From my understanding of H the state of Maryland has some authority with the BCPD, and H would divulge the rest of that authority to the city.

Thank you!

I like this one https://www.vote411.org/ballot. They also have candidate q&a

This is EXACTLY What I was looking for. Amazing resource with info even on the kind of arcane ballot questions. Thank you so much!!!

The three questions there is no wrong answer. 1 is just a name change, 3 makes it harder to request a jury trial for a civil lawsuit, 5 removes elections for the Orphan Court in Howard County only and changes the appeal process slightly.

H-Personally yes, the police department has been a state agency since the 19th century.

I - Personally I would vote to support as it makes it so the advisory board that oversees the IG cannot be an elected official, candidate, or lobbyist.

J - Personally yes, as it consolidates all bill paying into a single department.

K - Personally, no, if it was limited to the mayor and City Council's President I would vote yes, I don't like that it includes Comptroller.

Edit: I like Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/Maryland_2022_ballot_measures

I’m a lawyer in Baltimore that does Plaintiff personal injury cases. Question 3- raising the dollar amount to request a jury, is a VERY GOOD IDEA.

I’m a lawyer in Baltimore that does Plaintiff personal injury cases. Question 3- raising the dollar amount to request a jury, is a VERY GOOD IDEA. There are two levels of trial court in Maryland: District and Circuit Court. District court is faster and is a judge trial. Circuit takes way longer (like years as opposed to 6-12 months) Right now, if you sue for more than $15,000, the defendant can bump you from district to circuit.

State Farm uses this in EVERY case- if I have a client with like $10,000 in medical bills, I can’t sue for $15,000 because that cap is way too low. If I sue it for the jurisdictional limit of $30,000 for District court, they’ll move the case to Circuit which makes it way way more expensive and time consuming to litigate

Then I’m stuck doing a full blown jury trial for only $10k in medical bills. I might have to hire a medical expert to testify ($$$) and all of a sudden, the case is delayed, costs a lot more money, and makes you think twice about filing a medium-dollar case.

This would bump that number from $15,000 to $25,000, making all of this easier.

Real example: I just had a trial last month for an accident where the guy had about 8k in medical bills plus about a month missed from work. Sued for 30,000; it got bumped, and we just finally had the trial.

The accident happened in 2018.

We won (jury verdict was more than $15,000) which is fine. But we could have done that 3 years ago when if they hadn’t bumped us up to Circuit.

My reply got really long so I moved it to its own comment.

Thank you for the specifics. Could you play devil's advocate for a moment and tell us why anyone would vote against Question 3?

>K - Personally, no, if it was limited to the mayor and City Council's President I would vote yes, I don't like that it includes Comptroller.

Apparently, question K is being pushed by the Sinclair group that has been buying up all the local broadcasting stations, which feels rather insidious.

I always check with the league of women of voters guides:

https://www.lwvmd.org/2022_general_election_voters_guides

But yeah thanks for asking. This is a good post for me to refer to too.

Vote no on question K. Not because our politicians are great, not because bad people support it, but because it reduces voter choice and doesn't solve any problems.

Limiting terms might get Stokes and other do-nothing name recognition politicians out of office, but it will also limit the terms of people who do a good job representing their constituents and/or have a wealth of experience. Why shouldn't I be allowed to reelect someone I like for real reasons if I want to? Further, this will do nothing whatsoever to improve the quality of candidates that will replace the term limited ones. The developers and grifters funding the current asshole you want out will never run out of replacement assholes to fund. Real change requires a sustained political fight, and it still will with term limits.

Only a very small portion of voters participate in the primaries, where elections are decided in this one party town. Stokes won his primary by receiving just over 8k votes. If you want to get the dead weight out of office, do it by utilizing voter choice, not limiting it.

It’s difficult to think of one, since you get to pick your Court as a Plaintiff. (If you had a $3,000 claim and wanted a jury trial, knock yourself out!) But, if you were being sued and thought that you stood a better chance with a jury as opposed to a judge, then this would raise the bar for getting in front of a jury.

Keep in mind that this is just for Civil (not criminal) cases.

As long as we’re talking about something you have insurance for, (car insurance, homeowners, renters, business) I believe the minimum liability coverage on the state is 30k, so this would still keep you protected under your policy.

Baltimore police department isn't controlled by the city of Baltimore, it's controlled by the state, which is insane because, as it's written now, the Mayor and City Council can't compel BPD to do ANYTHING. This is an arcane portion of law left over from (I believe) the civil war era and was reaffirmed in the 60s or 70s. This referendum would transfer governance back to the mayor and city council where it belongs.

>Limiting terms might get Stokes and other do-nothing name recognition politicians out of office, but it will also limit the terms of people who do a good job representing their constituents and/or have a wealth of experience. Why shouldn't I be allowed to reelect someone I like for real reasons if I want to? Further, this will do nothing whatsoever to improve the quality of candidates that will replace the term limited ones. The developers and grifters funding the current asshole you want out will never run out of replacement assholes to fund. Real change requires a sustained political fight, and it still will with term limits.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. This was the hardest one for me to wrap my head around cause I can see some merits on both sides. It's never sat right with me the way politicians feel entitled to hold on to power indefinitely. But I take all of your points.

Agreed that there's merits both ways and it's not a clear answer. I was initially a "soft no" because I see it as a false solution to the real problem you describe, and moved to "firm no" when I began thinking of it as more undemocratic than the alternative. It wouldn't be the worst thing to pass, though, and I think it has a good chance based on general pessimism towards city government alone.

I'll play:

1. The right to a jury is one of our most cherished societal rights and already has many limitations on it.

2. District courts are already backed up; there won't be a significant decrease in time between initiation and verdict for many of the borderline cases. The overwhelming majority of cases settle regardless.

3. Plaintiff can already proceed with a 10-104 in cases under $30k and won't need to call an expert and incur the corresponding expenses.

Editing to add some more: this applies to more than motor torts. This would raise the threshold for all civil cases: this means that virtually no non-commercial landlord-tenant dispute can have a jury trial (few enough as it is at 15k); many non-commercial debt collection cannot have a jury trial; fewer contract disputes can have a jury trial.

It's great to have this conversation as a state but you have to think about more than what was presented above.

You are correct on all fronts- with some caveats.

In my experience, juries don’t respond as well to dropping a stack of medical records in front of them, and while 10-104 is still available, the impression is seriously muted as opposed to a judge, used to seeing and reviewing meds. You don’t need an expert but having one there makes a better impression.

District Courts, while seriously backed up after the pandemic, are still way faster than Circuit. And while the vast majority of cases settle, sometimes it takes a looming trial date to get the parties to talk.

The right to a jury is important, but so is the right to a remedy for harms done. And when insurance companies plead jury trials in bad faith as a delaying tactic, nobody’s rights are served.

Is it bad faith to exercise a right so important that it makes it into the Constitution three times? Yes, the insurance company calls the shots on litigation strategy but when the actual trial starts, the defendant is the one facing a jury of their peers, not State Farm.

Justice delayed is justice denied, sure, but it's a question of some months we're talking about here between district and circuit. Where are we to draw the line to say it is proper to abrogate the defendant's rights in the interest of swift resolution for the plaintiff?

I'm genuinely unsure about how I'll vote on this initiative. I appreciate your sharing from you perspective but there are other things to consider for people who do not have a business interest (or have an opposing business interest) in the matter.

This has long been my stance on term limits. It sounds good at first, but these limits really only serve those who benefit from a rotating cadre of inexperienced folks in office. This generally benefits those who can afford lobbyists or can fund their own candidates with special interest agendas (usually corporate).

I can’t think of many good reasons term limits support and can actually inhibit the democratic process; if we want an incompetent asshole out of office, we need to do a grassroots movement to get them voted out and ensure someone better is elected. I just don’t see a particularly strong benefit to such a rule.

Edit: it’s not a hill I’ll die on, and our world won’t end. I just see it as generally a negative outcome for regular folks and those, as you’ve said, with the experience to really competently do their job. Competent governance benefits the regular guy but can disadvantage corporations and that’s a good thing.