Jonah Patel
Maryland's 2024 Question 1 was a voter referendum that appeared on the ballot on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure asked voters whether they were for or against amending the state constitution to guarantee a right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's pregnancy. The referendum was approved with more than three times as many voters voting in favour of it than against it.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date | November 5, 2024 |
| Type | Voter referendum |
| Purpose | To establish a right to reproductive freedom in the Constitution of Maryland |
| Supporters | Freedom in Reproduction — Maryland, Katie O'Malley, Angela Alsobrooks, Common Cause Maryland, Pro-Choice Maryland |
| Opponents | Health Not Harm MD, Maryland Right to Life, Jeffrey Trimbath, Reproductive Trojan Horse |
| Result | Approved with 75% of the vote |
| Previous related event | Maryland voters approved Question 6 in 1992, upholding a state law to codify Roe v. Wade and guaranteeing the right to an abortion |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The right to reproductive freedom
The inclusion of reproductive freedom in the Maryland Constitution was driven by fears that the U.S. Supreme Court might overturn its ruling in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which protected a woman's right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution. The 2024 referendum built upon Maryland's previous support for reproductive rights, such as the 1992 approval of Question 6, which upheld the state law codifying Roe v. Wade.
While the 2024 referendum was overwhelmingly approved by Maryland voters, it did face opposition. Anti-abortion advocates argued that the absence of the word "abortion" in the amendment language was a loophole, and they raised concerns about parental consent for minors' medical procedures. However, supporters of the amendment refuted these claims, stating that it would only apply to issues like abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilisation.
In conclusion, the inclusion of reproductive freedom in the Maryland Constitution through the 2024 Question 1 referendum was a significant step towards protecting individuals' fundamental rights to make decisions regarding their pregnancy. This move was in line with efforts at both the state and national levels to safeguard reproductive rights and ensure that government interference in reproductive choices is limited.
Dividing Power: The Constitution's Two Key Methods
You may want to see also
Abortion access
Maryland's Question 1 on the ballot paper for the 2024 election was a referendum on whether to amend the state's constitution to include a right to reproductive freedom. While the word "abortion" did not appear on the ballot, the amendment would have enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution, making it harder for lawmakers to restrict access to abortions in the future.
Maryland already had some of the strongest abortion protections in the country, and abortion was legal in the state at the time of the vote. However, supporters of the amendment argued that, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, it was necessary to protect abortion rights at the state level. Maryland had seen an increase in patients travelling from states with abortion bans, and supporters of the amendment wanted to send a message about reproductive freedom.
Groups such as Freedom in Reproduction Maryland and the Women's Law Center of Maryland urged a "yes" vote, while opponents, including the Maryland Catholic Conference, argued that the amendment would undermine parental rights and divert attention and resources from broader efforts to promote women's wellbeing.
The referendum was approved by a large majority, with more than three times as many voters voting in favour as against.
Texas Constitution: Protection Against Wage Garnishment
You may want to see also
Legalising cannabis for over 21s
Maryland voted to legalise recreational cannabis, with adults over 21 allowed to possess, use, and grow small amounts of the drug. This legislation came into effect on July 1, 2023, and it is now legal for over-21s to possess up to two cannabis plants, which must be out of public view and secured so they are not accessible to under-21s.
The legalisation of cannabis for over-21s in Maryland is part of a wider trend in the United States, with 19 states having legalised cannabis for recreational use for individuals over 21. The federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits marijuana, but most states have legalised some form of medical marijuana, and an increasing number are legalising it for recreational use by adults.
The legalisation of cannabis in Maryland and elsewhere is often justified as a way to reduce the power of organised crime and the violence associated with the illegal drug industry. In Uruguay, the first country to regulate all aspects of the cannabis market, the government wanted to seize the market from criminals, not to encourage cannabis use.
However, the legalisation of cannabis is controversial, particularly regarding its impact on minors. In Maryland, possession and use by individuals under 21 are illegal and subject to civil penalties. In Uruguay, there was an increase in secondary school students' prevalence with the drug after its legalisation. Epidemiologists have found that cannabis dependency is three times more likely in under-18s than in those who start smoking marijuana at 19 or older. Studies have also shown that anxiety and depressive disorders have been the product of cannabis use and exposure among minors.
However, some argue that if opioids are acceptable to treat a minor's pain, then cannabis should be too, as it is less addictive and has fewer side effects. In addition, as cannabis consumption among minors has increased, the rate at which they consume alcohol and smoke cigarettes has decreased dramatically.
The Constitution: Oaths, Bible and Law
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$11.29 $19.99
Raising the threshold for civil jury trials
Maryland voters approved a constitutional amendment to raise the threshold for civil jury trials. The amendment increased the amount in controversy that entitles litigants to a jury trial from more than $15,000 to over $25,000. This change, which was approved by voters with 62% in favour and 38% against, marks the state's first increase to the jury trial threshold since 2010. The chief sponsor of the measure, Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher, argued that the threshold boost will enhance judicial efficiency by relieving circuit courts of holding jury trials for relatively small amounts.
However, opponents of the amendment argued that raising the jury trial threshold would be unfair to non-corporate defendants for whom a judgment over $15,000 could be financially devastating. Sen. Robert Cassilly, R-Harford, claimed that defendants of "modest means" would prefer to have "a jury of their peers" determine their liability, rather than have a single judge decide their financial fate. The proposed increase divided attorneys for plaintiffs and civil defendants.
The vote on the jury trial threshold amendment was held alongside another ballot question, Maryland Question 1, which sought to establish a right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution. This question generated significant debate, with supporters arguing that it would protect access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare procedures. Opponents, however, claimed that the absence of the word "abortion" in the amendment language created a legal loophole and expressed concerns about parental rights and the inclusion of minors in the amendment.
Maryland Question 1 ultimately passed with overwhelming support, marking the state's continued commitment to protecting reproductive rights. This question, along with the jury trial threshold amendment, highlighted the importance of ballot measures in shaping state-level policies and addressing issues of concern to Maryland voters.
Napoleon's Rise: Enforcing the Constitution of 1799
You may want to see also
Renaming state courts
Maryland and New York are the only two states that do not refer to their highest courts as the "Supreme Court." The ballot question proposed that the seven judges of the Court of Appeals be referredised as justices.
The ballot question regarding the renaming of state courts was approved by the legislature in 2021 and placed on the November 2022 ballot. The voters' decisions on constitutional amendments are final and cannot be vetoed by the governor.
When Does Contact Become Stalking?
You may want to see also
