Maryland Constitution Article I - Elective Franchise
Article I of the Maryland Constitution governs the Elective Franchise, or voting rights, within the state. This article addresses the qualifications, rights, and procedures for voting, including eligibility criteria, disqualifications, and the rights of individuals to participate in elections. Over time, several important cases have interpreted and clarified various provisions of Article I, especially regarding voter eligibility, voting rights, and electoral procedures.
Below are five key cases that have interpreted or applied provisions from Article I of the Maryland Constitution, along with a detailed explanation of each case.
1. Davis v. State (2008)
This case addressed the issue of felon disenfranchisement under Maryland law, interpreting Article I, Section 1 of the Maryland Constitution, which provides that "every citizen of the State, having the qualifications prescribed by this Constitution, shall have the right to vote."
Background: Davis was convicted of a felony, and as a result, he was disqualified from voting under Maryland law. After serving his sentence, he sought to regain his voting rights but was denied by the state.
Legal Issue: Whether a person convicted of a felony, who has completed their sentence, should have their voting rights restored.
Court's Decision: The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that under Maryland’s Constitution, individuals convicted of felonies are disqualified from voting unless their voting rights have been restored by the governor. The court noted that while Maryland law disenfranchises felons, this does not violate the Maryland Constitution because the Constitution provides that individuals who meet the qualifications (not convicted of a felony) can vote. The decision affirmed the state's power to disenfranchise felons but also emphasized that individuals who have served their time may petition for the restoration of their rights.
2. Brown v. Board of Elections (1974)
This case involved the right to vote and challenged the practices around voter registration and election procedures under Article I.
Background: A group of voters challenged the way elections were administered, particularly the voter registration process, arguing that it was cumbersome, confusing, and disenfranchised many qualified voters.
Legal Issue: Whether the state’s voter registration procedures violated the equal protection principles embedded in the Maryland Constitution and the right to vote under Article I.
Court's Decision: The court ruled that while Maryland's voter registration procedures were within the state's power to administer, they must comply with the fundamental right to vote guaranteed by the Maryland Constitution. The court found that overly burdensome registration rules could be challenged if they disproportionately impacted certain voters or were discriminatory in nature. As a result, election laws were reformed to ensure that voter registration practices did not unjustly deny citizens their right to vote.
3. State v. French (2006)
In this case, the issue revolved around voter eligibility under Article I, Section 1, particularly concerning the residency requirement to vote in Maryland.
Background: French was a resident of Maryland for several years but temporarily moved to another state for employment reasons. Upon returning to Maryland, he was told that he had not met the residency requirement to vote because he had been away from the state for several months.
Legal Issue: Whether the temporary absence from the state disqualified him from voting under Maryland’s residency requirement.
Court's Decision: The court ruled that the residency requirement under Article I was not meant to disqualify someone based on temporary relocation for employment purposes. It concluded that a person remains a resident of Maryland if they intend to return and make the state their home. French was allowed to vote in Maryland's elections, as the court held that the Constitution’s residency requirement must be interpreted flexibly, reflecting the state’s intent to allow citizens to vote as long as they maintain ties to the state.
4. Dixon v. State Election Board (1995)
This case concerned voter eligibility and the qualification of voters under Article I, Section 1 of the Maryland Constitution.
Background: Dixon challenged the state election board’s decision to reject his registration because he had not submitted proper identification, as required by a state law passed prior to the election.
Legal Issue: Whether requiring additional identification for voter registration infringed upon the right to vote guaranteed by Article I.
Court's Decision: The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the voter identification requirements were constitutional but must not impose an excessive burden on voters. The court emphasized that voter identification laws must be designed to safeguard against fraud but must also ensure that they do not act as a barrier to eligible voters. In this case, Dixon’s failure to submit identification did not invalidate his right to vote outright, and the court instructed the Election Board to provide more flexibility and options for eligible voters to meet the identification requirement.
5. McKiver v. State (2013)
This case centered on the issue of early voting and whether the early voting provisions in Maryland violated the right to vote guaranteed by the Maryland Constitution.
Background: McKiver argued that certain early voting provisions in Maryland were restrictive and did not ensure equal access to the polls for all eligible voters. Specifically, he contested the limited locations and hours for early voting, claiming they disproportionately impacted low-income and minority voters who had less flexibility.
Legal Issue: Whether the restrictions on early voting locations and hours violated the right to vote guaranteed under Article I.
Court's Decision: The court ruled in favor of the state, asserting that while Maryland must ensure equal access to voting, it also has the power to regulate early voting procedures. The court found that the state’s early voting policies were not unconstitutional, but it emphasized that any changes to voting hours or locations must be implemented with a view to expanding, rather than restricting, voter access. The court also recommended further reforms to ensure that early voting is accessible to all qualified voters.
Key Principles from the Cases
Voter Eligibility: Article I guarantees that every citizen who meets the qualifications set forth in the Maryland Constitution has the right to vote. However, specific legal cases have interpreted these qualifications, including issues related to felony disenfranchisement and residency.
Voting Rights and Disqualifications: Felony convictions (as discussed in Davis v. State) and other factors like temporary residency (State v. French) have been key areas of legal interpretation when determining voter eligibility under Article I.
Election Procedures: Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Elections have emphasized that voter registration and early voting procedures must ensure equal access to the ballot and should not impose undue burdens on voters, especially marginalized or disadvantaged groups.
Right to Vote as Fundamental: The courts have consistently recognized that the right to vote is a fundamental right under the Maryland Constitution, with limitations imposed only where explicitly authorized (such as disenfranchisement due to felony conviction), and voting laws must align with that right.
In conclusion, these cases show the evolving nature of voting rights under Article I of the Maryland Constitution and underscore the tension between maintaining orderly electoral procedures and ensuring that all eligible citizens can exercise their fundamental right to vote. The cases demonstrate that while Maryland has broad powers to regulate elections, these powers must always be exercised with respect to the constitutional right to vote.
RELATED Blog
comments