Try the new, improved Hartford Courant digital edition today
CT Now

Robocall incident should spur changes

In the weeks leading up to the Maryland gubernatorial election in 2006, the campaign of then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.commissioned and distributed "voter guides" which were, in fact, filled with misinformation. The leaflets falsely implied that Mr. Ehrlich and Republican Senate nominee Michael Steele were Democrats and that they were endorsed by popular Democratic leaders including Kweisi Mfume and Wayne Curry. Four years later, Mr. Ehrlich's campaign manager, Paul Schurick, commissioned robocalls on Election Day in 2010 in primarily African-American districts, informing voters that the Democrats had already won and that they should stay home.

It is impossible to know how many people were confused or discouraged from voting by these malicious acts, but criminal or civil action against political operatives who willfully deceive voters can go a long way toward making sure it won't happen again. Unfortunately, under Maryland law, doing so is presently very difficult. In fact, the 2006 leaflets may have been legal under state law, which only prohibits attempts to suppress voters, not influence their choice under false information.

The 2010 robocalls were a more clear-cut case of voter suppression, and Mr. Schurick became one of the first people to be convicted for deceptive elections practices. However, due to the broadness of the fraud statute, conviction was possible only because of the overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, with one internal memo describing the campaign's strategy of "promot[ing] confusion, emotionalism, and frustration among African-American Democrats."

Two steps can be taken in Maryland to ensure that elections in 2012 and beyond will be free from electoral vandalism. The first is a much-needed clarification of present election law, with specifically worded statutes to criminally prosecute deceptive election practices. Legislators likewise ought to provide for a private right of action, so that disenfranchised voters will have legal recourse even if state or federal authorities do not take proper action.

John Mumby, Bel Air

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • Free Julius Henson

    I fully concur in all of the points made in the recent opinion piece by Larry S. Gibson of the University of Maryland School of Law ("Henson shouldn't go to jail," June 16).

  • Gibson: Henson shouldn't go to jail

    Gibson: Henson shouldn't go to jail

    Law professor Larry Gibson argues that sentencing Julius Henson to jail will have a chilling effect on politics in Maryland, to the detriment of minority voters.

  • Was Henson's sentence too tough or Schurick's too light?

    Was Henson's sentence too tough or Schurick's too light?

    Our view: Jail time for Henson but not Schurick is an unfortunate disparity, but the latest robocall sentence is well within reason

  • Henson verdict a disappointment

    Henson verdict a disappointment

    Our view: The bad-acting campaign consultant was just as much to blame for the cynical 'relax' robocall as Paul Schurick was; he deserved the same treatment

  • Henson grabs the spotlight

    Henson grabs the spotlight

    Our view: If the campaign consultant has dirt on Democrats (or anyone else) we're all ears

  • Of Maryland laws and robocalls

    Here is a poetic take on the recent robocalls, the "Schurick Doctrine" and the prosecution of Paul Schurick and Julius Henson for their efforts on behalf of Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. that I've entitled, "As Schurick and Henson may (or may not) see it."

  • Robocall was shameful but not false

    Sen. Lisa Gladden and Del. Sandy Rosenberg, both Democrats, claim in a letter ("Free speech v. voter fraud," Dec. 18) responding to my op-ed ("Schurick's behavior wrong, but not criminal," Dec. 11) that the 2005 "Voter's Rights Protection Act" outlaws tactics intended to "influence a voter's decision...

  • Punishments to fit the politicians' crimes

    I enjoyed the letter "A punishment that fits the crime: Sentence Schurick to register African-American voters." Tailoring punishment to fit crimes is exactly what good judges do.