Monthly Archives: August 2014

redistricting, Salisbury

Salisbury Political Shift

Salisbury

The New City Council Plans to Replace this Redistricting Plan Enacted by the Previous City Council

Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton spent much of his first term battling the five-member City Council. While Ireton wanted to pursue his reform agenda, a majority on the Council did its best to block him every step of the way. Indeed, they went so far as to amend the City Charter to transfer control of the City Attorney from the Mayor to the Council.

The 2013 city election and a new redistricting plan should change all that. In 2013, Mayor Ireton won a second term with 68% of the vote over right-wing blogger Joseph Albaro, Jr. Equally interesting, challenger Jake Day trounced incumbent City Council President Debbie Campbell with 71% of the vote, thus shifting the majority on the City Council away from Ireton’s opponents. Day is the new president of the City Council.

One of the orders of business for the reelected Mayor and changed City Council is to resolve the standoff over redistricting. During the past decade, Salisbury had two districts–one a black-majority district that elected a single councilmember and one a white-majority district that elected four councilmembers.

The old Council’s majority had enacted a proposal (shown in the top graphic) to redistrict such that Salisbury would retain two districts but the majority-minority district had two members while the white majority district had three. From their perspective, this plan had the major virtue of concentrating their opponents within the smaller majority-minority district. Both the ACLU and the Wicomico chapter of the NAACP objected to the redistricting plan.

Besides making it easier for Ireton’s opponents to win election from white-majority district, the plan has also allowed the Camden neighborhood within Salisbury to elect a disproportionate share of councilmembers. Not a problem unknown here in Montgomery County where Silver Spring/Takoma Park dominate three of the four at-large County Council seats.

The new redistricting plan never went into effect, though there is a dispute as to why according to delmarvanow:

The city can’t overhaul its districts alone. A 1987 federal consent order requires any substantive changes to be approved by a federal judge. . . .

Although the council formally voted on the plan at the time, City Attorney Mark Tilghman said the council never directed him to file court documents.

“I did not feel like I was authorized to proceed until this day, and I have been anxious to do that,” he said.

Ireton would have had nothing to do with the action, Mitchell said, because the Cohen-led council had changed the City Charter to transfer the attorney from under the mayor’s office to under the council’s control.

The new Council plans to adopt a new plan with five single-member districts (SMDs) that breaks Camden’s dominance on a more permanent basis. SMDs would eliminated the ability of a bloc vote to control the majority elected from the single multimember white-majority district. Put another way, it makes more likely that councilmembers reflecting a range of viewpoints will win election. The new plan will include two majority-minority districts.

But the real question is, now that Mayor Ireton has a more congenial City Council, what’s next for Salisbury?

 

Share
CCT, purple line

MCDOT Tries to Eliminate Grade Separated Crossing on the CCT

The Washington Area Bicyclists Association blog reports:

After years of public input and agreement on the design for the future Capital Crescent trail, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) just moved unilaterally to eliminate the long-promised grade-separated crossing of busy Jones Mill Rd.

The grade separation makes the trail safer, and safety is vital to ensuring this heavily travelled trail remains a viable transportation option. Through thousands of hours of meetings on the future of the Capital Crescent Trail, County officials have promised safe crossings of major roadways that don’t leave bicyclists competing with cars or pressing “Walk” buttons and waiting for minutes.

Good news, however. MCDOT has suspended its previous orders to MTA and is reviewing the situation. They now promise to consult the community in advance of a final decision.

This is part of a history of broken promises regarding the Capital Crescent Trail. For example, after repeated assurances that the Trail could be run through the same tunnel under the Air Rights Building as the Purple Line under Wisconsin despite outside claims to the contrary, that was deemed too expensive and removed from the current plan.

The County is now trying to persuade the owner of the building over the best location for the proposed Purple Line station to redevelop so that the station, and hopefully a different tunnel, could be built. The building’s owner, unsurprisingly, is holding out for an even better offer since they have the County over a barrel.

Share
marriage equality

So More on Hogan and Marriage Equality

Normally, I don’t like to multi-post on the same story on the same day unless there is breaking news but this story seems worth an exception. Early this morning, I posted a story stating that GOP Gov Candidate Larry Hogan had changed his position on marriage equality after the primary. It turns out that was incorrect: he opposed trying to overturn the will of the people.

However, there is really more to the story than that simple narrative that the Hogan campaign would like to propagate. Hogan has no clear public position on the core issue. In response to the Baltimore Sun, he refused to state whether he personally supports marriage equality legislation, sidestepping the question by neatly saying that the referendum decided the matter. Elsewhere, he has stated that he “was” a supporter of “traditional marriage” and supported civil unions for same-sex couples but also would not state how he voted in the referendum.

Politically sensible as I outlined earlier but not exactly a profile in courage–and there were Republicans willing to take a stand in favor of marriage equality in the legislature.

And it also obfuscates the well-known truth in the halls of Annapolis that many Republican legislators don’t give a whit whether same-sex couples can marry and that many who voted against it actually personally favored the legislation (and knew marriage equality was an inevitability) but feared their primary election constituency.

Though I welcome Hogan’s desire to place his focus elsewhere, the dissimulation by Republicans like Hogan who seek to be viable statewide on their personal beliefs is a bit wearying–and must be even more so for him as he will have to continue to adjust his position with rapidly changing public opinion. It also seems fair to ask how someone who refuses to say how he voted on a key issue is going to lead the State on others in the future.

Share
marriage equality

Error in Hogan Story

The previous story indicated that Hogan had changed his position on marriage equality after the primary based on recent stories in the press that indicated that Hogan’s position was new. RedMaryland kindly pointed out that I was wrong on this one. While Hogan certainly did not advertise his position, he took his position against fighting the law since it was approved by the people in the referendum before the Republican primary. I hate not getting it right as much as the next guy, so have changed the story to be more accurate.

Share
Governor, marriage equality

Hogan Evolves on Marriage Equality

Republican Gubernatorial Nominee Larry Hogan let it be known first to the Washington Post and then to News Channel 8 that he wants to take marriage equality off the table in this year’s election:

Hogan said on News Talk with Bruce DePuyt on News Channel 8 in response to a question about whether he voted for the state’s same-sex marriage law in a 2012 referendum on it that he was “originally for civil unions.”

“I was a supporter of traditional marriage,” he told DePuyt. “It’s an issue that I fully understand. The voters have made their decision. I support their decision and will uphold the law. I’ve evolved I guess on the issue.”

Hogan said marriage rights for same-sex couples, extending in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants and other social issues “are really decided in Maryland.”

“They have no part in this campaign whatsoever,” he said. “We’ve been completely focused on the issues that all Marylanders are focused on right now, and that’s economic issues.”

A good decision politically–not to mention morally. The social issues like marriage equality are dead losers for Republicans in Maryland. When the focus is on them, they don’t even get a chance to get off the ground. And opinions on marriage have continued to move rapidly in the two years since Marylanders approved it at the ballot box.

(Note: The previous version of this story indicated that Hogan had changed his position after the primary based on recent stories in the press that indicated that Hogan’s position was new. RedMaryland kindly pointed out that I was wrong on this one. While Hogan certainly did not advertise his position, he took his position against fighting the law before the Republican primary. I hate not getting it right as much as the next guy, so have changed the story to be more accurate.)

 

Share
Howard

Acid Test for GOP in Howard

Howard Districts

Howard County has been trending steadily more Democratic. Consider the following levels of support for Democratic presidential candidates:

1980: 40% (Anderson 7%)
1984: 42%
1988: 43%
1992: 45% (Perot 16%)
1996: 50% (Perot 6%)
2000: 52%
2004: 54%
2008: 60%
2012: 60%

As you can see, Howard has evolved into a solidly Democratic county in presidential elections. Now, look at the results for county executive and county council:

1982: Nichols (D). Council: 5-0 Democratic.
1986: Bobo (D) Council: 4-1 Democratic.
1990: Ecker (R). Council: 3-2 Democratic.
1994: Ecker (R) 64%. Council: 3-2 Republican.
1998: Robey (D) 55%. Council: 3-2 Democratic.
2002: Robey (D) 58%. Council: 3-2 Democratic.
2006: Ulman (D) 52%. Council 4-1 Democratic.
2010: Ulman (D) 63%. Council 4-1 Democratic.

As Howard began to suburbanize–Columbia first opened in 1967–the more conservative, regular Democrats slowly began to lose control to both Republicans and more liberal Democrats. Republican Charles Ecker defeated incumbent Democratic County Executive Liz Bobo in 1990. Republicans managed to capture the county council four years later in their banner year of 1994, though they lost it back to the Democrats in 1998.

Since their halcyon days after 1994, Republican strength has ebbed steadily. Democrats have held the county executive’s office since 1998 and now have a 4-1 majority on the council. Republicans lost one of their two remaining countywide offices in 2010 when Byron Macfarlane defeated Kay Hartleb for Register of Wills.

In further bad news for Republicans, their sole remaining countywide incumbent, Circuit Court Clerk Margaret Rappaport, stepped down in 2009 for health reasons. Her acting replacement, Democrat Wayne Robey, is unopposed for the job in 2014. No Republican has bothered to file for state’s attorney or register of wills this year.

Despite their erosion in support, Republicans have a very strong candidate for county executive this year in Allen Kittleman. A member of the Maryland Senate since 2004, he served on the Howard County Council from 1998 to 2004. Unlike many of his constituents, Kittleman grew up in Howard, attending the local public schools and the UMBC and UMD School of Law.

Most recently, Kittleman is best known for having to step down as Senate Minority Leader after breaking with his caucus to support marriage equality. An anti-death penalty former President of the Howard NAACP (correction–his father was the NAACP prez), he is not easily going to be stereotyped as a tea party Republican. More conservative on economic questions, Kittleman is wisely careful not to emphasize his party affiliation based on his webpage.

His Democratic opponent, Courtney Watson, hopes to continue the Democratic streak. Like Kittleman, she has deep experience and roots in the community. Watson has represented District 1 on the county council since 2006 and previously served on the Board of Education from 2002-6. She attended a local public high school and went to Howard Community and then Loyola, where she earned her B.A. and M.B.A.

Ironically, Watson is a recipient of the Robert Kittleman Award–named for the father of Allan Kittleman who served in the General Assembly representing Howard from 1983 through 2004.  (Gov. Ehrlich appointed Allan Kittleman to his seat in 2004.)

In short, this is a great race with two strong candidates. But if the Republicans cannot win with Kittleman–the strongest candidate they could have run by far–they’re just done in increasingly Democratic Howard County. We’ll see in November if Kittleman can overcome Watson’s own strengths and partisan advantage.

 

Share
Hawaii, senate

Hawaii Senate Primary

A real barn burner in Hawaii’s Senate primary! Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who was trounced in his primary, appointed Sen. Brian Schatz to a US Senate vacancy. However, Sen. Daniel Inouye reiterated shortly before his death that he wished to see Rep. Colleen Hanabusa succeed him and she challenged Schatz. President Obama endorsed Schatz for reelection.

Schatz now leads by 1635 votes with all results counted. However, two precincts with about 8000 registered voters in Hawaii County will vote late by mail due to the storms that hit Hawaii. But only 38.4% of registered voters cast ballots statewide. If turnout remains the same in these two precincts as statewide, that leaves just 3072 ballots.

Hanabusa would need to gain nearly 77% of these 3072 votes to win. It seems certain, however, that both camps will make a press for heavy turnout in these two precincts. Assuming all 8000 voted. Hanabusa would require 60% of ballots to tie Schatz. Still a tall order, as on the island of Hawaii, Schatz now leads 48.8% to 47.8%–similar to his statewide lead.

I don’t know these two precincts–they may radically different from other Hawaii precincts–but it looks as if it is Sen. Schatz’s nomination to lose at this point.

Share
transportation

Gas Tax No Silver Bullet

The Washington Post recently printed an editorial stressing the vital necessity of completing a contract to buy more cars for Metro, explaining that their purchase is vital to prevent massive overcrowding in 2020 and beyond. Yet, they also express concern that the cost may be beyond Maryland’s means:

The 220 new rail cars, with the infrastructure to support them, will cost nearly $1.5 billion over six years, on top of existing funding commitments for modernizing the system from Metro’s main local benefactors: the District, Virginia and Maryland. A particular question mark is Maryland, which, despite new gas tax revenue, looks to have over-promised for the above-ground Purple Line in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, the Red Line in Baltimore and an array of highway projects.

But despite these real cost issues, the Post has been pressing heavily for these exact transportation projects despite also editorializing about the high cost (see here, here, and here). And, as they point out, the recent hike in the gas tax in not nearly enough.

Gaining the full benefit from our past investments in public transit requires regular maintenance expenditures. Maintenance is not sexy compared to a new project. Lack of funding has forced Metro to defer substantial maintenance–a chicken coming home to roost in a variety of ways obvious to riders (see Washington Post articles here, here, here, and here).

Beyond maintenance, Metro also needs to invest in adding cars to maximize the investment costs already sunk and keep it an attractive option. Additionally, Metro also constantly faces the costs associated with upgrading technology–the switch from Farecards to SmartTrip will likely soon be followed methods that allow consumers to pay using their phone.

As Democratic Delegate Nominee Marc Korman (D-16) has emphasized in his campaign, Metro needs a dedicated funding source. We need to fund investment in Metro infrastructure maintenance and upgrades on a constant basis–not only when a crisis creates public demand to fix it.

Similarly, Maryland needs to plan how it’s going to fund planned  projects on a long-term basis. Beyond finding the money to build them, Maryland needs ongoing funding sources for the Purple Line and the (Baltimore) Red Line light rail projects.

Gov. Martin O’Malley and the General Assembly took the first bite in taking the politically courageous step of raising the gas tax–an unpopular but necessary and pro-environment step to address our State’s transportation needs. However, as the Post points out, it’s not enough. More serious global transportation budgeting is needed. It would force Maryland’s government to weigh its choices and thus make more intelligent ones.

Addressing transportation needs is critical to Maryland’s economic future. We need to plan for expenditures in a cohesive manner and also for the revenue stream not just to build but to maintain them. How our leaders plan to do this strikes me as a good question to ask candidates in this political season.

Share
Immigration

Dreamers Confront Rep. Steve King

The Washington Post has caught this video capturing Dreamers confronting Rep. King with the reality of his beliefs. He tells a young woman raised in the country–a graduate of Arizona State University–that she understands English well and then asks if she is a drug smuggler. A young man points out to Rep. King that the first soldier to die in Iraq was undocumented who replies that “he lied to get into the military.” Can you feel the empathy? But more to the point, they have a real exchange about the issue.

Share