Tag Archives: Ballot Questions

Nine Districts Appears Headed to the Ballot

By Adam Pagnucco.

Multiple sources confirm that Kevin Karpinski, counsel to the Montgomery County Board of Elections, told the board yesterday that the charter amendment petition to convert the Montgomery County Council to a nine district configuration has received enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. The threshold is 10,000 signatures or 20% of the registered voters of the county. Nine Districts for MoCo submitted 16,448 signatures on August 3.

Margaret Jurgensen, the county’s election director, told me, “Mr. Karpinski did confirm that it appears that the Petition has succeeded garnering the number of valid petitions.”

The board still needs to complete its verification process and release a formal determination, which should occur later in the week. Once it does so, the county attorney must draft language for the ballot. At that point, only one thing could stop the question from appearing on the ballot: litigation, which has happened before. In 2016, a group opposing Robin Ficker’s term limits petition tried to get it thrown out in court over signature issues but was unsuccessful. I have heard of no such entity willing to challenge Nine Districts’ signatures.

That means Nine Districts could be officially headed to the ballot within days.

Share

Why Republicans Want Nine Districts, Part One

By Adam Pagnucco.

In a prior column, I noted the participation of many county Republican Party leaders in the Nine Districts group. These leaders even went so far as to use the party’s official website to raise money for the Nine Districts campaign fund. Why is the GOP’s local leadership so interested in eliminating at-large county council seats and replacing them with nine districts?

The answer is simple: nine districts might be the only way they can get a Republican elected to the county council.

It’s important to remember that the council has not always been unanimously Democratic. District 1 (Bethesda-Chevy Chase-Potomac) elected two Republican council members: Betty Ann Krahnke (1990-2000) and Howard Denis (2000-2006). District 2 (Upcounty) was represented by Republican Nancy Dacek from 1990 through 2002. Those were the days when Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella represented most of MoCo – a much less partisan time. District 2, which represents much of Upcounty, is the most Republican-heavy council district in the county. Its current seat holder, Council Member Craig Rice, has won his last three general elections with 59% of the vote in 2010, 60% of the vote in 2014 and 71% of the vote in 2018. The shift of the GOP from being the party of Morella to the party of Donald Trump has brought hard times to local Republicans.

Nine districts could resuscitate the party. That’s because a change from five districts to nine districts could allow enough Republicans and independents to congregate into one district to make it competitive in a general election. That is clearly what the county’s Republican leadership is hoping for. But could it actually happen? Could dark blue MoCo – even the reddest one-ninth of it – ever elect a Republican again?

To test that hypothesis, I pulled precinct-level data from the 2018 general election. I used the following criteria to select precincts that would form the most Republican-intensive district possible in the county:

Lowest percentage of registered Democrats
Highest percentage of registered Republicans
Lowest percentage of actual voting Democrats
Highest percentage of actual voting Republicans
Lowest percentage of votes going to Democratic council at-large candidates
Highest percentage of votes going to Republican council at-large candidates

There were two additional requirements. First, the precincts had to be geographically contiguous. (No random splatters of territory like Maryland’s Third Congressional District!) And second, the precincts had to contain one-ninth of the county’s registered voters, which I used as a proxy for population.

In practice, this turned out to be pretty easy since 23 precincts met all six of the above criteria. Two more met five criteria, three more met four criteria and two more met two criteria. Two precincts met none of the criteria but they had to be included to make the district contiguous. A few others did well on qualifying criteria too but were either non-contiguous or created difficulty in keeping the district at the appropriate size. All of this reinforces a central fact: in MoCo, partisanship is heavily geographic.

And so here it is: 32 precincts containing 73,269 eligible voters as of the 2018 general election, almost exactly one-ninth of the total registered voters in the county. (Again, I’m using registered voters as an admittedly imperfect proxy for population.)

Let’s call this the Red District. Here is what it looks like on a map.

The Red District has the shape of a jagged “C” and hugs the western Potomac River, the Frederick County border and the Howard County border. Its largest communities are Clarksburg, Damascus, Poolesville and part of Potomac. It is not geographically compact, but it does have a community of interest because it includes the least dense, and most rural, parts of the county. Its shape was inevitable. These are the areas where Republicans are strongest and Democrats are weakest.

How would the Red District have voted in the 2018 general election? We will find out in Part Two.

Share

Nine Districts Might Have a Problem with Some Petition Signatures

By Adam Pagnucco.

A June opinion from the office of Maryland’s Attorney General indicates that the Nine Districts for MoCo group may have collected some electronic signatures in a manner that was inconsistent with state law and policy established by the State Board of Elections. Whether this impacts the group’s ability to qualify for the ballot remains to be seen.

Maryland law requires that both petition signers and petition circulators sign a ballot question or charter amendment petition. The signer and the circulator may be the same person. The circulator must sign and date an affidavit that states:

Under penalties of perjury, I swear (or affirm) that: (a) I was at least 18 years old when each signature was obtained; (b) the information given to the left identifying me is true and correct; (c) I personally observed each signer as he or she signed this page; and (d) to the best of my knowledge and belief: (i) all signatures on this page are genuine; and (ii) all signers are registered voters of Maryland.

The circulator must also provide his or her name, residence address and telephone number.

On April 22, the State Board of Elections established a temporary policy (SBE Policy 2020-01) allowing electronic signatures on petitions due to the COVID-19 crisis. The policy states: “For an electronic signature to be valid under this policy, in addition to meeting the requirements of Elec. Law § 1-101(y), the signature must reflect an affirmative action by the signer to type or electronically sign or affix the signer’s name on to the signature page.”

The key phrase here is “affirmative action.”

According to Assistant Attorney General Andrea W. Trento, who was asked to provide an opinion on Nine Districts’ system for gathering electronic signatures, the group’s website through June asked voters to “fill in [their] information by typing the info to populate the signature page… It then ‘asks if you want to accept,’ and if the voter does so, it ‘states that you successfully signed the petition.’… The signature and accompanying information are then populated both into the signature field and the circulator field. The voter does not see the circulator oath before signing, nor does the voter take any affirmative action to sign the circulator affidavit as distinct from the petition.”

Accordingly, Trento opined that “these features are clearly inconsistent with Maryland law” and “the format as described to me is not consistent with Policy 2020-01.” Trento’s opinion was shared with the Nine Districts group on June 8.

Does this mean that Nine Districts’ petition will be thrown out? Not necessarily. The Attorney General’s opinion states that the group “may have changed its web form” after discussions with the county board of elections. The group also gathered MANY physical signatures prior to the onset of COVID-19. But these are the kinds of technicalities that result in petitions being rejected. Even Robin Ficker, the undisputed master of charter amendment signature gathering, had a term limits petition thrown out in 2010. (Six years later, Ficker got term limits on the ballot and passed it with 70% of the vote.)

Trento’s opinion is reprinted below. (The home address for Nine Districts’ chairwoman has been redacted.)

Share

County Republican Leaders Helping Nine Districts

By Adam Pagnucco.

Seven members of the Montgomery County Republican Central Committee, the governing body of the MoCo GOP, have given the Nine Districts for MoCo group money, in-kind contributions or both. So have other leaders of the county Republican Party.

The Nine Districts campaign finance reports reveal the following transactions between GOP Central Committee Members and the organization.

County GOP Central Committee Members Who Gave Money

Greg Decker (Legislative District 39) made two monetary contributions of $100 each on 6/1/20 and 7/10/20.

Paul Foldi (Legislative District 16) contributed $100 on 2/5/20.

Lorraine Jaffe (At-Large) contributed $100 on 2/5/20.

Reardon Sullivan (Legislative District 15) contributed $200 on 6/6/20.

County GOP Central Committee Members Who Gave In-Kind Contributions

Martha Schaerr (Legislative District 19) made three in-kind contributions totaling $132.77 for an outdoor banner and printing petitions on 8/12/19 and 8/14/19.

Gail Weiss (Legislative District 16) made a $120 in-kind contribution for hats and caps on 1/15/20.

Reardon Sullivan (Legislative District 15) made a $20 in-kind contribution on 2/25/20 for “proportional use of PC video editing software.”

Ann Hingston (At-Large) made four in-kind contributions totaling $499.43 for office supplies, printed materials and U.S. Post Box rental.

Hingston also wrote this piece on the county Republicans’ website advocating for Nine Districts and asking for financial contributions to the group.

Other party leaders have helped Nine Districts. Sharon Bauer, president of the Montgomery County Federation of Republican Women, gave $50 to the group on 2/13/20. Ryan Gniadek, the contact for the Montgomery County Federation of Teenage Republicans, gave $15 to the group on 1/23/20. And Ed Amatetti, the Republican nominee for County Council District 2 in 2018, gave $25 to the group on 12/26/19. The checks are small but the dots to be connected are many.

Nine Districts is not a solely Republican group. Developers are paying the vast majority of its costs, county employee unions are providing thousands of dollars in in-kind support and lots of people beyond those groups support the concept. But the presence of this many Republican party officials among its supporters as well as the use of the county GOP’s website to raise money for Nine Districts is not a coincidence. Passing the 9 district charter amendment is a big priority for county Republicans.

And soon, I’ll explore exactly why that is.

Share

Nine Districts Supporters Speak

By Adam Pagnucco.

In prior posts, I have noted support of the Nine Districts charter amendment by Republicans, developers and unions. But a lot more people beyond those groups would like to have nine council districts and I recently asked them why. Here are a few comments from supporters I received with names removed to protect their identities. I am not saying that they are necessarily right, but in order to understand Nine Districts, you have to understand sentiments like these.

*****

Potomac resident: I support 9 Districts because I don’t feel like my area has adequate representation. I want my representative to live in my area and know the ins and outs of what we need and want. Community leaders should live in their community.

Germantown resident: Taxation without representation. Just like the British thought they were kind and benevolent rulers, the Takoma Park-heavy leadership is similarly clueless about what goes on far away in upcounty. You’ve written about how hard it is to beat incumbents in elections, and I don’t think we will get folks familiar with upcounty without a major structural change like Nine Districts. We can’t get a call back from the at-large members up here, let alone get them to truly understand our issues.

Boyds resident: I have been involved for several years in advocating for upcounty issues and we get lip service (usually no response), but when it comes to voting, at large members just vote with the down county members. So practically speaking down county has eight votes and upcounty has only one, Craig Rice. That’s why one to one is better – total and clear responsibility.

Bethesda resident: We live in a very diverse county. The current structure has ended up concentrating political power down county which results in issues of import to upcounty communities getting short shrift. The current structure has also resulted in a uniformity of political views among our leaders. Even if I tend to agree with the stances of the current leaders on most issues, a more diverse set of viewpoints will be better for our community.

Clarksburg resident: I support 9 districts because Clarksburg constantly gets abused due to lack of political representation. The planning board wants to create a loophole to eliminate home building moratoria so they can keep issuing building permits in Clarksburg regardless of how crowded the schools get.

Montgomery Village resident: I listened to council members that live in Silver Spring and Takoma Park say how much they understand upper county because they came up to rallies or for some other “visit.” I’ve lived in downtown Bethesda (the real one not North) for five years and now in Montgomery Village for four. Two different worlds. Even the produce section of the grocery stores are different. I’m tired of politicians that talk about diversity as their key issue but don’t actually talk about how they can improve opportunities through jobs and new business growth. We’re actively looking to leave the county after this week’s display at the council meeting and BOE.

Olney resident: My experience is that at-large council members are not accountable to anyone. In theory they are accountable to the voters but in practice they are controlled by those who contribute the most to their campaign funds.

North Potomac resident: I have written my at-large “representatives” on several occasions in recent months (along with other council members as well) and the at-large members don’t even bother to send me an acknowledgement of my email. I know some members do send acknowledgements because some have acknowledged emails. There is nothing so frustrating as not only having my concerns ignored, but so flagrantly ignored as not to even acknowledge an email. It’s incredibly arrogant. They clearly don’t represent me and don’t want to. And as a life-long registered Democrat they can’t claim I am not a “constituent.” And even my district Council member doesn’t respond substantively as I assume he has too many constituents to be able to engage with individual constituents.

Gaithersburg resident: I think I support the Nine Districts because it seems to be an improvement – although imperfect – over the present system of “representation.” As a resident of our precious Ag Reserve, I have seen this Council make incursions into the Reserve without (in my opinion) fully researching and considering the effects of their actions on the preservation of farmland and open spaces. Hopefully, the Nine District system of representation would provide a better system for us to make our concerns known. The “At Large” members owe their elections to the highly populated areas, and as such, they can easily discount our concerns. That said, it does depend on the conscientiousness of the particular At Large member. One At Large member did reach out to the upcounty, and met with us at the Damascus Library. I am open to being persuaded to retain the present system but presently am leaning to voting for the Nine District option.

Clarksburg resident: As others are saying – responsiveness and representation. The At-Large system without any balance of geographic residential location leaves hundreds of thousands under- or un-represented. The lone one or two council member(s) who needs multiple at-large members to make change happen is too often left alone on issues. In theory at-large means you have all four of them representing you; in reality, at least in upcounty, we often have none. Zero. And this lack of responsiveness and responsibility can be summarized in one word, which is broad enough for those familiar with recent county history: Clarksburg.

Share

Revealed! Funders of Nine Districts

By Adam Pagnucco.

Nine District for MoCo, the ballot question entity responsible for gathering signatures for a 9 district charter amendment, has filed a new campaign finance report listing its contributions and expenditures through August 2. The organization’s prior report, released in January, contained data for 7/24/19 through 1/8/20.

The information here is bound to shake MoCo’s political establishment to its core.

First, the overall data on contributions and expenditures.

Contributions
7/24/19-1/8/20: $1,244
1/9/20-8/2/20: $64,790
Total: $66,034

Expenditures
7/24/19-1/8/20: $438
1/9/20-8/2/20: $59,140
Total: $59,578

Here are the largest contributors to the group.

Charles Nulsen, Washington Property Company: $50,000
UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO: $10,000 (in-kind)
Bob Buchanan, Buchanan Partners: $5,000
Fraternal Order of Police: $5,000 (in-kind)
Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association PAC: $5,000 (in-kind)
Gingery Development Group: $5,000
Arlene Hillerson (listed as being in real estate): $2,000

The Town of Laytonsville also contributed $100.

Charlie Nulsen is the founder of Empower Montgomery. Bob Buchanan is the former chair of the county’s economic development corporation. Both are long-time regional developers.

The unions’ in-kind contributions came in the form of online advertising.

The leading recipient of money from the group is Rowland Strategies of Baltimore, which was paid $50,000 on June 9. The firm is headed by Jonathon Rowland, a national level strategist who ran Hoan Dang’s campaign for county council in 2018.

Nine Districts for MoCo is now revealed as an unholy alliance of developers and unions – two groups that often don’t see eye to eye. The unions are aggrieved at the council’s rejection of their collective bargaining agreements (among MANY other things). The developers have long complained about – in their view – the difficulty of doing business in MoCo. They are also no doubt upset about the recent imposition of temporary rent stabilization.

The real estate industry and labor both have substantial influence over county politics but don’t get everything they want – especially in these troubled times. If they have indeed formed an unholy alliance on anything, much less a ballot measure that would eviscerate the county council, this is a new day for MoCo.

Share

The MoCo Council Structure Should Not Be Changed

By Paul Bessel.

With due respect to the members of the MoCo Council, I believe they made a mistake when they voted to put on the ballot the issue of adding 2 District Council Members. We do not need more Council Members and the voters benefit greatly from the current structure. The item on the ballot by petition, to eliminate At Large Members and have 9 District Members, is even worse for our citizens.

The argument that we want to give voters choices is wrong. The vast majority of voters don’t care about the Council structure. They care what the Council does, not its structure.

The issue of Council structure has been studied in detail by 5 separate Charter Review Commissions and ALL recommended that there should continue to be 4 At Large and 5 District Members. That allows each county voter to vote for a majority of the Council Members and to turn to 5 different representatives when they wish.

Adding members to the Council will cost a lot of money: Council Member salaries, staff salaries, reconstruction of the Council building. What would be gained? Nothing. The 9 Council Members do all the work needed.

Eliminating At Large Members would be even worse. If a citizen lived in a district where her or his District Member didn’t care much about constituent service (it happens!) they would have no one to turn to, while now they have 4 others who represent them. Plus, having At Large Members helps to provide a possibly different view on all issues.

There is no need to tinker with the Council structure. There is no need to put any questions about this on the ballot. The current structure works well. Leave it alone.

Paul Bessel was Chair of the Charter Review Commission from 2015 thru 2018.

Share

Two Districts vs Nine Districts

By Adam Pagnucco.

Moments ago, the county council voted on whether to place three charter amendments on the ballot that would change the council’s structure.

An amendment authored by Council Member Evan Glass that would add two districts to the council’s current five districts and four at-large seats PASSED on an 8-1 vote. Council Member Andrew Friedson voted against it.

An amendment authored by Council Member Hans Riemer to add an elected council president was WITHDRAWN by its sponsor. Riemer recognized he did not have the votes.

An amendment authored by Council Member Nancy Navarro to create four residency districts for the four at-large members FAILED on a 4-5 vote. Those in favor included Navarro and Council Members Andrew Friedson, Sidney Katz and Craig Rice. Those against included Council Members Gabe Albornoz, Evan Glass, Tom Hucker, Will Jawando and Hans Riemer. The split here was district vs at-large members as all the at-large members voted no and every district member except Hucker voted yes.

As for the open meetings issue I raised this morning, council attorney Bob Drummer told the council that it was legal for them to add late items to a meeting agenda. In any event, the issue is moot because both late charter amendments did not pass.

And so if the nine district petition qualifies for the ballot, voters will decide whether to shift to an-all district system, add two district seats to the current system or vote against both and stay with the current system of five district seats and four at-large seats. Because at least one of these council structure questions will appear on the ballot along with two tax limit amendments already placed there, this November will see a hugely important election in MoCo.

Share

Council Drops Poison Pill on Nine Districts

By Adam Pagnucco.

In addition to placing at least one competing proposal on the ballot, the county council is about to adopt a tactic to defeat the proposed charter amendment for 9 districts that is sure to infuriate its supporters. The worst thing (or best thing, depending on your point of view) is that this tactic has a proven record of success.

Specifically, it relates to the exact language on 9 districts that will be placed on the ballot.

Maryland Election Law § 7-103 lays out the role of local governments in preparing ballot language. This morning, the county council will be considering this language for the ballot on the 9 districts amendment (providing that it has 10,000 valid signatures and actually qualifies).

Question D

Charter amendment by petition

County Council – Alter Council Composition to 9 Districts

Amend Sections 102 and 103 of the County Charter to:
— divide the County into 9, rather than the current 5, Council districts;
— elect all Councilmembers by district, rather than the current 5 by district and 4 at large; and
— reduce from 5 to 1 the number of Councilmembers each voter can vote for

FOR

AGAINST

Consider this. Every voter who looks at the ballot will be told that this charter amendment would reduce the number of council seats he or she may vote for from 5 to 1.

This is the exact same language that appeared on the ballot when a 9 district amendment was submitted to voters in 2004. That amendment was defeated on a 61-39% vote. Like 2020, 2004 was a presidential election year in which many – probably most – voters were interested in national politics and knew relatively little about the county.

I was one of those voters. I moved to the county in 2003 and 2004 was my first election here. At that point, I knew two things about MoCo. 1. It had a county executive named Doug Duncan who had appeared on TV during the hunt for the D.C. sniper. 2. There was a fight being waged over a big highway called the Intercounty Connector. (I checked to make sure its alignment was nowhere near my new house.) That was about it. So here I was in the voting booth trying to figure out what this 9 district question was. And I saw that it would reduce the number of council members I could vote for from 5 to 1. I thought that was a terrible idea. I like voting for elected officials so I voted NO. So did 61% of the electorate.

Supporters of 9 districts are going to cry foul but they have to acknowledge two things. 1. The language is indisputably accurate. 2. It has appeared on the ballot before so the council is following precedent.

Poison pills are hard to swallow. This pill could very well poison the electoral prospects of 9 districts.

Share

Nine Districts for MoCo Submits 16,448 Signatures

By Adam Pagnucco.

Nine Districts for MoCo, a group that seeks to replace the current county council structure of 5 districts seats and 4 at-large seats with 9 district seats, has submitted 16,448 signatures in support of their 9 district charter amendment. The county board of elections will now begin verifying signatures. The group needs 10,000 valid signatures to get its charter amendment on the ballot.

The group’s raw signature count is not that different from the raw counts submitted by Robin Ficker for his 2016 term limits amendment (more than 18,000) and his current anti-tax amendment (more than 16,000). Both of those amendments qualified for the ballot and the term limits amendment passed. Maryland’s petition signature requirements are tough and some petitions that might appear to qualify at first glance have been thrown out. (For example, Ficker’s term limits petition was blocked in 2010.)

Nine Districts’ petition cover sheet is reprinted below. The phone number and address of the group’s chair have been redacted to protect her privacy.

Share