At this moment, the County Council, the Montgomery County Board of Elections (BOE) and the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) are locked in a struggle over the dates of the District 4 special election. At stake is how easy it will be for District 4 residents to cast their votes.
County Council staff first proposed setting the special election dates as April 14 for the primary and May 12 for the general. The reason is that those dates most closely resemble the dates from last year (April 15 and May 13). But in asking for those dates, the staff ran afoul of requests by both BOE and MCPS to set the primary for April 7.
The relevant fact for the primary is that 33 of District 4’s 45 precinct voting locations are public schools. MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast notes:April 7 falls during the school system’s spring break and would be the least disruptive time for the schools. April 14 is the day students return from spring break. April 10 or 13 (Good Friday and Easter Monday) are holidays, and all school buildings are closed and all system staff is on leave. Therefore, no staff will be in the buildings on these two days for the delivery of polling equipment. It may be difficult to get staff to work in some of the polling sites on these two dates. The hourly cost will be one- and one-half times the normal rate of pay for the building services staff because of the holidays, or between $40 and $50 per hour. I am sure that you would agree that this is not the time to incur additional expenses.
BOE concurs with MCPS:The MCBOE initially proposed April 7, 2009 for the Primary Election and May 12, 2009 for the General Election. It is our understanding that some felt April 7, 2009 was not a good date because public school students were on spring break. The MCBOE respectfully disagrees that it is problematic to hold the election during spring break, particularly given the fact that voters can vote absentee if they are indeed going to be out of town.
The council staff memo reveals that Council President Phil Andrews agreed with the objections to April 14 for the primary but did not heed the recommendation by MCPS and BOE for April 7. Instead, he prefers April 21 for the primary and May 19 for the general. BOE specifically requested five weeks between the primary and general but Andrews did not agree.
Moreover, there are a number of problems with setting the Special Primary Election for April 14, 2009. Last year, when the Council District 4 Special Election was held while school was in session, MCBOE received complaints from parents that strangers were walking around the school. Additionally, some voters complained about excessive noise while voting in multi-purpose rooms. MCBOE respectfully submits that it is less disruptive to the schools and is in fact a better voting experience for voters, if the Council scheduled the Special Primary Election to occur on a date when students were off. Additionally, the Board of Elections will consolidate polling places for this election to contain the cost of the elections. If that occurs, we are concerned about the amount of parking available to voters on election days. If the election was held on April 7, as opposed to April 14, there would be no issue regarding parking, an issue that is important to the voters.
There are two (2) additional problems with conducting the Special Primary Election on April 14, 2009. First, MCBOE will need to be able to access each school used as a polling place on April 13, 2009 to deliver and secure equipment and to enable election judges to meet at the facility in the evening of April 13, 2009, for election preparation. In reviewing the Board of Education’s calendar, building facilities are scheduled to be closed on April 13, 2009. We have been advised that April 13, 2009 is a State wide holiday requiring employees to be paid two and half times (2 ½) compensation if they are required to work on April 13, 2009.
Lastly, April 14, 2009, falls on a Jewish holiday, starting at sunset, and will impact the orthodox Jewish voters residing in Kemp Mill and Leisure World communities. This not only limits the hours which voters can vote but further curtails who can and will serve as an election judge.
The full County Council must now decide the special election schedule. Whatever they do, they must focus on encouraging turnout. In last year’s special primary, overall turnout was 11%, Democratic turnout was 16% and Republican turnout was close to 10%. (Independents do not vote in Maryland primaries.) Whoever is elected this time will presumably be running as an incumbent in 2010. It is very important that that individual receive as much of a mandate from as large a part of the electorate as possible before assuming the mantle of incumbency.
Furthermore, BOE’s announcement of its intention to consolidate voting precincts bodes ill for turnout. If voters are confused because their regular polling places turn them away, they will be less likely to cast ballots. Any attempts by BOE to adequately educate the public about precinct changes will cost money – perhaps as much money as will be saved by closing precinct locations.
We call on all District 4 special election candidates to OPPOSE any measures that damage turnout.
Update: County Council Member Valerie Ervin is calling for April 7 and May 12.
Below is the letter from MCPS. Click on the images for larger views.

Below is the letter from BOE. Click on the images for larger views.


Monday, February 09, 2009
Battle Over the Special Election Dates (Updated)
Posted by
Adam Pagnucco
at
9:42 PM
Labels: Adam Pagnucco, Council District 4, MCPS, Montgomery County Board of Elections
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


4 comments:
Adam,
Interesting comments. Two points: yes turnout was in the 11% range of total voters. But both the GOP and Dems turnout was higher. The reason -- the NAs -- of the District are around 20% and as such the math of that means that both parties had higher turnout. Dems was almost 20%. That is good, very good for a special election with only one decision on the ballot and for it to be on tax day. Your comments make it seem as though it is poor. Look at special elections across the country and those figures are good. Just using the overall figure -- as the WaPo did in its initially posting a year ago -- is factually correct but the wrong conclusion.
Secondly, at MPW we have been clear about who we support. I supported Don; you and your union supported Nancy. We have both stated that on numerous times. Great.
However, Superintendent Jerry Weast (an appointed government employee) has consistently favored Nancy. You can add a link to my original post on that a year ago.
So anything that he says or writes about this special election when he has already decided who he wants is misleading. Extremely misleading.
A disclaimer should be around anything that Superintendent Weast says about this election. He has picked his side. As an appointed official that is not right.
Now the unions, elected officials, business organizations, newspapers, blogs and individuals can choose a side. But an appointed official needs to be like a referee and not choose a side. He has. And to not include that in everyone of his comments goes against the spirit of MPW.
Please edit your comments to reflect his position. It is fair. And it reflects the high standards that you and David has brought to the political discussions.
The turnout statistics for this post came from your comment last year. I hope we can agree that turnout ought to be higher given the issues before a split council.
As for Weast, we both spanked him for calling union leaders to his house in favor of Navarro. But his advocacy for April 7 is backed up by the Board of Elections, which has not supported any particular candidate. The issue deserves to be considered on its merits.
If anyone wants to review our coverage of any events connected to the D4 special elections, click on the "Council District 4 Special Election" link on the MPW Series tab on the blog's right side. That will pull up all of our content on this, past and present.
Adam,
Even though Weast has the backing of the BoE on this point I still think a disclaimer should be put on all of his points.
Just as my comments should be viewed by who I have supported in the past election.
Yes, you spanked him for his misstep. But he should not get a pass on this election. Anything he says is tainted and an appointed official should be taking sides. And that still holds today a year after the fact.
Now if he steps down and is Joe Citizen then sure he can have an opinion. But he is and he comments are being made from the same place he made his support for Nancy clear a year ago.
Again people are free to support whomever, except when they are suppose to be neutral appointed GOVERNMENT officials.
Adam,
As for turnout stats, I know you know the math behind it. But again citing the 11% for the general voting population is misleading. The independents and small party candidates will ineligible to vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries by law. So to add them back into the overall turnout figure is just plain bad math.
More importantly it perpetuates the idea that turnout was low. It was not low -- for a special election. You can't compare a special to a Presidential general or even a Party primary in the off years. It is not even an apple and orange comparison it is an apple to an onion.
And you can't compare special election across states -- if they are not counted consistently. Some states allow cross over voting, ie Illinois. Here we don't.
I have never agree with the idea that turnout of 20% for the Dems is poor in a special election in MoCo.
And anyone who writes about turnout as Michael Barone did in the VA Special Elections and compares it to a normal primary is doing a huge disservice to its readers.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/1/15/low-voter-turnout-in-virginia-special-election-could-signal-a-worry-for-democrats.html?s_cid=rss:barone:low-voter-turnout-in-virginia-special-election-could-signal-a-worry-for-democrats
Now would I like to have higher turnout in a special election for a key council seat? Yes. But that's missing the point and that is turnout in the special election was very good -- when compared to special elections normally.
Post a Comment