Update: This proposal is now legislation. HB 979, introduced February 6, 2026 by Delegates Kevin Hornberger (R-Cecil County) and Vaughn Stewart (D-Montgomery County), would place this constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot. The bill has been referred to the House Rules and Executive Nominations Committee.
Policy Brief: Harmonizing Our Constitution
A Proposal to Align the Voting Standard for Calling a Constitutional Convention in Maryland
Executive Summary
The Maryland Constitution contains a critical inconsistency that acts as a powerful and undemocratic barrier to modernization. Under Article XIV, it is significantly harder for citizens to approve the calling of a constitutional convention than it is to approve any constitutional amendments, including those proposed by a convention. This is because calling a convention requires a majority of all voters participating in an election, while ratifying an amendment requires only a majority of those who vote on the specific question. This "silent veto" by voters who skip the question has prevented the convention referendum from succeeding even when it wins majority support. This brief recommends that the General Assembly pass legislation to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that aligns the voting standard for calling a convention with the standard used for all other constitutional votes, ensuring a more logical, consistent, and democratic process.
The Problem: An Undemocratic Hurdle to Reform
Every 20 years, Maryland voters are asked a simple question: "Shall there be a Convention to alter, amend, or repeal the Constitution of Maryland?" While this provides a regular opportunity for systemic review of our state's foundational document, the process is stymied by an unfair voting tabulation method.
Unlike any other issue on the ballot, a voter who casts a ballot for governor but skips the convention question is effectively counted as a "No" vote. This phenomenon, known as "voter fall-off," creates a nearly insurmountable hurdle.
The 2010 referendum is a perfect case study. The results were:
For a Convention: 897,239 votes
Against a Convention: 751,228 votes
Blank ballots on this question: 216,817
The measure won with 54.4% support among those who voted on it. However, because a total of 1,865,284 people cast ballots in the election, the 897,239 "For" votes represented only 48.1% of all voters. Despite a clear majority of engaged citizens voting in favor, the measure failed. This is not majority rule; it is a silent veto that stifles the potential for constitutional reform.
Background: The 'Double Majority' and Its Contradiction
Article XIV of the Maryland Constitution outlines two paths for amendment: legislative proposal (Section 1) and constitutional convention (Section 2). The contradiction lies in their different standards for voter approval.
Section 1 (Legislative Amendments): An amendment proposed by the General Assembly is ratified if "...a majority of the votes cast at said election on said amendment or amendments... were cast in favor thereof."
This is the standard, common-sense rule: a majority of people voting on the question decides the outcome.Section 2 (Calling a Convention): The question of calling a convention is decided "...if a majority of voters at such election shall vote for a Convention..."
This has been interpreted to require a majority of all individuals who show up to vote in that election, regardless of whether they vote on the convention question. This is a much higher bar.
Ironically, if a convention were successfully called, any amendments it produced would be ratified under Section 2's existing standard of 'a majority of the voters voting thereon' — a lower bar than calling the convention itself. HB 979 harmonizes both provisions, using 'votes cast on the question' as the standard throughout. This creates the absurd situation where the process to simply begin a conversation about reform is held to a higher standard than the process to enact its final recommendations.
Proposed Solution: A Simple, Common-Sense Amendment
To fix this inconsistency, the General Assembly should propose an amendment to Article XIV, Section 2, to harmonize its language with the rest of the article. The change is simple:
Current Text (Article XIV, Section 2):
“It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of voters at such election or elections shall vote for a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto.”
Proposed Text:
“It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide by Law for taking, at the general election to be held in the year nineteen hundred and seventy, and every twenty years thereafter, the sense of the People in regard to calling a Convention for altering this Constitution; and if a majority of THE VOTES CAST ON THE QUESTION OF CALLING A CONVENTION at such election or elections ARE IN FAVOR OF a Convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Law for the assembling of such convention, and for the election of Delegates thereto.”
This change ensures that the will of the voters who actively participate in the decision is what determines the outcome.
Argument for the Proposed Amendment
Upholds the Principle of Majority Rule: Democracy functions on the principle that the majority of those who express an opinion on a matter should prevail. The current system violates this by allowing non-participation to override the expressed will of the electorate.
Eliminates the 'Silent Veto': Voter fall-off is a reality in every election. Voters may skip questions due to lack of information or interest. Interpreting a blank vote as a "No" is an arbitrary and disenfranchising practice that gives disproportionate power to voter apathy.
Enables Modernization and Good Governance: Maryland’s constitution, written in 1867, has been amended many times. A convention allows for a holistic, systemic review that piecemeal amendments cannot achieve. The current high bar effectively locks this tool away, preventing Maryland from adapting its governing framework to 21st-century challenges.
Creates a Consistent and Logical Process: It is illogical to have two different voting standards for constitutional change within the same article. This amendment is a simple "housekeeping" measure that makes our constitution more coherent and consistent.
