Since 1794, the voters of Charm City have had the same political reality as

most: a four-year ritual of choosing the most qualified mayoral and City
Council candidates vying for their support, to serve a prescribed term
understood by those very voters to be of a certain length. The reality that if you
pick an official who does not live up to your expectations you would have to
live with that public servant representing your interests for a four-year period
has always been recognized and understood.
Most citizens would not expect their voter-approved contract to be breached
by these officials based on selfish ambitions, seeking to extend said term to
five years instead. But that is exactly what local and state officials have done in
Baltimore City, justifying such a move by highlighting low voter turnout and
discontent in past elections.
Yet, these officials, who are supposed to represent the interests of their
constituencies, recently approved adding an extra year to their 2011 voterapproved four-year term, without so much as a community hearing, meeting
or constituent-based input. In what can be seen only as an obvious snub to
area voters, the Baltimore City Council, led by Mayor Stephanie RawlingsBlake, voted to approve the state-led shift in the city's election cycle, electing
to have the odd-year election cycle aligned with the presidential elections of
2016.
Rather than listening to our recently formulated group of community, civil
rights and election protection organizations who lobbied for the change be
aligned with the state's gubernatorial elections like the rest of the state, yet
only after this particular term ends in 2015 the members of the Baltimore
City delegation in Annapolis chose to listen to the wants of the only supporter
present testifying on behalf of the presidential cycle: Mayor Rawlings-Blake's
administration. Members of the Baltimore Election Group were diligent in
their protests against such a measure, consistently presenting election data
that proved that moving Baltimore's election process with the rest of the

surrounding 23 Maryland counties made more fiscal and political sense than
did the city's proposal.
We presented factual evidence that of the past six gubernatorial and
presidential elections, the primaries in the gubernatorial election clearly have
higher turnout and more voter interest, as the primaries in Baltimore City
have long been seen as having the effect of a general elections based
on Democratic Party dominance. The data also showed that moving the
elections to conform with those of the rest of the state would solve the longterm political problem that has allowed local officials run for state offices, and
vice-versa, without being at risk of losing the seat they currently hold. We
showed that the lame duck period from April to December in a presidential
season for those who may lose proved worrisome to many not to mention
being a positive advantage to incumbents having challengers campaign during
the winter months.
Yet, even as the group highlighted negative after negative to the members of
the House Ways and Means Committee, along with the city delegation, the
members of the City Council had already introduced a local bill in January to
change our General Election cycle to be aligned with the state in moving the
city's primary to the presidential election cycle, even before the 188 members
of the Maryland General Assembly had a chance to consider the competing
bills before them. Thus, the newly elected members of this body, only weeks
into their four-year term, seemed to be looking at increasing that term by one
year without the approval of the same people who had so recently elected
them.
However, we will have the opportunity to stop these officials in their tracks
this fall, as this matter will be before us in the form of a ballot question (along
with the more polarizing issues of gay marriage and the Dream Act). Yet, this
issue transcends party affiliation, race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. For
when local voters begin realizing the bad precedent this would set, allowing

elected officials to increase their terms when they feel like it, without any
community support or insight, we believe that when they arrive in the voting
booths this November they will send a clear message that "five years is one
too many"!