Our Say: Early voting ballot item should be rejected

If Question 2 - legalizing slot machines in Maryland - were not on Tuesday's ballot, Question 1 would have gotten more attention. And we suspect that the more attention it gets, the fewer people will vote for it. It's potentially costly medicine for an ailment the state doesn't have, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If voters approve Question 1, the state constitution will be amended to allow the legislature to open the polls for voting for a maximum of 10 days during the two weeks before an election. Voters would be permitted to cast absentee ballots without citing any reasons. And they would be allowed to vote outside their election districts.

Sound familiar? It's what the legislature tried to enact, over Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr.'s veto, in 2006. The Maryland Court of Appeals tossed out that law, reminding the legislators that the state constitution sets a specific Election Day. So the new governor and the legislature are now asking for the state constitution to be amended.

Any interest we might have had in early voting evaporated after watching the legislature mess it up a few years ago. The plan it came up with was shoddy at best and partisan at worst. No one apparently checked with the owners of some locations that the law designated as early polling places. And the polling places, strange to say, seemed to be mainly in areas where a heavy Democratic turnout could be expected.

We are not eager to see the General Assembly try its hand at this again. There would most likely be another court battle, this one over the designation of early voting sites.

Unless the near-bankrupt state government discovers a pot of gold somewhere, the expense of keeping polls open for days on end will be imposed on local governments that right now can barely afford one Election Day.

And while we have seen no indication of widespread voter fraud in this state, it's reckless to invite it by allowing people to vote outside their districts - especially as long as the General Assembly refuses to make voters show photo IDs.

And what problem is this supposed to solve? There will most likely be a record turnout on Tuesday. Voting goes smoothly at the overwhelming majority of polling places, and if people genuinely can't make it to the polls on Election Day, absentee ballots are available.

We know that we're in a society with a mania for convenience, but is it too much to ask people to alter their schedules a little bit for one day every couple of years to exercise their right as American citizens - a right people in less fortunate parts of the world are willing to risk their lives for? And isn't it likely that, as the rituals of Election Day are diluted, interest and commitment will be diluted as well?

We don't see any benefits to Question 1 that compensate for the expense and risks. We urge a vote against it.