The Maryland League of Conservation Voters has lost all credibility since allowing its “scorecard” to become nothing more than a partisan tool meant to make Democrats look good and Republicans look bad. Now, before you decide this is just the rhetoric of a Republican upset with the lower ratings Republicans get, read the reasons for my having come to that conclusion.
Each year various organizations publicize a rating for all the legislators based on votes they had taken the previous session. In an effort to inform the public about the voting record of legislators on the topic of the environment the Maryland League Of Conservation Voters publishes its own “scorecard”. Ostensibly, the score a legislator is given should somehow be related to whether the legislator made a good or bad vote on bills which effect the environment.
For the purposes of this blog I am not going to address the “scorecard” votes that should not be counted because they are arguably conflicts of interest for the League of Conservation Voters to be scoring legislators on, such as those bills that are meant to direct money to the League of Conservation voters, directly or indirectly, so that the League can then spend money in support of those legislators who voted to direct taxpayer dollars to their agency. Those conflicts will be discussed in a later blog.
This blog will instead examine the bills used by the Maryland League of Conservation Voters to establish the “scorecard” rating for State Legislators. Unfortunately, there is no effort to try to limit the bills being “scored”, to environmental issues.
For instance, three years ago, in the 2005 – 2006 “scorecard” the League rated legislators on whether they were good or bad environmentalist based on how they voted on the “early voting bill” (SB-478) and a second score was given on whether the legislators voted to over ride the Governor’s veto on the “early voting bill”. At that time, I had voted correctly, according to the league of conservation voters, on 5 of 7 votes being rated upon. I had a 60 % rating lifetime and was receiving a 71 % for the year. The League wrote the following about that, so called, ”environmental bill”: “SB 478 allows for limited early voting. Under this bill, registered voters will be able to vote in designated early voting centers prior to the election. This bill was vetoed by the governor.”
There was no requirement that the early voting take place in a wetland or in the critical areas, so I have no idea what early voting has to do with the environment or more importantly what early voting has to do with the predisposition of elected officials towards the environment. At the time I asked for anyone at the League of Conservation Voters to answer my questions as to what early voting possibly had to do with the environment. No one has ever gotten back to me with an answer. Why has no one ever tried to explain why votes on early voting were being counted on the environmental “scorecard” as pro environment votes? Simply because such action is indefensible.
I can only conclude that it is no accident that these two votes, which have nothing to do with the environment, were rated as pro environmental votes to make sure Republicans got at least two more bad votes on the environment than their Democratic counterparts. You don’t have to take my word on this, you can click onto the website, www.mdlcv.com and check the archive “scorecard” from 2005/2006.
This year, the scoring system failure was not as blatant as scoring legislators on bills that clearly have no relation to the environment. Instead, the approach is just a little more subtle, in how certain votes are scored by the League of Conservation Voters so as to help Democrats and hurt Republicans. I don’t know whether this is a new or old policy, and it really doesn’t matter because the effects are just as discriminatory.
While this year all the bills upon which legislators are being scored, at least deal with the environment, the League of Conservation Voters does something inexplicable that usually will help Democrats and hurt Republicans. The League of Conservation Voters is only counting the first vote on bills and not the later vote on the same bill, after amendments, which is passed and then sent to the governor for his signature, where it then becomes law. It would seem if your intent is tell the public where a legislator is on the environment it would be better to tell them where he or she ended up and not where they started out. It is much more likely that Democrats would vote for a bill that is full of what Republicans may consider to be excessive regulations or taxes when it is first introduced. It is usually after a public hearing and an opportunity to amend bills in committee and on the floor that Republicans would come on board and find that the bill, having gone through compromise, is now acceptable.
It would seem a more appropriate measure of the environmental inclination of legislators to count the vote they take when the bill is in its final form. Otherwise you end up with situations that are similar to that which I am in this Session. I missed three of the six votes with an excused absence because I had was in the hospital, thus, the League only counts three of the six bills I voted on. HB-295, which I voted “no” on March 28, 2009 was counted against me but I actually voted for the bill after it was amended and it later became law after I voted for it on April 8, 2009.
Despite myself and many other Republicans voting for the “scorecard” bill which passes the house and is signed into law, we are still recorded on the League of Conservation Voters “scorecard” as having voted against the bill. Two of the six votes appearing on the League’s “scorecard” are votes, which I voted “yes” on, and were bills that passed and became law. In addition to HB-295, there was HB-1569 which I received an excused from voting on because of illness on March 28, 2009. On April 10, 2009 the bill came back before the House and I voted for the bill, which passed the House and was eventually signed into law.
So, to recap, 6 bills on the scorecard, 2 of those bills, HB-315 and HB-1305, I receive an “E” on, which means excused absence and they are not counted for or against the legislator. Two bad bills I did vote against, HB-176 and SB-666. The last two bills, I voted for and they were signed into law. So out of the four votes that I was being graded on I voted for half of them. Two out of four would normally be a 50% rating, for some inexplicable reason, I asked and have not received an answer, the league of conservation voters ends up giving me a 0%.
Even after receiving the 0% this session I still have the 2nd highest lifetime score amongst Republicans on the eastern shore, the 6th highest lifetime vote amongst Republicans in the House of Delegates and the 7th highest lifetime score in the entire legislature amongst Republicans.
The problem is I do believe in a clean environment and believe we can work with homeowners, farmers, and business to achieve significant progress towards the goal of a cleaner, healthier environment. I also want to believe that organizations like the Maryland League of Conservation Voters are truly motivated by the same goal and that they can put partisanship aside in pursuit of that goal.
Readers of this Blog will know that when the Town of Elkton refused to do anything about the homeless individuals who had moved in under the Walter Baker Bridge on route 213 in downtown Elkton, I posted pictures of the pollution of the river the town was allowing to occur and I contacted the State of Maryland Authorities and eventually we were able, to have the area cleaned up and posted. You can see the photos by clicking on the “under the bridge” story.
Last year after a headline appeared in the local paper saying that the Bohemia river had been rated one of the most polluted in America, I said, “not on my watch” and set up a meeting at my local district office to address the matter. Representatives from DNR, MDE, various river watcher associations, citizens groups and I came up with a plan to attack the problem. The citizens followed through and last month we had the first meeting of the Bohemia River Association where over 60 people attended. Nowhere in the League of Conservation Voters “scorecard” will that effort or commitment show up. That is why it is important that care be taken by those organizations doing ”scoring” that they score legislators in such a way that they actually inform the public about the legislators true vote on bills important to the environment and that they not score legislators on bills that have nothing to do with what their organizations stand for, such as an environmental group that rates legislators on whether they vote to change the state voting laws and then double the injury by counting the same bill a second time when it comes to over riding the governor’s veto of the early voting bill.
The Maryland League of Conservation Voters are not the only group scoring legislators, the Maryland State Teacher’s Association (Soon to be renamed the Maryland State Education Association) also publish legislative scores, as do a variety of business and other special interest groups. I invite my readers to share with us any problems they see with the rating system used by any other group or organization.
Delegate, your cry of partisanship falls short. There are two republican board members of Maryland LCV in your very district. This is an organization that cares about the environment and about voting, not partisanship… why shouldn’t they consider legislation that allows more access to voting for conservationists?
If they choose to score a vote that shows environmental strength, before the measure is weakened or watered down by amendments, I believe that is their prerogative, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Your supposition that early voting would somehow result in more access to voting for conservationist comes without any statistical evidence to support it. In fact there is no evidence that there is any increase in voting when early voting is enacted, instead the same people just vote earlier. I think it is really stretching the point to say early voting has anything to do with the environment.
Your second argument supposes that somehow a later bill which is signed into law is always a watertered down version and not a better version. This is contrary to everything we are told about the legislative process. We are told that including the public in debate over the bills and going through a process of amending bills is a value added part of the process. Adopting your philosophy would amount to a tyranny of the majority.
Felix…Felix…Felix…First, being Republican on a Democrat dominated board doesn’t prevent the board from taking positions that hurt Republicans. Second, if the Board is going to rate based upon factors other than the environment, it should be honest about it. Early voting is a stretch, and few Republicans who are Conservationists could get a good score. If fact, a Republican with a perfect conservationist record may be scored lower that a democrat who votes for bigger government, expensive heath care, and funding groupes like ACORN.
good points. perhaps it is hard to read into the intent of my argument clearly, and for that i apologize.
If you argue that early voting increases access for all voters, then that would include conservation voters, which is part of LCV’s very name and mission. Should the League of Women Voters not engage in a voting issue, just because they happen to be women, even though voting is in their name?
To the second point, I am not arguing that every bill on final passage is watered down, only that LCV should feel free to choose between two different versions of a bill, and score the vote that shows the stronger conviction, whereas it might be easier to vote for something amended that makes less progress or change in the policy area. I believe LCV also scores committee votes for members on relevant committees, since these committees definitely shape the final legislation. Is this not fair game, since these are also recorded votes?
I also think it is fair to take issue with LCVs vote choices and methods, as you have, but their side of the story is still defensible and credible.
Felix, you are a cat alright…again the point is honesty. You cite the League of Women Voters. If you review the “Where We Stand” section of the League of Women Voters website, you will see that their political goals well beyond that of female voter recruitment. Its comprehensive policy manifesto includes positions supporting abortion, campaign finance restrictions, gun control, reduced defense spending, and prohibition of oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Taken point by point, it bears remarkable similarity to the Democratic Party platform of 2000. In Minnesota, when the recount began, the League of Women Voters and the Citizens for Election Integrity stood before members of the media and promised to protect the “integrity of the process.” They then remained silent. Why did they not sign on to the Coleman campaign’s efforts to examine wrongfully rejected absentee ballots?
This has been a long time socialist agenda where you infiltrate an organization and turn it against one party of the other. In many cases, the membership of the organization doesn’t know what is going on until it is too late. The real question is how can these “non-partisan,” tax exempt organizations escape the long arm of the IRS. Rather than endorse a specific politician, making them clearly partisan, the “score” them and distort their record. The come up with a “Comprehensive Policy Manifesto” that clearly favors one party over another, but they don’t endorse a specific candidate. To this I say “GARBAGE.” Make them all pay their fair share of the taxes. Like cereal or anything you buy in the store, require them to be honest in the advertisements. Don’t let them claim to be non-partisan. Then we can have a League of Republican Women Voters, League of Democrat Women Voters, etc.
The same thing goes for the League of Conservation Voters. If it smells, and scores, like a Democrat, then it must be a Democrat. Don’t claim to be non-partisan.
anyone who tosses in the word(s) socialist or fascist into an argument comes pretty close to Godwin’s law and misses the point, I think. If I trust the NRA to be for gun rights, then I should trust LCV for the environment, regardless of who they endorse. By your own argument, NRA is a Republican organization, but that is simply not true. They are public interest groups, who are concerned about their set of issues.
Btw, LCV endorses plenty of GOP folks at both the state and national levels, as does NRA with Dems. If we can remove the hyper-partisanship from the argument, then I think my earlier point stands, which is that an organization related to elections and voting should probably feel free to engage on voting policy. LWV or LCV or any other L_V group, it’s in the name. But feel free to debate that…
[...] he informs and entertains people like me – at the opposite end of the Eastern Shore. His latest post manages to show the tree hugging left for what it really is – a bunch of partisan hacks more [...]