The Limits of Labor

Ann Marimow is a good reporter and I respect her work. But in her Sunday Post article, “Union Influence Sways Montgomery Budget Talks,” I believe she overstates her case. Montgomery County labor has power, but that power has its limits.

This may seem a curious statement coming from me. After all, my now-notorious 2006 guest post in which I christened the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) the county’s 800-pound gorilla has contributed to the image of labor power in Montgomery. The story behind that long-ago essay is that I was running a petition drive at my precinct and witnessed the extraordinary attention given by voters to MCEA’s Apple Ballot. I then calculated the 90% win percentage earned by Apple Ballot candidates in the Democratic primary and concluded that MCEA had played an important role in the election. That essay was originally intended only for my own union people and a few friends but found its way onto the Internet through third parties as a guest blog. And so began my descent into online infamy, an unhappy event lamented by many who have been spoofed here. While the point of that original post may be true, it presents only one side of the story.

Consider the following facts in assessing the limits of public union power:

1. Public employees in Montgomery County are not uniformly better paid than in other jurisdictions. I compared wages and benefits across jurisdictions in a post last month and found no systemic advantage for workers in Montgomery. In fact, firefighters and teachers lagged many other nearby counties, many Montgomery workers are not eligible for a defined benefit pension and even teachers with Masters degrees cannot afford to buy the average county townhouse. Is this a result you would expect from “Big Labor?”

2. In my 800-pound gorilla post, I wrote:

With property tax growth slowing down, the next county council will face tough budgetary decisions. Public schools account for half of the county’s budget and would be an obvious location for cuts. But don’t expect any action there: the county’s politicians have learned that those who cross the Teachers Union once are unlikely to be given a second opportunity.

How wrong can a man be and still be allowed to blog? The fact is that County Executive Leggett has not recommended full funding for the public schools’ budget request in either of his first two years in office. Last year, the County Executive proposed $19.7 million less for the school budget than requested by the Superintendent. The County Council ultimately approved $6 million less than the school request. This year, the County Executive recommended $51 million less than the Superintendent’s request, of which $26 million has so far been restored by the County Council. The school unions have performed well in defending their budget but they are hardly untouchable.

3. SEIU Local 500 has so far been unsuccessful in persuading Montgomery College to terminate its “union avoidance” attorney. If the unions were truly all-powerful, the college’s actions would have been unthinkable.

4. Union-backed candidates do not automatically win. Many have noted the losses of school board candidate Alies Muskin and County Council candidate Nancy Navarro. But look back on 2006. Progressive Maryland President Elbridge James and teacher Melodye Berry were badly outraised and finished next-to-last in their delegate races despite being Apple-approved. MCEA could not save Ida Ruben from Jamie Raskin in the District 20 Senate race. And Apple Republican incumbents Howard Denis (County Council) and Jean Cryor (State Delegate) fell to Democratic challengers. Apparently George W. Bush had more sway with MoCo voters than did MCEA!

Pure union-only candidates struggle. Labor tends to do best when it backs candidates in concert with others. For example, a combination of union and civic support helped to elect County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich and resulted in the eviction of Mike Subin. The real genius of the county’s labor strategists has been to pick candidates who are strong on their own merits and (hopefully) agree on union priorities. But even union-supported candidates sometimes stray, as has Council Member Trachtenberg – further evidence of the limits of labor power.

I will bet that most of our readers are not union members. “Why should I care about this?” you ask. Montgomery has always been a “you-get-what-you-pay-for” county. Our citizens have been willing to pay higher taxes than in other jurisdictions in a belief that higher service quality would result. Many Montgomery residents are employees or contractors of the federal government and easily see the relationship between funding and performance. Sometimes residents make common cause with unions in seeking county funding, as PTA members occasionally do with MCEA. By pressing for good compensation and adequate budgets, the unions help the county maintain its service level and recruit superior talent. Without strong unions, Montgomery’s politics might resemble those of infighting, school-challenged, crony-infested Prince George’s, or perhaps developer-, business- and tax-activist-dominated Northern Virginia.


Look into the eyes of this woman and read her sign. Labor is at its best when it presents her message to both the politicians and the public at large. Labor has power. Labor has limits. But labor, and the rest of the county, can only succeed if our citizens agree with the woman above.

Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, which does not represent government employees in Maryland.

Putting a Gun to the Heads of Maryland’s Teachers (Updated)

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Senate President Mike Miller is threatening education and teachers’ pension funding in an effort to get the Maryland State Teachers Association to support slots. This proves Eric Luedtke’s worries about this issue correct.

According to the Sun:

“They've got to help us either get some type of revenue, either taxes or the video lottery terminals, so we can continue funding public education at the rate I want it funded,” Miller said. "There's nothing more I want than to fund public education, but the beneficiaries of public education have got to respond in kind.”

But there is more:

The Senate president has also told union leaders that their failure to back the measure could force the General Assembly to seek another funding source for teacher pensions, including asking counties and school boards to foot the bill, a move that would almost certainly force severe cuts on the local level.

I have disagreed with the Senate President on slots in the past. But even more than that, I disagree with his approach to the relationship of slots and education funding. A common-sense, pro-education approach to this issue is to say, “I’m committed to education, now let’s go find the money.” Instead, Mr. Miller seems to be saying, “I’m committed to slots, now let’s figure out how to pass them.” This is not the kind of pro-education behavior I expect from my party in Annapolis.

Slots are now being marketed as a magical solution to the state’s budget problems. Some politicians are now telling us that if we pass them, we can pay for education, repeal the computer tax and pay for virtually any other kind of program that we want. But in fact, as surrounding jurisdictions increase their gambling programs in a mad, dice-and-whiskey-fueled gaming arms race, our revenue take will be far from certain. The only certainty is that license-holding corporations will be enriched beyond their executives’ wildest dreams, including those that are now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

The Senate President is a recognized master of politics and has survived as long as he has by knowing the sentiments in his chamber better than anyone – ever. He is pressuring the teachers by threatening education funding and holding up their grievance arbitration bill because he knows that voters respect them. Apple Ballots with one-armed bandits on them are almost as valuable as penthouse comps. But there is a price to this tactic.

First, the teachers waged a relentless four-year campaign to get their pension benefits increased, a fight that ended in 2006. By threatening to subject those benefits to county financing, Mr. Miller is signaling his willingness to endanger the teachers’ top legislative achievement of the decade.

Second, he is pressuring the state organization’s board to make a decision without input from a closely-divided membership. This does not take into account the internal realities of a union, which is in fact a political organization. No political organization likes dealing with divisive issues – for example, look at the General Assembly’s contortions on gay marriage, illegal immigration, the death penalty and, of course, slots. As any political organization works it way through a tough issue, it needs time, delicate negotiations and ways to assuage those who come up short. Putting a gun to the heads of the leadership, as Mr. Miller is doing, may earn him a temporary victory but is sure to create fury in the ranks and a desire for revenge against the Senate President, his pro-slots colleagues and even some of the state union leaders themselves.

In Montgomery County, we call MCEA the 800-pound gorilla. Don’t make it angry, Mr. Miller, because this gorilla has a long memory.

Update: MSTA's board voted last night to support the slots referendum. The Post has the story here. MSTA President Clara Floyd released this statement:

Today the MSTA Board of Directors voted to support passage of the November slots referendum.

Thanks to Thornton funding, we are making clear progress in raising student achievement across the state. Our greatest moral responsibility is to continue this progress by ensuring that educators and schools have the resources they need to give every child access to great public schools.

The referendum establishes an Education Trust Fund and dedicates half of future proceeds to our public schools. It provides Maryland with an additional source of funding, beginning with licensing fees in early 2009.

Because of our state’s precarious fiscal outlook, if this referendum fails, students, teachers and support staff will be left with outdated facilities, larger classes, outdated textbooks and shortages of materials. School systems will be left with fewer resources to recruit and retain the best teachers and support staff.

Although this referendum is a necessary component to curing our state’s long-term fiscal woes, it is not sufficient. MSTA will continue to advocate strongly for other progressive and sustainable revenue alternatives to provide adequate funding for public education.

Despite the state board's endorsement, readers should not assume that all local affiliates will now do everything in their power to support slots. Judging from the controversial nature of the decision and, especially, the way in which it was made, some local affiliates are bound to work harder for the referendum than others.

Latest on County Council D4

Don Praisner will be endorsed by County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Members Marc Elrich, Phil Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg and Roger Berliner at his announcement on Monday. The Washington Post talked to Praisner and Leggett.

Steve Kanstoroom has been subpoenaed by the Montgomery County Planning Board to provide communications he has had with news organizations over the Sandy Spring road dispute.

No assumptions should be made at this point about MCEA's endorsement. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.

As of 4:40 pm today, Kanstoroom, Pat Ryan, Cary Lamari and Republican Mark Fennel have filed papers to run.

MCEA Begins Endorsement Process in County Council D4

The Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) is starting its endorsement process for the County Council District 4 Special Election.

Wednesday’s Gazette will contain the following ad:

MCEA Candidate Recommendation Process
County Council (District 4) Vacancy
Special Election

During the next week, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), an organization of over 11,000 education professionals in our community, will be conducting candidate interviews and reviewing qualifications in connection with its recommendation process for the upcoming Special Election to be held in conjunction with the vacancy for Montgomery County Council (District 4).

Formal announcement of the individual recommended by MCEA will occur in March 2008.

Candidates interested in seeking recommendation by MCEA should contact Jon Gerson at 301-294-6232 or email: jgerson@mcea.nea.org by March 3, 2008 to ensure full consideration by the organization.

Gerson, MCEA’s Director of Community Outreach, offered our readers the following description of their process:

MCEA conducts one of the most thorough candidate screening processes of any organization in the county. MCEA contacts all incumbents and all announced and rumored candidates for office. We also run ads in both major party county newsletters soliciting candidates to participate in our screening process (note: because the timeframe for the Council vacancy did not allow placement in the party newsletters, we are running a ¼ page color ad in the Olney/Burtonsville/Wheaton editions of this Wednesday’s Gazette). All candidates are asked to complete a detailed questionnaire. All candidates are invited to participate in a personal interview with a team of rank-and-file MCEA member-volunteers from the Political Action and Legislative Support (PALS) Committee. (note: in 2006, over 100 candidates for public office were interviewed.) Each candidate is asked a set of structured questions. The interviews are all taped. The PALS Committee then discusses the interviews, reviews the questionnaires, and makes a recommendation to the MCEA Board. A 58% vote by the PALS Committee is necessary for a recommendation. The Board then reviews the recommendations, considers the broader political contexts, and makes its own recommendations; again with a 58% majority requirement. Those recommendations then go to MCEA’s final decision-making body, the Representative Assembly. At the RA, typically more than 170 elected MCEA Reps from schools all across the county discuss and debate the candidates. Approval of final recommendations of candidates again requires a 58% majority vote.

Freak of the Week

Anyone who can prove the following statement wrong gets a case of Dogfish Head 90 IPA and a no-prize.

Never before in the history of Maryland have two incumbent Congressmen and a MoCo Apple Ballot school board candidate gone down in the same primary night. Go ahead, start doing the research to prove me wrong!

And here is the strangest question you will ever see on a political blog: what do MCEA-backed school board candidate Alies Muskin and my tailbone have in common? Answer: both of them were done in by an ice storm.

MCEA's Apple Ballot, the WMD of county politics, relies on mass volunteering for distribution. Back in 2006, the Teachers fielded at least six Apple Ballot ladies in shifts at my precinct. Yesterday, only one Apple Ballot lady showed up. She left when the flurries started at 11 and no one replaced her. The rain started falling around 2, and a couple hours later, a thin sheet of ice covered every hard surface. I found this out the hard way when I fell down my front steps, ba-BUMP ba-BUMP ba-BUMP. Thus the considerable sympathy in my bruised tailbone for Ms. Muskin's plight. (Worry not, D18 legislators: I can still handle a shovel.) Philip Kauffman and Tommy Le, each of whom had run for school board before, edged out Muskin probably on name recognition alone.

I tell you, people, you can't get election analysis like this on CNN!

A Note on Labor Endorsements in CD4

Here's a quick observation from a labor guy on union endorsements in the Wynn-Edwards race.

The labor movement has been unusually divided between the top two contenders in CD 4: Al Wynn, the incumbent and Donna Edwards, the returning challenger. Wynn's biggest labor endorsers are the MSTA/NEA funds (the state teachers), the Washington Metro AFL-CIO, the Maryland-DC AFL-CIO, SEIU Local 400 (Prince George's local schools employees), AFSCME Local 2250 (Prince George's government employees) and the Washington DC Building Trades. Edwards' endorsers include the national SEIU, the national UNITE-HERE, UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers) and Progressive Maryland. She has also earned important non-labor endorsements from NOW, the Sierra Club and Emily's List.

When labor unions endorse, they bring either money, people power or both. In the Wynn-Edwards race, both of the leading candidates have enough money to compete. And both of them already have lots of name recognition in the district. So the labor endorsements that will matter the most will come from unions that 1. have lots of members in the district, 2. can get their members to turn out, and 3. have volunteers that can handle other tasks on behalf of the campaigns, including communication with non-members.

On the Wynn side, the most meaningful endorsements come from the Teachers. Both MCEA and PGCEA use Apple Ballots in their campaigns. But there are real questions as to whether either Apple Ballot will be used for a federal race and whether either affiliate will truly work hard for Wynn. On the Edwards side, the most meaningful endorsements come from UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers), the national SEIU and especially Progressive Maryland. PM has a large email list and engages in plenty of door-to-door work. But it will have to be just as active in Prince George's as it usually is in Montgomery to maximize its impact for Edwards.

So my best guess is that if the Teachers go all-out for Wynn, he'll have the edge. If they don't, PM will give the edge to Donna Edwards. But labor support is only one small dimension in this race. The overriding factors will be the level of satisfaction with Wynn inside the district and the relative skill each side shows in getting turnout. And the minor candidates could drain a few votes from Edwards, though none has yet demonstrated real strength in the district.

Two other interesting facts stand out. First, the 7000-member UFCW Local 1994 (the MoCo government employees) has not endorsed either candidate. Second, it is extremely unusual for a local union (SEIU Local 400) to take an opposite position from its parent. I cannot recall this happening inside my union, where the international and the regional councils closely align. It is probably a sign of the unusual volatility and strong feelings in this particular race.

The Teachers vs. Neighborspac

Note: this post originally appeared on Just Up the Pike.

The reaction to my earlier guest blog (Teachers Union: the 800 lb. Gorilla of MoCo Politics) contained some agreement and some disagreement. Critics of my analysis question the relevance of the Apple Ballot, arguing that the county’s voters made their decisions on another basis, namely growth. I thought this comment was worthy of further examination.

Local politicians have two elementary tasks: A) develop and refine their message, and B) amplify it. Message content is the product of the politician’s beliefs and his or her opinion of the positions of the constituents. Message amplification is a logistical issue: the candidates need to spread their message to the greatest number of voters. In the 2006 primary election, amplification was a critical determinant of electoral success.

Message amplification is affected by the way in which voters obtain political information. “Passive consumption” involves television coverage, newspaper articles, campaign literature and advertisements. These sources are easily available, quickly consumed, and require no sacrifice or time adjustments by voters. “Active consumption” involves attendance at campaign events, writing letters and emails, and actual meetings with candidates and surrogates – sometimes at the voters’ initiative. These activities require considerably more time and effort for voters, and so they are far less frequently used than passive consumption.

In national races, passive consumption is often enough to allow voters to make relatively informed decisions. The current U.S. Senate race in Virginia is one example. Voters can read many newspaper articles and view frequent television coverage to form their opinions of George Allen and Jim Webb. They do not have to actually hear each candidate speak in person to learn their positions on, for example, the war in Iraq. Each candidate can additionally draw on a party apparatus and many surrogates to press his case for election.

In local races, passive consumption is less practical. Television coverage of the Montgomery County Executive race was scanty and perfunct. The print media was better, but Washington Post voters had to dig into the Metro section to read about the executive candidates. Television and print coverage of the county council and statehouse races was very sparse. The candidates’ literature and websites were hardly more informative. Every one of the Democratic candidates say that they support education, oppose traffic congestion, support diversity and will work on behalf of their constituents. No candidate proclaims their support for unfettered development. As a result, passive consumption – the preferred information receipt mechanism of most voters – is not sufficient to allow them to differentiate between local candidates. The sole useful source of passive consumption may be the Apple Ballot, which comes from a trusted source (the Teachers) and is delivered just outside the voting precinct.

As for active consumption, I practiced it during this election cycle. I met eleven candidates running for county office and almost every statehouse candidate in my district. I attended one debate, three campaign coffees, and several community events where candidates appeared. By September 12th, I felt I had learned enough to cast an informed vote. But how many voters actually apply this much energy to determining their choice in local races? A few thousand in the entire county? If this is the case, then where did the tens of thousands of votes necessary to elect winning at-large council candidates come from?

Faced with the limited usefulness of passive consumption and the infrequent practice of active consumption, the candidates must work very hard to reach out to voters. One aspect of this is fund-raising; an often-detested job that most candidates regard as a necessary evil. Another aspect is endorsements – especially from organizations that can deploy volunteers. Many candidates regard election-day volunteers as a more valuable resource than dollars since enthusiastic bodies are much more scarce than money. I personally witnessed a half-dozen candidates show up at my precinct to lobby last-minute voters. Two sent their wives.

The critical advantage of the Teachers Union in the 2006 Democratic primary relates to its epic ability to mobilize large numbers of election-day volunteers. I saw at least four carriers of the Teachers’ “Apple Ballot” at my voting precinct. This projects to over 800 “Apple” volunteers across the county if the union’s efforts were evenly spread. I have not heard of either Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (a group favoring development restrictions) or the Washington Post endorsement staff fielding a similar number of volunteers across the county. And of course, the Teachers’ mobilization capacity was substantially aided by the closing of the public schools on primary day. Distribution of the Apple Ballot may have been the most effective information consumption technique of the entire campaign, passive or active, by any organization or candidate.

The Apple volunteers were able to sway the opinions of many of the last-minute voters in my precinct by appealing to them to consider the opinions of “teachers” – not the “Teachers Union.” In my thirteen hours outside my precinct, I saw over a hundred voters read the Apple, occasionally while sitting on a bench outside the door and away from the electioneers, before heading into the voting building. The fact that the union’s endorsees won 27 of 30 contested races at the state and county levels testifies to the success of its efforts.

Four years ago, two of the Teachers’ endorsees were losing at-large candidates Blair Ewing and Marc Elrich. So far this year, none of the Teachers’ county-level endorsees have lost, including the phoenix-like Elrich. In fact, the Teachers’ at-large county council candidates (George Leventhal, Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg) finished first, second and third, while two incumbents the Teachers did not endorse, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin, finished fourth and fifth. Not being foolish, the Teachers declined to endorse the opponents of council members Phil Andrews (District 3) and Marilyn Praisner (District 4), each of whom was sure to crush their opposition.

As my critics argue, growth was certainly a big issue in this race. It had a significant impact on the County Executive contest, in which MCEA made no endorsement. And it was also a factor in the county council races, as any observer of one of the candidate debates would conclude. But compare the electoral record of the Teachers with that of Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (aka Neighborspac), a citizens organization arguing for limits on development. MCEA endorsed five candidates in contested county council primaries: Mike Knapp (District 2), Valerie Ervin (District 5), and Leventhal, Trachtenberg and Elrich (at-large). All of those candidates won. (The fate of Republican Howard Denis, who represents District 1 and was endorsed by both the Teachers and Neighborspac, will be decided in the general election.)

Neighborspac endorsed nine candidates in contested county primaries: Of those, six won. The group’s at-large candidates finished second, third, seventh and eleventh, while MCEA’s picks finished first, second and third. Neighborspac took more risks than the Teachers, choosing to oppose four incumbents, three of whom won despite the group’s opposition. (Subin, a target of both the Teachers and Neighborspac, was the only defeated incumbent.) MCEA was more conservative, choosing to endorse three rather than four at-large council candidates, leaving room for one of its non-endorsed incumbents to win. And while the Teachers clearly disliked Andrews and Praisner (criticizing them as “fiscal conservatives”), they did not support their opponents.

Neighborspac and MCEA faced off against each other on incumbent at-large council member and 2006 council president George Leventhal. Neighborspac criticized Leventhal for accepting 43% of his campaign contributions from developers, a charge the council member disputed. The group even depicted Leventhal as a puppet dancing on developer-controlled strings in its infamous “County Council Can-Can” internet animation.

The Teachers rallied to Leventhal’s defense. In endorsing him, MCEA wrote, “He championed the ‘Montgomery Cares’ program, which makes health care accessible for poor, uninsured county residents. George is seen as one of the more reliable pro-labor members of the council, consistently supporting negotiated contracts and the revenue proposals necessary to fund them.”

MCEA won this clash as Leventhal finished first in the at-large race. Additionally, MCEA endorsee and incumbent Mike Knapp (District 2) defeated Neighborspac endorsee and challenger Sharon Dooley by nearly 30 points. If growth was the dominant issue in the election and Neighborspac the most influential group, how can the victories of Leventhal and Knapp be explained? Overall, MCEA’s 5-0 record compares favorably to Neighborspac’s 6-3 record.

Neighborspac has two of the three elements required for a successful citizens’ pressure group: a research-backed policy agenda and political allies. It lacks the third element: a large number of volunteers, particularly election-day volunteers. The group should consider developing an election-day “Neighbors Ballot,” assuming it can round up 800+ volunteers to distribute it. Until Neighborspac assembles this kind of volunteer network, it will not match the power of the Teachers Union. Still, with a council lineup including at least five endorsees in addition to new County Executive Ike Leggett, Neighborpac is poised for success in obtaining at least some of its goals.

The Teachers, with a so-far perfect electoral record in this year’s county council contests, a professional and experienced leadership, and an army of election-day volunteers, should score many of their legislative wins by heftier margins than a mere five votes. Their power will soon be put to the test as their current contract expires next summer.

The 800 lb Gorilla of MoCo Politics

The mainstream media and the blogs are characterizing the 2006 Democratic primary in Maryland’s Montgomery County as the year that voters turned against growth. After all, many of the county-level winners – especially Ike Leggett, Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg and Valerie Ervin – ran on slow (or slower) growth platforms. So-called pro-growth candidates like Steve Silverman did not do as well. There is some truth to this story. However, to understand the results completely, we must realize that 2006 is the year the Teachers Union became the 800 pound gorilla of Montgomery County politics.

I first realized this while I was working at the polls on primary day. I spent all day at my precinct circulating a petition to build an east-side Metro entrance at Georgia and Forest Glen. I talked to all the political volunteers who showed up. Many candidates sent volunteers: county executive candidates Silverman and Leggett, county council candidates Ervin and Hans Riemer, and six of the eight District 18 state delegate candidates. Many candidates also showed up in person for parts of the day. The volunteers behaved pretty much the same way: chasing voters and giving them their candidates’ literature. Some voters took it while others didn’t. In many cases, the volunteers seemed to neutralize each other.

However, the candidates were not the only ones who sent volunteers. For almost the entire day, volunteers with the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) were present at the precinct. These volunteers distributed the MCEA's “Apple Ballot” – a district-customized endorsement list appearing on a red, apple-shaped handout. The MCEA volunteers did not tell voters that the Apple Ballot candidates were endorsed by the Teachers Union. Instead, they asked them, “Would you like to know who teachers are voting for?” The majority of the voters said yes, took the ballot, and read it before entering the booth. The fact that the public schools were closed on primary day no doubt helped the MCEA field an army of these volunteers across the county.

Many voters had pre-conceived opinions about some of the top-ticket races, especially Cardin-Mfume for U.S. Senate and Leggett-Silverman for County Executive (both races in which the Teachers made no endorsements). However, most had no opinion on the down-ticket races such as county council, state legislature and school board. That is where the Apple Ballot made the biggest difference. After all, who wants to vote against teachers?

The MCEA endorsed 41 county, statehouse and school board candidates. Of those candidates, 30 had contested races. Apple Ballot candidates won 27 races and lost 3. That’s an astounding 90% success rate. The Teachers had decisive impacts on the following races:

At-Large County Council
Montgomery County has four at-large county council seats, and all were up for election. Three incumbents were running: George Leventhal, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin. Ten challengers were also running, of whom the strongest were Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg. Conventional wisdom would dictate that the three incumbents would cruise to victory as the ten challengers diluted each other’s votes. But the Teachers had other ideas.

MCEA was upset that Floreen and Subin had supported delaying a 2003 cost-of-living increase that was due to teachers under their contract because of budget problems. As a result, Leventhal and challengers Elrich and Trachtenberg made the Apple Ballot, while incumbents Floreen and Subin were excluded. The Apple candidates won the top three slots, while Floreen earned the fourth seat and Subin lost. Subin’s loss was particularly notable because he was a 20-year council veteran and the long-time head of the council’s education committee.

District 5 County Council
Two candidates were running for this Silver Spring-Takoma Park-Wheaton-Kensington seat: school board member and council staffer Valerie Ervin, and Rock the Vote political director Hans Riemer. Ervin had the endorsements of most Montgomery County organizations and the advantages of council connections and a long residency. Riemer outraised Ervin $118,000 to $57, 000 – far outpacing Ervin in individual contributions – and knocked on at least three times as many doors. Most bloggers were calling this a close race. But the Apple was telling voters to support Ervin.

At my precinct, Riemer’s volunteers were present all day while Ervin’s came and went. Riemer’s people thought they had the field to themselves, but I told them, “You’re not competing with the Ervin people. You’re competing with those ladies with the apples.” The power of the Apple prevailed and Ervin blew out Riemer 62%-38%.

District 18 State Legislature
One of the three state delegate seats opened up when the incumbent state senator retired and one of the three incumbent delegates moved up to run for senate. The resulting open delegate seat attracted six challengers in addition to the two incumbents who were running for re-election. The field was deep: all six were solid candidates and had pockets of support in the district.

The two incumbents were Jane Lawton and Ana Gutierrez, who ran on a slate with the uncontested state senate candidate. Lawton worked hard, visited the neighborhoods, appeared at dozens of events and finished first with 20% of the vote. Gutierrez’s efforts focused almost solely on Spanish-language media, but that plus her slate support and incumbency earned her second place with 16% of the vote. And of course, both were apple-approved.

That left the third and final slot, and the two strongest contenders were young, aggressive lawyers Dan Farrington and Jeff Waldstreicher. At first glance, Farrington appeared to hold most of the advantages. Sometimes compared to Bill Clinton, Farrington surpassed Waldstreicher in public speaking and one-on-one contact and earned the Washington Post and Gazette endorsements (neither of which backed Waldstreicher). And while both candidates raised slightly more than $100,000, about 90% of Waldstreicher’s money came from himself and his family while Farrington had more than 450 contributors. One advantage Farrington did not possess was work ethic; both candidates worked extremely hard. Waldstreicher’s pesky, hustling style matched Farrington’s omnipresence and the two blanketed the district.

But Waldstreicher was the Apple candidate and let everyone know it. Every one of his literature pieces showed the apple, and he usually started off his voter contacts saying he was “teacher-endorsed.” Visitors to his website even found a giant red apple flying across the screen before seeing the candidate’s picture! Waldstreicher’s apple-carriers earned him a 392-vote victory for the final delegate seat (pending provisional ballot counting).

As for the school board, apple-endorsed Shirley Brandman won 59% of the vote in a 5-way contest for the at-large seat. And apple-endorsed Nancy Navarro won 57% of the vote in a 3-way race for the District 5 seat. If those winning percentages resemble each other, it’s probably not a coincidence.

Of course, each of these races involved other factors besides the Teachers. Voters were clearly tired of development, and that favored Elrich and Trachtenberg. Ervin’s supporters consistently criticized Riemer for his two-year county residency even as they were privately surprised by his fund-raising and hyperactive door-knocking. And the county’s widespread voting machine meltdown may have affected the District 18 statehouse race. But the MCEA’s ballot was the common thread in all these contests. I personally witnessed over a hundred voters reading the Apple while turning away candidate-specific literature from the other volunteers.

So what does the Teachers’ emergence as Montgomery County’s dominant political force mean for the future? With property tax growth slowing down, the next county council will face tough budgetary decisions. Public schools account for half of the county’s budget and would be an obvious location for cuts. But don’t expect any action there: the county’s politicians have learned that those who cross the Teachers Union once are unlikely to be given a second opportunity.