Maryland for Responsible Enforcement
| Formation | April 2009 |
|---|---|
| Headquarters | Annapolis, Maryland |
Petition Chairman | Daniel F. Zubairi |
| Justin Shuy | |
| Website | mdscamera.com |
Maryland For Responsible Enforcement (MRE) is a not-for-profit grassroots organization which is a bi-partisan collaboration of Marylanders opposed to the use of speed cameras. MRE's membership includes citizens and elected officials from around Maryland who believe that speed cameras raise important questions about safety, privacy, and taxation.[1]
Purpose and goals
MRE was formed in Annapolis, Maryland, in early April 2009 as a response to the passage of Maryland Senate Bill 277 which would "authorize in all counties and municipalities in the State and in specified highway work zones the use of speed monitoring systems to enforce specified highway speed laws under specified standards and procedures; limiting the operation of a speed monitoring system in a school zone; requiring that revenues from civil fines collected through use of a work zone speed control systems under the Act be distributed to a specified special fund to be used only for specified purposes; etc."[2]
As described on the MRE Facebook webpage, MRE describes its purpose as being a statewide group focused on bringing forth a Ballot Referendum in 2010 to ban speed cameras statewide. On April 4, 2009, Senate Bill 277 authorizing the use of speed cameras in school zones in every county in the state andin highway work zones on expressways, passed the Maryland State Senate and House of Delegates.[2] MRE tried to collect at least 53,000 signatures to force this legislation to a referendum but unfortunately fell short.[3][4]
Popular referendum effort
Spearheaded by founders Dan Zubairi and Justin Shuy, MRE launched their referendum effort on Tuesday, April 28, 2009. Following approval by Attorney General Douglas Gansler of petition format and language, the 24 county coordinators and 2,000 supporters launched an effort to collect the needed signatures to block Senate Bill 277 until the November 2010 gubernatorial election.
MRE failed to meet the petition deadlines: it had to acquire the required 21,000 valid signatures by May 31, 2009 at 11:59 p.m. (approximately 1% of the overall number of votes cast in the 2006 gubernatorial election) before it could proceed to the next petition deadline. By June 30, 2009 at 11:59 p.m., it had to have had collected at least 54,000 valid signatures (or 3% of the overall number of votes cast in the 2006 gubernatorial election). Petitioners face short deadlines, statewide geographic considerations, and stringent petition rules[5] which favor legislators over the populist approach.
MRE set a goal of 80,000 signatures in an attempt to assure it would have had valid ones to meet the requirements. Unfortunately, they did not occomplish their goal.
Support
State Senator Alex Mooney from Western Maryland is a charter member of the group. Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold says he will not seek speed cameras in his county. The Maryland Republican Party announced its support for the petition. On May 3, 2009 at its Spring Convention, the Maryland GOP's Executive Committee unanimously endorsed a move to join the existing petition effort to make the new law subject to a public vote.
The Baltimore County Republican Party is collecting signatures through its Door to Door Program. In addition, MRE Directors Dan Zubairi and Justin Shuy hope to form bi-partisan support from Democrat legislators who voted against the bill in the General Assembly and support from other Democratic elected officials opposed to speed cameras.
Similar speed camera referendum efforts
Four times in the United States, cameras have been rejected after municipal votes. In Peoria, Arizona voters were the first to reject cameras by a 2-1 margin in 1991. This was followed by a similar vote in Batavia, Illinois in 1992. Anchorage, Alaska rejected cameras in a 1997 referendum and Steubenville, Ohio did so in 2006. In 2002 the state of Hawaii experimented with photo radar vans but they were withdrawn months later due to public outcry.