’s a round up of reactions from various players.

"I've been saying this all along," said County Councilman Charles C. Feaga. "This decision is a good one. I hope it stands."

But Angela Beltram, a former councilwoman and a principal in the organization that pushed the ballot measure, said future referendums would be jeopardized if the ruling is not overturned.

…"The Board of Elections approved it, and it seems to me they have to appeal," she said. "I hope they would appeal, or when are you going to have a referendum?"

Frank Martin, a frequent critic of the county's planning process, denounced the ruling.

"How are my rights being fairly represented by this decision?" he asked. "The clear majority knew exactly what they were signing. ... I don't know what will happen ... but COPE has learned, don't fight city hall. We're all learning that the hard way."

There’s definitely some anger. Is it, given the circumstances, warranted? To whom will it ultimately be directed? How will this affect the elections?

For the best take on this whole thing, let's turn to the most maligned bureaucrat in the county.

Regardless of the outcome, Marsha S. McLaughlin, director of the Department of Planning and Zoning, said she believes the county and public will benefit from the controversy.

"For better or for worse, it has called a lot of attention to the planning process," she said. "I think you'll see changes that will make the process more transparent."

Always look on the bright side of life...

Finally, Howard County Blog’s entry on this topic is a rundown of irrelevant quotes by Ken Ulman, yet no mention of Feaga’s quotes, which are actually relevant to this story and when compared to what Ulman said in the past are abjectly anti-citizen. But as a newly-potential candidate for Republican Central Committee, one must not risk offending any true blue party-mates. Combine this with his absurd posting of a commenter’s even more absurd conspiracy theory and it’s a good old fashioned Ken Ulman bashing over there today.

So much for treating everyone equally poorly, eh?