Anonymous

Is anonymous debate useful?

We are in the final few days of a hotly contested election here in beautiful, downtown, Laurel, MD.  It certainly has been one of the most contentious campaigns that I can remember during my 30+ years of living here.  Three people are running hard for Mayor and the "at-large" council seat is also locked in a tense struggle.
 
I like elections.  I enjoy the debate.  Elections cause me to think about issues.  Elections are healthy for a community.  But I've been watching a growing anonymity trend that's very troubling for me.

Both of our hometown news organizations, the venerable Laurel Leader and the upstart Laurel Patch are cranking out news, opinions and in a novel twist for a Laurel election, dozens of anonymous online comments. 

Go to the bottom of any article, especially in the Laurel Patch and you will see a handful of people strenuously debating.  Some of the comments are a bit over the top to say the least.
Some commenters are using -- what appears -- to be their real name.  And others are commenting behind a screen name.  Of course, there is no way to know for sure that commenters are offering their real names.  A commenter could easily use any name, even the name of a candidate.  Who could really know the truth?

Yesterday's mail also delivered to me a four page article anonymously attacking the Sarich campaign.  It looks like the authors spent a lot of money mailing the piece to every registered voter in Laurel.  This is a considerable investment in time and money for over 10,000 voters in the city.  Unfortunately, these authors chose to only identify themselves as "17 Laurel Taxpayers."

And finally, a neighbor told me last night that she was called by an anonymous phone pollster.  She was asked who she planned to vote for in the Mayoral race. The caller did not provide any affiliation.

I've written about anonymous comments in the past.  While I allow them here, I believe that anonymous articles, comments and polls are not very useful.  I think anonymity diminishes credibility.  It also tends to encourage people to be more rash, untruthful or hurtful in their comments.  However, we have a tradition of anonymous political speech in this country.  In some cases, anonymously speaking truth to power is useful for the good order of society.

So what do you think?  Opinions about candidates aside, does anonymity help or hurt political debate?

Please respond below.   Feel free to respond with your real name or anonymously.  Please be temperate.   

Had Enough Robocalls Yet?

I've had it with the candidate robocalls this election season.  I must get six calls a day.  Do the candidates really think that a robocall is going to make me vote for them?  They must have a pretty low opinion of us if they think a few dozen robocalls will change our minds.

"Gee, what a nice guy, I'll be sure to vote for that candidate."

So I've decided to fight back.  Click here for the robocall that I'm sending out to every candidate this season.  I'm fighting robocalls with my own robocalls.  This link goes to an mp3 file located here.

Referendum Turnout by Wards

The Laurel City Clerk's Office has done a manual count of the voters at yesterday's referendum.  These numbers may change after the official count comes back from the county election board.  But as of today, the count unofficially is:

Ward 1 - 467
Ward 2 - 354

What do you think?  What does this mean to you?  Comment here.

Referendum Results Analysis

 

The plebiscite at the Phelps Center today was a big let down for me. After all the arguing, rallying, litigating, and preparation, only 800 souls showed up to vote. If this was an angry electorate, ready to throw the bums out, then I must be hallucinating again.

Nope, this was voting as usual for Laurel. Steadfast, thoughtful and less than 10% of the registered voters. Laurel voters are predictable and that is who voted in the referendum today.

Voters very strongly opposed council members serving four year terms, by nearly a 3 to 1 margin. The voters also rejected any pay raises by good margins. Voters strongly favor changing the municipal voting date and also extending the current council to allow this change.

The voting by ward issue seems to be the only tossup issue and could flip if all of the outstanding absentee votes are returned by next Tuesday and if they all oppose ward voting.

So what does this all really mean? Not much at all by my reckoning.

The goal of this effort was to find ways to increase votor turnout. Approximately 800 people cast votes so far. Considering all of the hype, hand wringing and litigation surrounding this referendum, this turnout is shamefully low.

If people are supposedly this riled up but only 800 of us could drag ourselves to the polls, then I don't think this foreshadows any new grassroots voter movement in Laurel.  

For a complete history of Laurel City voting patterns from 1972 to 2006 click here.

Here are brief election results from 2006-1992 for comparison with today:

2006
VOTERS: 827
REGISTERED: 11600
2004
VOTERS: 512
REGISTERED: 10330

2002

VOTERS: 1091
REGISTERED: 10235

2000

VOTERS: 1062
REGISTERED: 9926

1998

VOTERS: 1153
REGISTERED: 8726

1996

VOTERS: 949
REGISTERED: 7667
1994
VOTERS: 1763
Registered: 8014
1992
VOTERS: 951
REGISTERED: 7423

Referendum Results

Q1. Early Voting       - 480 For     320 Against
Q2. Change Date      - 489 For     310 Against
Q3. Extending Term  - 424 For     373 Against
Q4. Term to 4 yrs     - 254 For     541 Against
Q5.  Vote by Ward   - 405 For     391 Against
Q6. Raise Mayor $   - 334 For     464 Against
Q7. Raise Council $  - 295 For     503 Against

Turnout 753 machine,
56 Absentee (15 oustanding)
3 provisionals

Doggone it.  The Laurel Leader beat me with their results tonight.  Kudos to Reporter Glenn and Editor Dzwonchyk.  http://www.explorehoward.com/news/65120/referendum-election-results/

The Questions

Jim McCeney is bugging me to comment on the referendum questions themselves. I guess he thinks that I'm dodging the issue with my previous post. However, in the interest of full disclosure, here are my votes on the referendum questions:

1. Early Voting - Support - Of course we should have early voting. If we could ever figure out how to vote from home on these internets securely, I'd be in favor of that as well.

2. Changing the election date - Opposed - I don't want the election changed to November because I want to keep the city elections separate and distinct. Keep the date where it is now. We just changed it recently and I don't want to go chasing after the date like it's some sort of bad television show looking for an audience.

3. Extend the current terms - Opposed - See my answer above.

4. City Council term to 4 years. - Opposed - I'm sorry but this idea is just wrong. I would never have run for the council if the commitment was four years. I loved my time on the council, but 2 years is long enough to learn the job and decide if you want to continue serving. Besides, I agree with Karen, you need the opportunity to throw us bums out every two years.

5. Voting by Ward Only - OPPOSED - This one I feel quite strongly about. While I can see how voting for your own native son or daughter will encourage more turnout, we will rue the day when we encourage this level of parochialism in our city.

Laurel is a small town. We don't need to Balkanize it and pit ward against ward. Council members that collegially work for the good of the whole city are called great, and we have had many. A council member that is only working to serve their local ward constituents at the expense of the whole is called a Congressman. We already have one Congress, we don't need to turn Laurel into another.

6. Mayor's Salary - Opposed - Now is not the time to increase any salary.

7. Council's Salary - Opposed - Now is not the time to increase any salary.

A Very Special Referendum Indeed

So what’s going on? I’ve been away.

I heard that there’s a plebiscite scheduled for our fair city tomorrow, September 8th, 2009 at the Phelps Center. I’ve included directions to the Phelps Center because I understand that there are some folks who live in Laurel who don’t know where it is. Just kidding, please don’t sue me!

The Honorable Ed Ricks, former councilman, awesome short order cook and all around good guy was asked by the city to investigate painfully depressed voter participation in Laurel. The last city election in 2008 had only a few hardy souls willing to participate in an uncontested election and the city council thought it was time to see what could be done to improve participation.

Ed’s committee got to work, solicited public input and then wrote a report. The council decided that some of the committee’s recommendations had merit, so a referendum was scheduled to see what the voters thought about seven simple questions related to voter turnout.

But things are rarely as simple as they first appear in Laurel. This referendum tomorrow is not really about increasing voter turnout anymore is it? That simple turnout issue may have been hijacked.

Former city councilman Mike Sarich and the leadership of the Laurel Boys and Girls Club have once again joined forces. They are trying to turn this from a referendum on increasing voter participation into a vote of confidence on the city’s elected leadership itself.

Mike Sarich has long had strong feelings about the need for a second polling place in Ward 2. While a councilman last year, Mike wrote a letter to his colleagues cautioning them that the lack of a second polling place may become a legal issue. Much censuring and arguing ensued. The city’s lawyer, Robert Manzi, wrote an opinion saying that Laurel was compliant with existing laws. After this upcoming referendum was announced on June 8th, Mike filed suit to stop it, and while the injunction was denied, his lawsuit and another are continuing in the courts.

It also appears that that the LBGC sees this referendum as a path towards influencing the council to increase the city’s financial support of their club. The club hosted a rally organized by the Prince George's County political watchdog group People for Change who are demanding a second polling place in Laurel.

So we have possibly riled a few new folks into voting in a city election. That’s a good thing. However, please remember that this referendum tomorrow is not asking any voters to decide on a second polling place or if the LBGC should be given more city money, or if the mayor or the city council should be removed, or even if pit bulls make good pets.

Regardless of how we vote tomorrow, those questions are for another day.

(cartoon courtesy of xckd.com)

Only 3 days left ...

The registration deadline to vote in Maryland is this Tuesday, October 14th at 9:00pm.

TO CHECK YOUR REGISTRATION:

Visit this website to check to see if you are registered and to locate your polling place: http://www.mdelections.org/voter_registration/v2/vote_prod.php

TO REGISTER:

Download and complete a Voter Registration Application and bring or Fax it to:
Prince George's County Board of Elections, 16201 Trade Zone Avenue, Suite 108 Upper Marlboro, MD 20721 Hours of Operation: Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M Telephone: (301) 430-8020 Fax (301) 430-8080 Directions

The Prince George’s County Board of Elections will also be open today October 11th from 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. to accept voter registration applications.

FOR ABSENTEE BALLOT:

The deadline to request an absentee ballot for the General Election is as follows: Download Absentee application. If the application is mailed, 4:30 p.m. on October 28, 2008; or If the application is faxed, 11:59 p.m. on October 28, 2008.

FOR SAMPLE BALLOT:

You can visit this page to view a SAMPLE BALLOT for the STATE OF MARYLAND, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY: http://www.mdelections.org/voter_registration/v2/general_2008/Prince%20Georges/BS%201.pdf

PROBLEMS:

Please contact the MD Board of Elections: http://www.elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/index.html or call: 1-800-222-8683.

Councilmember Sarich to Retire

Three term Laurel Councilman Mike Sarich told me tonight that he plans to retire at the end of his term this September.  He wrote in an email a few minutes ago that he is working on a brief statement to be released soon.  

Mike Sarich has served on the city council since 2002.  He prided himself on being the council's maverick, often voting alone.  In tonight's email he  wrote that his council service has often been a joy, occasionally been painful, but it was always an honor.

Laurel City Attorney Opinion on Polling Places

Robert Manzi, Laurel City Solicitor, rendered his opinion on Councilman Mike Sarich's memorandum about the city's lack of a polling place in ward two. Mr. Manzi introduces his legal analysis as follows:

In his Memorandum, Councilman Michael B. Sarich discusses his concerns that the
City of Laurel’s current election system may be violation of local, state and federal laws and regulations. Primarily, he argues that there is a need to add at least one polling place in the city. He also argues that there is a need to redraw election boundaries, as the populations in the two Wards in the city are uneven. He also warns that if the city "willfully and knowingly potentially violate" the local, state and federal elections laws, the City may face intervention from the courts. Moreover, in his press release, he warns that failing to take corrective measures prior to the upcoming September 2008 elections will jeopardize the validity of the election.

This memorandum will not discuss the possibility of placing an additional polling place in the city or redrawing district lines, as the Mayor and City Council are currently conducting a study on this issue in light of the changes in the population since the 2000 census. Instead, this memorandum will discuss whether the upcoming election in September 2008 can be overturned if the City does not add at least one polling place and redraw its current Ward boundaries, as suggested by Councilman Sarich.

Mr. Manzi concludes with the following statement:

Based on the above, it is evident that the lack of a second polling place and/or the failure to redraw the Ward boundaries prior to the upcoming September 2008 election will not invalidate the election.

You can read Mr. Manzi's 2000 word opinion on the city's website.

When Politics Trumps Policy, Everyone Loses

Note - 17 Jun 2008 - Just in case you read this blog via RSS you may want to see the comments section to follow a very engaging discussion .

This week, Laurel City Council Member Mike Sarich published a press release calling for the addition of a second city polling location in ward two. In his message, Councilman Sarich opens with the following quote, "Laurel in potential violation of multiple election laws, Sarich says." He goes on to provide his findings in support of this conclusion drawing from his own twelve-page legal and quantitative analysis previously provided to the council.

Councilman Sarich concludes: "If we want to continue to willfully and knowingly potentially violate the above laws and guidelines, it is clear that Laurel may face intervention from the courts. In order to avoid this, Laurel should add at least one polling place and redraw its current Ward boundaries". You can find Councilman Sarich's complete press release here.

Laurel Council President Fred Smalls, on behalf of the rest of the City Council, responded with his own message Friday stating, "I, along with the other members of the Laurel City Council, are appalled by Mr. Sarich’s press release and its intentionally misleading, prejudicial allegations developed by his desire to preempt the election process."

Mr. Smalls' continues, "Mr. Sarich has made a bold attempt to publicly shame, embarrass, and discredit the City Council and the City of Laurel. The City Council will meet in special meeting on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. to publicly censure Mr. Sarich for his disgraceful actions." You can find Mr. Smalls complete press release here.

----------------------------
I've been an advocate for a second polling place in Ward Two since I served on a city voter participation task force in 1994. However, I strongly disagree with Mr. Sarich's tactics. I'm afraid that he may have turned an excellent policy initiative into an election season political stunt. Everyone loses when elected officials let political agendas trump sound policy making processes.

- Rick