Dist. 17 Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Rockville) is raising concerns about the suggested text of a proposed Montgomery County ballot question, saying the question as written may violate a law she sponsored to require the use of “plain language.”

Question A would amend the Montgomery County charter to limit year-over-year operating budget increases to the regional rate of inflation unless all 11 members of the County Council vote to exceed the rate. Currently, only seven votes are needed to do the same.

Elections officials are reviewing 13,823 submitted petition signatures to determine if the citizen-led initiative has enough support to go before voters in the Nov. 3 general election. Maryland law allows up to 20 days for signature validation and counting.

Aug. 31 is the deadline for the State Board of Elections to prepare and certify content, including ballot questions, for the general election.

In a letter to the State Board of Elections on Thursday, Kagan said the language put forward by the Office of the County Attorney for Question A “does not appear to comply with SB29.” Kagan’s office provided the letter to Bethesda Today.

“As posted online, Question A is overly complex,” Kagan wrote. “Rather than clearly describing the policy change, the verbiage relies heavily on legal terminology, lengthy explanations of existing Charter provisions, and references to technical mechanisms.”

Senate Bill 29, which took effect June 1, requires questions on the ballot to be written in clear language that can be easily understood by voters.

The description of the proposed policy change should not contain legal jargon, double negatives, or passive voice. It also should not explain the legal mechanism behind the proposed change, the law states.

In her letter, Kagan specifically took issue with the county attorney’s proposed use of the phrase “percentage increase greater than the prior year’s annual average increase of the Consumer Price Index” and references to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

Those terms “create unnecessary confusion” and “are not appropriate for condensed ballot language intended for voter clarity,” Kagan wrote.

Reardon “Sully” Sullivan, the originator of the proposed charter amendment, and Mark Lautman, the chair of the ballot issue committee behind the proposal, each expressed similar concerns about the county attorney’s proposed language earlier this week.

Sullivan and Lautman say the question that appears on the ballot should specifically reference “spending” and “inflation.” The county attorney’s suggestion, Sullivan wrote in a Wednesday email to the office, “works to confuse the voters and obfuscate the intent of the ballot petition.”

In a separate email to the office on Wednesday, Lautman argued that “the language is confusing and contradicts the spirit of our referendum.”

In a Thursday phone interview with Bethesda Today, Kagan said she is not bothered by being on the same side as Sullivan, the past chair of the Montgomery County GOP and the Republican nominee for County Council District 1, and Lautman when it comes to this issue.

“Democrats and Republicans can both be for transparency and avoiding voter confusion,” Kagan said. “I hope the final language will be easy for all voters to understand.”

State referendum

Also on Thursday, Kagan sent a separate letter to the State Board of Elections with comments on the proposed language for Question 3, a statewide referendum initiated by the Maryland General Assembly through Senate Bill 933.

The measure would allow for temporary appointments when vacancies occur on the state’s Commission on Judicial Disabilities, which investigates complaints against Maryland judges and justices.

As posted on the State Board of Elections website, the proposed ballot question language says “the Commission Chair can temporarily fill an opening on the Commission with a former member.” That description is incomplete, Kagan argued in her letter.

According to Kagan, the bill passed by the legislature specifies that only former commission members who meet certain eligibility requirements can serve temporarily. Former or prospective members who were rejected by the Senate for permanent appointment to the commission are not eligible for temporary appointment, either.

“Although ballot language should be concise, it must accurately describe the substance,” Kagan wrote in the letter. “Omitting an important eligibility requirement leaves voters with incomplete information.”