On Reforming the Process for Filling Vacancies in the General Assembly

In a post from just over a year ago, I pointed out that the obscure Democratic Central Committee was a rather powerful group of people. Recently, the Montgomery County Central Committee selected a new senator in District 39 and two new delegates in Districts 16 and 39, and there has been a lot of buzz surrounding the process for filling vacancies for the General Assembly. Some are outraged at the process and the decisions and calling for special elections to fill vacancies.

A special election would be a good reform if it were implemented sensibly. Appointments made by the Central Committee should only last until the next scheduled regular general election for either the General Assembly or for Congress. Under this scenario, the recent spate of appointments made by the Central Committee would only last until 2008 instead of a full three years.

Holding special elections immediately would be a mistake. As I outlined awhile back, participation in the Democratic primary--the key election in most races in Montgomery County--is only around 20 percent of the electorate even in years, like 2002, where interest in General Assembly races is relatively high. It would be much lower if only one state legislative race were on the ballot so the quality of the democracy touted by advocates of special elections would be relatively low.

Moreover, the County Board of Elections would somehow have to find a way to staff polling places for first the primary and then the general election--a very tough task even in regular election years. It would also be expensive to hold these special elections. If a delegate won election to the Senate, the Board would even have to go through the whole cycle twice with two sets of low turnout special primary and general elections.

Having the special election in conjunction with the presidential election would not eliminate appointed senators and delegates but would at least cut down on their length of service as appointees and allow for more immediate involvement by voters. Moreover, these special elections would probably have even higher turnout than the regular elections for the General Assembly as turnout in presidential election years in even higher.

The Central Committee should also work on reforming the process of selecting appointed members of the General Assembly. The meetings should surely be held in halls big enough to accommodate the candidate, their supporters, and anyone who wishes to watch. The interview should also probably go beyond opening and closing statements and include questions from members of the Central Committee.

Other aspects of the process should also be discussed. Should members of the Central Committee be able to vote for themselves or participate on the Committee while they are a candidate for an appointment? One tends to think not except that this has been part of the process for a long time in Maryland. Kirill Reznick is hardly the first member of the Central Committee to cast a vote for himself. Nevertheless, it seems time for a debate about whether we should allow this to continue.

This sort of process is (regrettably?) common in Maryland. Treasurer Nancy Kopp presumably had the right to vote on her election to that office since she was a delegate when first elected. Members of the General Assembly are also often chosen as judges. In some cases, these are real bloopers (google Judge Palumbo to see what I mean). However, Kopp was an excellent choice as treasurer. I can easily imagine Jeff Waldstreicher being a judge someday. His service as a delegate in District 18 should not disqualify him.

Serious consideration should also be given to requiring members of the Central Committee to cast their votes openly. Our legislators have to take open positions as elected representatives, though their committee and delegation votes often remain obscure. Perhaps members of the Central Committee should have to vote openly as well.

One final note: the choices for delegate the other day are not as strange as some suggest and let's not forget that the Central Committee was, after all, performing exactly the role which they were elected to do. I know little about District 39 but Kirill Reznick's presence on the Central Committee indicates not just a conflict of interest but that he was not an unknown. In District 16, Reggie Oldak's strong fourth-place showing in 2006 garnered her a lot of support but my guess is that others (e.g. the incumbents) were unhappy that she challenged the incumbents.

Moreover, the attacks by supporters of the two perceived frontrunners Don Mooers and Reggie Oldak, even if quite mild (e.g. see the comment earlier on the blog), may have hurt both candidates as it often does and tempted the Central Committee to look for an alternative. The choice of Frick was a surprise to me but he has apparently been active in his district's Democratic club and a less shocking a choice than some thought.

Of course, no one has to approve of the choice of the Central Committee and the voters will have a chance to express their votes, though unfortunately not until 2010. I would not be surprised to see a more contested primary than usual in District 16. Reggie Oldak built a lot of name recognition in her last bid and it will be interesting to see if she makes another go for it.