What a Way to Announce for Delegate

Of all things to come out of MoCo’s raging transgender debate, we now have a campaign announcement for state delegate!

For those who have not visited it, I recommend trying out the Vigilance blog run by Teach the Facts.org. Teach the Facts advocates for a public schools curriculum that contains facts about birth control and sexual orientation, including open acknowledgement that homosexuality is not a choice or a mental illness.

The blog has been quite busy lately because of the ongoing attempt to overturn MoCo’s Transgender Anti-Discrimination law. One recent post attracted more than 80 heated comments about the conduct of both sides. A participant in the argument, former (and apparently future) District 18 Delegate candidate Dana Beyer, made this statement:

I can say that when elected I will represent all the people, and that includes those who don't want to even acknowledge my existence.

Now that sounds like a campaign announcement to me although it occurred in a debate forum swarmed by “shower nuts,” as Teach the Facts calls them. I don’t know how many of the shower nuts will vote for Dana, but I admire her tenacity in going after every vote!

This was also a great comeback line from Dana and I think I am going to try it out. You see, I have been having an off-and-on dispute with my neighbors over their howling dog. The next time I confront them, I will announce:

I can say that when elected I will represent all dogs in the district, and that includes big dogs, small dogs, yappy dogs, quiet dogs and even dumb, drooling dogs. And after I take office, you would be wise to seek my favor in dealings with Animal Control!

Errr, just one thing, Dana. Your use of the word "when" rather than "if" doesn't mean you're messing with those Diebold machines, right?

More on the Great Maryland Drivers License Feud

As David Lublin noted, Marc Fisher’s January 27 column carried news of alleged broken promises by the O’Malley administration over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. But this is merely the latest incident in an escalating, internal Democratic Party feud over the issue.

The drivers license issue has a bit of history worth recalling. Maryland is one of seven states (the others being Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington) that do not require license applicants to prove legal U.S. status. On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers, all of whom were admitted to the country legally, were able to obtain a combined 13 drivers licenses and 21 other ID cards and use them to board and commandeer airplanes. Several of these documents were obtained with fraudulent records. Among the hijackers was Hani Hanjour, who fraudulently obtained a Maryland ID card from the Motor Vehicle Administration and used it to pilot a plane into the Pentagon. Later, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission called for strong national standards applying to ID documents including drivers licenses and birth certificates to prevent terrorists from acquiring them. In 2005, the Congress passed the Real ID Act, which among other things required that states not issue licenses to individuals illegally present in the U.S. The original date established for compliance was 5/11/08 but that has since been pushed back to 2010.

It is commonly believed that the 9/11 Commission recommended denying drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. But as the commission’s successor organization, the 9/11 Public Disclosure Project, makes clear on its website, that is untrue. The project authors state:

Specifically, we did not make any recommendation about licenses for undocumented aliens. That issue did not arise in our investigation, as all hijackers entered the United States with documentation (often fraudulent) that appeared lawful to immigration inspectors. They were therefore “legal immigrants” at the time they received their driver’s licenses… Whether illegal aliens should be able to get driver’s licenses is a valid question for debate.

But President Bush and the Republican Congress explicitly set up Real ID requirements to block licenses for illegals anyway. Soon enough, the states began calculating the costs of bringing their license systems into compliance with Real ID requirements and began to balk. Maryland estimates its costs at $60-80 million. Seventeen states and counting have passed legislation and/or resolutions opposing Real ID, including Maryland. But the federal requirements remain and that is causing political turmoil.

Maryland Secretary of Transportation John Porcari originally proposed installing a two-tier license system to deal with Real ID. Legal residents could obtain Real ID-compliant licenses while illegal immigrants could obtain non-compliant licenses that still conferred in-state driving rights. But Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (District 18) rejected this approach, telling the Washington Post, “In this climate, that's a scarlet letter… Any policeman could call [federal] authorities.”

Delegate Gutierrez need not have worried about Porcari’s proposal because Governor O’Malley swiftly killed it. The Governor declared, “We should not allow Maryland to become an island virtually alone on the East Coast” by issuing drivers licenses to illegals. He called instead for one license program that was completely Real ID-compliant. O’Malley was no doubt paying heed to the painful experience of another blue-state governor who proposed, then backed down from, a plan to license illegals.

Gutierrez responded by accusing the Governor of “betrayal” and even told Post columnist Marc Fisher, “The governor did not keep his promise… This is what he promised me when he was begging for my vote for the slots referendum, which I gave him. And that is the last time I do that.” That should make for interesting reading for the many anti-slots voters in District 18.

This issue is turning into a significant internal feud within the Maryland Democratic Party. Each side has something important to lose.

On one side is the Democratic establishment. Over the long term, the state party benefits by strengthening its ties to immigrant voters, especially Latinos. These voters are often socially conservative and will require economic reasons to vote Democratic. It would be wise for politicians to remember that immigrants often belong to large, mixed households that include legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and citizens. Measures that target illegal immigrants tend to antagonize their entire families, and many members of these families are citizens who vote.

On the other side is the state’s Latino leadership. As mentioned above, Delegate Gutierrez has used terms like “scarlet letter” and “betrayal” in describing the administration’s policies. (One can only imagine what is being said in Spanish-language media.) This sort of hot rhetoric, flung about in the newspapers like searing frying pans, may very well earn the enmity of both the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation. And that may prevent the District 18 delegation from obtaining movement on its urgent transportation priorities. In fact, many of Delegate Gutierrez’s constituents are undoubtedly viewing the growing rift with unease, if not dismay.

And so the two sides have a strong incentive to compromise, perhaps using something resembling MDOT’s original proposal as a starting point. But neither side is showing much inclination at the moment. Happy memories of a new state-financed immigrant services center in Langley Park are rapidly fading. Should the feud escalate, it will create bad consequences for state Democrats, immigrants, and quite possibly, District 18 residents.

Should State Legislators Hand Over Their Salaries?

According to the Baltimore Sun, Senator Bryan W. Simonaire, Republican of Anne Arundel, is proposing to give the legislature the option to reduce its own pay. Currently, legislators’ pay is determined by a state commission, and the legislature can vote their recommendation up or down. Simonaire would like to allow the legislature to cut their own pay if the state’s finances suffer (as is currently happening). But is this such a good idea?

I’m not convinced that it is. I know quite a few politicians pretty well. They may be motivated by a lot of things, but pay is not one of them. After all, the typical state legislator makes just over $43,000 per year for a 90-day session and endless nights of putting up with crazed civic activists (like me). They would get a whole lot more money (and less aggravation) from continuous non-legislative employment, believe me. And the savings available from eliminating their salaries altogether amount to only $8 million out of a $15 billion general fund.

But the compensation question is an interesting one. In my industry – unionized construction – we have fixed scales for journey workers. But on certain jobs, we negotiate shared bonuses for the workers that are tied to targets. So if we meet our schedule dates, the workers would get a bonus. If we meet our safety goals, we would get another bonus. And if we keep absenteeism below a certain specified level, we’d be paid even more. Because the profitability of the contractors increases in line with our performance, they are more than happy to make these kinds of deals with us. In our case, bonus payments are made to groups of workers because construction is a team industry. So too is politics.

So why not have a bonus system for politicians? If all the legislators within a particular district get something important done for their constituents, let’s throw ‘em a bit of extra dough! So here’s my bonus schedule for my beloved District 18 delegation:

Install new sidewalk on west side of Connecticut Avenue in Kensington: $10,000 bonus

Bury power lines in Montgomery Hills: $20,000 bonus

End evil train horn noise in Kensington and Forest Glen: $30,000 bonus

Get special elections for legislative vacancies in MoCo: $40,000 bonus ($20,000 more for banning MCDCC members from appointing themselves)

Get funding for underground, deep-tunnel Purple Line: $50,000 bonus

Get new Metro entrance at Intersection of Death: $100,000 bonus plus Adam agrees to not send any email for a year.

So what are you waiting for? Come on guys!! Let’s get cracking!!!

The Real Vote in District 18

So the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee has picked the next delegate. Activists are already running wild, yelling, “It’s undemocratic! The people were not able to vote!”

Say what? Of course the people could vote. Right here, on the Maryland Politics Watch Internet poll. Hey, what the state constitution takes away, we give back to you. Maryland Politics Watch is the REAL home of democracy.

So what if the Internet poll was imperfect? So what if we failed to check for legal residency. Or District 18 residency. Or Planet Earth residency. It was a vote! And voting is our civic duty, right? You betcha hanging chads it is!

Here’s a secret: the Internet poll allowed multiple votes from the same computer. It wasn’t supposed to, but it did. How do I know this? I’m not telling. It’s not like I pushed the button more than once.

What was that you said? You only voted once? Heh heh.

I can just imagine the scenes at the competing campaign headquarters. Al Carr, yelling at the other Town of Kensington council members, “Keep pushing those buttons! We’ve gotta stay ahead!” And Hugh Bailey (Roz Pelles’s son) looming over a team of button pushers, bellowing, “We can take those guys! Click faster!” Maybe the reports of those people running up and down Connecticut Avenue looking for extra keyboards and mice are related to all this.

I’ll say one thing for our Internet poll: there were more votes on there than in a “real” District 18 election. And you say we can’t figure out how to boost voter turnout!

Well, the race is over now. The losing candidates are already filing appeals with the Board of Elections. But we here at Maryland Politics Watch are moving on. It’s time to set up a new Internet poll for 2010. It’s never too early to start voting, you know!

I’ll bet we get more Internet poll votes than the entire population of Pennsylvania.

Long Ago and Far Away

Many centuries ago, in the Kingdom of Mary-Land, a member of the Grand Council of Elders representing the kingdom’s Eighteenth Duchy passed away. The people were in mourning. But soon enough, the Lesser Council of Elders of the Barony of Montgomery met to select a replacement. After all, these decisions could not be made by the peasants, who were too uneducated, ill-fed and unwise to be trusted on matters such as these.

The Baroness of Montgomery, leader of the Lesser Council, convened the meeting at the council’s castle in the Principality of Kensington. After a long feast in the Royal Banquet Hall, the council proceeded to the Order of Business: selecting the next royal representative.

“Bring in the pretenders!” cried the Baroness to the page. Appearing before the royal court were Sir Kessler, Sir Cooper and the slightly wobbly Sir English.

“Sire, these gentlemen report to the council from the House of Blanc,” announced the page.

“The House of Blanc!” growled the Baroness. “But we have given them the last two seats on the Grand Council. They’re being a bit greedy, don’t you think?”

“But your highness,” protested Sir Kessler, “I have cleaned the Royal Stables for twenty years and if you select me, I will dredge the Royal Pond!”

“Silence!” yelled the Baroness. “We tolerate your possession of tongues so long as you use them only with permission. Guards, send them to the dungeon!”

Just then, the Royal Court heard a pounding at the doors. “Your majesty, I believe the peasants are trying to get in!” whispered the page.

The Baroness reached down on her plate and grabbed a crumb. “Here, give them a scrap of the Royal Meatloaf. That should hold them! Who’s next?”

“Your reverence, these are Sir Carr and Lady Pelles. They come to us from the House of Noir, which has not been awarded any seats in ages. Sir Carr has been attempting to install a sidewalk in the Principality of Kensington to protect the peasants on the street.”

“Interesting…” pondered the Baroness. “I have heard that many peasants have been run down by the wagons on Georgia Avenue. But this is none of our concern. We’ll just have to tell them to breed faster!”

“Very good, your highness. And Lady Pelles is also renowned throughout the land.”

“This is taking too long,” muttered the Baroness. “It is almost time for the Royal Back Massage and the Royal Bon Bon. Have them draw lots. Either of them will serve the interests of the empire well enough.”

BOOM! BOOM! “Sire!” screamed the page. “The peasants are about to break through the doors!”

“Oh rot!” sighed the Baroness. “Wheel out the Royal Telly into the courtyard and turn on America’s Top Model. That will placate them well enough!”

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.