Showing posts with label Ben Kramer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Kramer. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Progressive Neighbors Debates Maryland's Foreign Policy


Lots of issues came up at the Progressive Neighbors Forum in Takoma Park yesterday but the issue that generated the most heat was American Studies Association boycott (ASA) of Israeli scholarly institutions.

Two bills have been cross-filed in the Maryland General Assembly directed at undermining the ASA boycott. Montgomery Del. Ben Kramer has filed HB 998 with a number of cosponsors: Delegates Barkley, Barve, Bates, Boteler, Cardin, Cluster, Costa, Cullison, Eckardt, Frank, Fraser, Hidalgo, Frick, Gaines, Gilchrist, Glenn, Haddaway, Riccio, Hogan, Hucker, Impallaria, Jacobs, Kach, Kaiser, A. Kelly, Kipke, Lafferty, Luedtke, McComas, McConkey, W. Miller, Morhaim, Myers, Olszewski, Otto, Pendergrass, Ready, Reznik, B. Robinson, S. Robinson, Rosenberg, Serafini, Simmons, Stein, Stocksdale, Szeliga, Valderrama, Vaughn, Waldstreicher, M. Washington, Weir, Wood, and Zucker.  Due to timing, Baltimore Sen. Joan Carter Conway did not have time to seek cosponsors for the parallel bill in the Senate, SB 647.

Peace Action Montgomery distributed flyers at the forum (see page 1 above with 2 and 3 below) arguing strongly against the bill as unconstitutional and just plain wrong. Although many in the audience opposed the bill--no one in the audience expressed support--the bill is not on Progressive Neighbors' very lengthy priority list.

Sen. Roger Manno was in the line of fire at the meeting. He attacked the boycott and defended the bill's central goal in the Washington Jewish Week:
In an interview after the hearing Manno explained, “My responsibility as a lawmaker and as a member of the Senate budget and taxation committee, which writes that check, is to ensure that the dollars are spent wisely and that it reflects the values of our community. … And we don’t support [the boycott that the ASA is supporting].”
The same article notes that UMBC has issued a statement condemning the ASA boycott, as have many academic institutions.

There is a certain irony to Peace Action Montgomery's opposition to the bill. The boycott's proponents handed out flyers lauding the long history of boycotts to promote social justice from India to South Africa . . . in order to condemn the proposal that the State of Maryland boycott ASA as a statement in support of its view of a more just world.

Thought experiment: What would Peace Action Montgomery's response be to a proposed ASA boycott of HBCUs?

The arguments that the bill violates academic freedom are specious. The proposed legislation would not ban any professor from supporting ASA's boycott, attending ASA conferences, or membership in ASA. It just wouldn't permit Maryland institutions to pay for it. Universities regularly decide which scholarly activities they deem worthy of support. We may not agree with them but the State has a right to decide how to spend its money and which endeavors to support.

In political science, we are experiencing this up close. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Coburn successfully amended the bill that funds the National Science Foundation so that grants may only go to proposals that aid national security. As you might suspect, this has not gone down well with most political scientists. But no one questions its constitutionality or claims it violates the First Amendment.

This issue has a profound potential to alienate Jewish Democrats and other supporters of Israel. I believe heavy majorities of Jewish Democrats strongly support, even yearn for, a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry is working doggedly to address the real barriers to a workable and lasting peace despite extreme difficulties. Nonetheless, ASA's efforts to isolate Israel offend deeply and undercut them. Jews may not be unanimous on this issue (we seem incapable of it; just watch either the Knesset or Life of Brian) but the vast majority strongly oppose efforts to boycott Israel.

Not to mention that Israeli universities are often the center of efforts to build peace within Israel, which makes one suspect that the academic body of scholars focused on studying America perhaps doesn't know too much about it. Regardless, I imagine that I am not the only one amazed at the idea that the world awaits with bated breath the opinion of academic organizations on various issues of the day, particularly those completely outside that organization's area of expertise. (OK: irony of blog-writing academic condemning pronouncements on issues of the day by academics is duly noted.)

Jews are passionate for peace and for Israel. Trying to make them choose is a losing strategy. I don't think legislators or candidates are going to find it easy to straddle this issue.


Read More...

Monday, May 02, 2011

Madaleno, Kaiser Rip Arora; Others Apologize for Him

The fracas surrounding Del. Sam Arora continues. Sam, you may recall, is the delegate who was ardently for same-sex marriage before he was against it before he was for it before he, well, you get the idea. As the Gazette reported, two openly gay and lesbian legislators ripped Sam for his actions during the session.

Sen. Rich Madaleno:

"I think Sam Arora distinguished himself as someone not to be trusted, and I don't think he will have a long career in the House of Delegates," said Madaleno (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington, the Senate's only openly homosexual member." . . .

"When you co-sponsor a bill where the lead sponsor is the majority leader from your county who worked very hard to get you elected and you change your mind on the day of the vote, you damage, potentially fatally damage, your credibility," he said, referencing the bill's lead sponsor, House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve (D-Dist. 17) of Gaithersburg.

Going forward, that could impact Arora's ability to get things done for his district, Madaleno said.

"For me, I will always have a doubt when he makes a commitment on any issue whether or not I can trust that commitment," he said.
Del. Anne Kaiser:
"I think it's definitely true that Sam hurt his reputation within the legislature and potentially within his district," she said, noting that her parents and other family members and friends supportive of the bill who live in Arora's district felt betrayed. "The sense was, ‘What is he going to back out on next?' His word was damaged."
However, Del. Ben Kramer--Sam Arora's colleague in District 19--attacked Sen. Madaleno for his comments:
"I do think that Sen. Madaleno saying that in a public forum was inappropriate and unnecessary," he said. "I can understand that Sen. Madaleno has a perspective based on a particular issue, but I don't think that it is accurate or reflective of Del. Arora's abilities or potential in the legislature."
So I guess Sen. Madaleno is really just overwrought and too sensitive? Or was it just bad form for another member of the club to call out Del. Arora for turning his back on his constituents and colleagues after campaigning for same-sex marriage, trumpeting his sponsorship of the bill to constituents, and telling colleagues he was for the bill just two days before the vote?

Meanwhile, Del. Kathleen Dumais--the floor leader for the bill--apologized for Sam:
Del. Kathleen M. Dumais said Arora handled the matter appropriately by discussing his dilemma with committee and chamber leaders.

"That gave us all the opportunity to talk him through [it]," she said. "I think that gives him credibility as opposed to not."

Dumais (D-Dist. 15) of Bethesda, who is vice chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee, believes Arora eventually has to tell constituents what led him to reconsider his stance. But she noted that such re-evaluation is not uncommon, particularly on emotionally charged issues.

"When we sit in committee and listen to hours of hours of hours of testimony on these tough issues, it gives you a different perspective than when you're out on the campaign trail and these things sound wonderful," she said.
Sam has moved on to extent of declaring same-sex marriage a relatively unimportant issue in a written statement:
"Every day I'm honored to work for the people of my district by working to protect education funding and make our communities safer," he wrote in the statement. "With all due respect to Senator Madeleno [sic], I'm finding the folks in my community are less concerned about Annapolis politics and more concerned with issues like caring for our seniors and improving Pepco."
Again, recall that this is a man who proudly campaigned on his support for same-sex marriage, took campaign donations on that basis, and then touted his sponsorship of the bill to constituents. And note that there is nothing on his current position on same-sex marriage.

Read More...

Friday, October 15, 2010

Ben Kramer for Council District 2, 1994

The candidates who lost the Council District 2 primary to Craig Rice should be encouraged by the district's history: more than one loser has returned to win. Here is one of them: Ben Kramer, son of former County Executive Sid Kramer. Ben Kramer was the Democratic Party nominee against District 2 GOP incumbent Nancy Dacek in 1994 and lost. But he is now headed back to Annapolis for a second term as a District 19 Delegate. Here is a very youthful looking Ben Kramer in a 1994 campaign ad. Persistence can pay, folks!

Read More...

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

MoCo Primary 2010: House 19 Precinct Results

Read More...

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Who's Voting to Re-Elect Ben Kramer?


Read More...

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Ben Kramer's Enviro Mailer


Read More...

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Primaries to Watch V, Part Three

By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.

Here are races Six and Five!

6. District 16 Delegate Open Seat
Previous Rank: #6

Marc
The chaos continues in District 16. At times, this has started to shape up as a race between Obama campaign staffer Kyle Lierman and Ariana Kelly from MomsRising. Both have the resources to run competitively and the mail house does not care if it was loaned to the campaign or only raised as a result of family connections. On the other hand, Kelly has not been able to consolidate as much support against Lierman as it appeared she would early on, when she picked up the Apple Ballot and SEIU.

Lierman and Kelly are still the most likely new Delegates, but there are nine other challengers in the race and they are all making waves in their own ways. Hrant Jamgochian can try to leverage the Post endorsement into political victory. Mark Winston and Charlie Chester can still convince voters that their experience is what is needed. Scott Goldberg can make good use of his combination of personality and policy smarts to connect. Bill Farley has demonstrated at least through lawn signs (which cannot vote) a presence far beyond his political base of Somerset. One thing holding back the pack is a serious lack of resources compared to Kelly and Lierman.

Incumbents Bill Frick and Susan Lee are also working really hard to keep their seats, which seems pretty certain but it is never a bad thing to see incumbents work.

Full disclosure, I have volunteered for the incumbents and donated to Bill Frick.

Adam
It’s a pity that Hrant Jamgochian, Scott Goldberg and Mark Winston do not live in District 39 as all of them could very well win the open seat up there. Unfortunately for them, they are competing with Kyle Lierman and Ariana Kelly.

Our spies say that Lierman is running the best campaign. He has tons of outside money without resorting to big self-funded loans (as has Kelly), has good mail and has a sophisticated voter outreach operation. None of this is a surprise given the work he did for Barack Obama in 2008. If Lierman was not a candidate, he would be an excellent campaign manager. Kelly has two important advantages: her endorsements (including the Apple) and her status as the only female challenger. She also has enough money to compete with Lierman.

The fact that the Post did not go with Lierman helps Kelly, but the teachers have more critical races than this one to which to devote poll coverage. Since the mail is crazy in this district, that puts a premium on other ways to reach voters. Lierman’s skill set will help in that regard. I still see this as a two-way race, but one interesting new wrinkle is that Kelly has gone negative against Lierman. If the two of them start slugging it out, there is a tiny chance that another challenger could squeeze past them for the open seat.

5. District 19 Delegate Open Seat
Previous Rank: #7

Marc
You have to hand it to Bonnie Cullison. If she is half as convincing with District 19 voters as she must have been with the Post to get their endorsement, she should do well on September 14th. But that only works if she is out there hustling as much as the other candidates working for District 19’s two open seats including fellow Apple Ballot endorsee Jay Hutchins, fellow Post endorsee Sam Arora, as well as Hoan Dang and Vivian Scretchen.

The teachers will likely be out in force in District 19, which will benefit Jay Hutchins since he shares their endorsement. Sam Arora has plenty of money and work ethic, but it is probably time to start spending some of it on mail.

Full disclosure, I donated to Arora and have volunteered for him.

Adam
Ben Kramer is the only incumbent in the race and is certain to come back. That leaves two seats for three quality candidates: Sam Arora, Bonnie Cullison and Jay Hutchins.

Lots of sources in the district are picking Arora to finish second. He started early, has the most money, has been working the hardest and has performed well in candidate forums. He does not have the Apple Ballot, but he does have the Post endorsement, and this may be one district where the Post is as, or maybe even more, important than the Apple. Arora has been all over Leisure World and his signs sprouted first around the district, but Hutchins has nearly caught up in the sign war. Arora has problems: he started as a complete unknown, has little history in the district before running for office and some say his campaign has petered out a little bit. But most of our informants say that he has run the best campaign of any Delegate candidate and that could get him to Annapolis.

If Arora wins, Cullison and Hutchins will square off for the remaining seat. Cullison scored a huge win by getting the Post endorsement, and her supporters can point to that as a sign that she is not merely a creature of MCEA. Hutchins is hustling and is liked by nearly everyone who meets him. Cullison’s campaign gets low marks for execution and Hutchins has more money, but Cullison benefits from being the most viable woman in the race. Our sources are flipping coins on this one, but the Post could make the difference for Cullison in the end. The result could easily depend on absentees and provisionals.

More tomorrow!

Read More...

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Ben Kramer's First Mailer


Read More...

Friday, July 30, 2010

Peace Action Montgomery Responds to Kramer

Peace Action Montgomery has sent the following response to Delegate Ben Kramer's (D-19) criticism of its questionnaire referencing Israel.

July 26, 2010

Delegate Ben Kramer
17511 Applewood Lane
Rockville, MD 20855

Dear Delegate Kramer:
We are responding to your July 20 letter that criticized a candidate questionnaire created and distributed by Peace Action Montgomery, as well as the motives and values of our organization.

Before we respond to your specific complaints, we would like to present our beliefs and goals, as stated on our Web site:

Our Beliefs
Military intervention is not a suitable response to conflict.
Ordinary people can change the world.

Our Goals
Peace in the Middle East
• An end to current U.S.‐led and U.S.‐funded military occupations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine)
• Prevention of future wars (such as in Pakistan or Iran)
• Reparations and developmental aid for victims

A Peace Economy at Home
• Reduced military spending and an end to war profiteering
• Restrictions on military recruitment in schools, replaced by real economic opportunities for youth
• Generous benefits for veterans

Peace through Human Rights and International Cooperation
• Robust international diplomacy
• Protection of civil and human rights, including an end to torture
• Full, independent investigations of violations to the rule of law

Our questionnaire to candidates for state office, sent out July 16 and 17, is in keeping with our stated goals (see enclosed questionnaire). The five questions focus on issues that are within the purview of state‐level officials. For all questions, candidates were asked to respond “yes” or “no” and offered the opportunity to explain or qualify their responses.

The one question to which you took great exception cited International Court of Justice rulings that Israel’s separation wall and settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal and asked candidates if they would support a bill to order the state’s pension system to divest from holdings in companies that knowingly participate in these illegal activities.

Instead of answering any of the questions, you wrote us a letter in which you stated that you not only rejected our “less than subtle anti‐zionist, anti‐semitic ‘questionnaire,’ ” but that you would also encourage your fellow candidates in Montgomery County and across the state to reject it as well.

Passions run high on this issue, but that is no excuse for calling a group like Peace Action Montgomery anti‐Semitic. We vehemently oppose anti‐Semitism and bigotry and are offended at being defamed for our support for human rights. Just as opposing the war in Afghanistan does not make us anti‐American, opposing Israeli government policies does not make us anti‐Semitic.

Would you call anti‐Semitic the 60 percent of the Israeli general public who in a poll conducted in early March 2010 supported “dismantling most of the settlements in the territories as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians”? (Poll conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace.)

Peace in the Middle East is one of Peace Action Montgomery’s major goals. We assume that you, too, desire peace in the Middle East. We therefore invite you to join us in a public debate on the issue of how best to advance a just resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We plan to propose the same idea to the Washington Jewish Week, which also received your letter to us, and invite them to co‐moderate the event, along with a representative of another organization.

We sincerely hope that you will accept this proposal for a much‐needed forum for dialogue on this significant issue. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Jean Athey, coordinator
Peace Action Montgomery
Enclosure

cc: Washington Jewish Week



Read More...

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Ben Kramer, Mike Lenett Rip Peace Action Montgomery

Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) and Senator Mike Lenett (D-19) have responded harshly to a question by Peace Action Montgomery on its recent questionnaire to MoCo candidates. OK, "harshly" doesn't do it justice!

David Lublin posted Peace Action's questionnaire a couple weeks ago and identified this question as likely posing controversy:

5. In the past, the Maryland state legislature has exercised its power to order the state’s pension system to divest its holdings in companies that are complicit in illegal activities in other countries. The World Court has ruled that Israel’s separation wall and settlements in the West Bank are illegal. Would you support a similar divestment bill targeting companies that knowingly participate in these illegal activities in Israel?
Delegate Ben Kramer, who is running for re-election, sent this response:

July 20, 2010

Peace Action Montgomery
P.O. Box 1653
Olney, Maryland 20830

To Whom it May Concern:

I read your questionnaire with interest and was prepared to offer responses until I read the fifth and final question.

It is with great offense and disgust that I read the fifth question (statement), equating the State of Israel's efforts to defend itself from terrorism with nations that promote the very terrorism which has plagued the people of Israel.

The Maryland State Legislature has exercised its power to order the state's pension system to divest its holdings in companies that do business with nations that sponsor and support terrorism and genocide. Your twisted and convoluted efforts to draw a comparison between Israel's need to protect its residents, (Jews and non-Jews alike) from the daily savagery of terrorist bombers and murderers, to the atrocities of terrorist nations, reveals your ignorance and prejudice.

You are apparently under the mistaken belief that the role of the Jew is to be complicit in his/her own death and contentedly succumb as a willing victim to the overwhelming numbers of hostile neighbors, who surround the only bastion of democracy in the Middle East.

Therefore, in response to your anti-zionist, anti-semitic "questionnaire," I offer you the following:

As a member of the Maryland State Legislature, I will make every possible effort to ensure that Maryland maintains the strongest cultural and economic ties with the State of Israel. I will do my very best to influence any and all colleagues in the Maryland General Assembly to do the same.

Furthermore, I will encourage all of my fellow candidates, here in Montgomery County and across the State, to reject your less than subtle anti-zionist, anti-semitic "questionnaire" and appropriately dispose of it.

Please convey to your 2,700 "dues-paying" members my response and let them know that if they embrace your position on this issue, that I have no interest in their support or vote.

Ben Kramer

Senator Mike Lenett sent this response:

July 27, 2010

Peace Action Montgomery
P.O. Box 1653
Olney, Maryland 20830

Dear Peace Action Montgomery:

I wholeheartedly share the views so well expressed by Delegate Ben Kramer in his letter to you dated July 20, 2010. I take extreme offense at Question 5 of your survey, which equates Israel’s defensive actions to protect its very existence with the actions of nations that sponsor terrorism. Delegate Kramer said it all and I could not improve upon his words. Like him, I will dispose of your questionnaire and I do not care what you convey to your members.

Sincerely,

Mike Lenett
Several other politicians tell us that they did not bother to send back the questionnaire because of the anti-Israel question. As a result, this will go down as one of the least effective questionnaires of the cycle.

Read More...

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Primaries to Watch IV, Part Two

By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.

Here are races Eight and Seven!

8. District 14 Delegate Open Seats
Previous Rank: #8

Marc
The dust is still settling in District 14 where eight candidates are running for three seats. The safe money seems to be on two term incumbent Anne Kaiser returning to Annapolis. She even worked hard in 2006 when there was little primary suspense. Confidence is high for Craig Zucker as well, who is slating with Kaiser and State Senator Rona Kramer.

As I wrote previously, there has been a strong push for an African American candidate in District 14 (Ike Leggett’s home district). Kramer, Kaiser, and Zucker are adding 2006 County Council candidate Bo Newsome to their team. Newsome received 7.56% of the vote in District 14 when he ran for Council, a distant sixth. Though he did do better in District 14 than he did Countywide, where he registered 5.91%. However, Newsome did get the Washington Post endorsement and ran what was considered a credible campaign. Being on the slate will be a big boost for Newsome, but it does not give him a free pass by all of the other candidates in the field.

Those other candidates are led so far by Eric Luedtke. Luedtke has been running hard for months, bringing home endorsements, and most importantly knocking on lots and lots of doors. Others in the field include Jodi Finkelstein, Vanessa Ali, Neeta Datt, and Gerald Roper.

Full disclosure, I donated to Kaiser, Luedtke, and Zucker. Neeta Datt’s son and I attended high school together.

Adam
Kaiser and Zucker are going to win, so the question in this race applies to the remaining Delegate seat. I am a bit puzzled about why Kaiser and Zucker chose to align with Newsome. It makes sense for Rona Kramer, who would like to have African-American votes in her race against Karen Montgomery. It also looks like payback by Kramer against Eric Luedtke, who briefly explored a run against Kramer last fall. But Kaiser and Zucker do not need Newsome, or even a slate of any kind, to win. And since Luedtke is a favored son of many parts of the county’s progressive community, there has been pushback against what is perceived by some as an attempt to keep him out of Annapolis.

But in the end, the slate’s actions probably don’t matter all that much. Luedtke has the endorsements and is doing the work necessary to win. The other third-seat Delegate candidates have not put together solid campaigns yet and it’s getting late – maybe too late.

7. District 19 Delegate Open Seats
Previous Rank: #6

Marc
With Delegate Ben Kramer opting for reelection, District 19 had to settle for two open seats. Most of the five non-incumbents running have been hustling for months. Hustle is what they will have to do from now until September 14th. There is no favorite in this race and each candidate brings their own strengths and weaknesses.

If I had to give one candidate the edge, it would probably be Sam Arora due to his resources and door knocking thus far. I do not live in District 19, but I have not heard of any of the challengers doing as much as Arora yet. That said, Cullison and Hutchins have the Apple Ballot and Hoan Dang has been out and about for months. If you live in District 19, expect to hear your doorbell a lot.

Full disclosure, I donated to Sam Arora.

Adam
Ben Kramer will go back to the statehouse because of his name recognition from last year’s special election, his twin base in Leisure World and Kemp Mill, his famous surname and his family fortune. That leaves three competitive candidates for two seats.

Bonnie Cullison has lots of endorsements, is the only woman in the race other than late filer Vivian Scretchen and is a good speaker with a personality that should appeal to voters. She is the only candidate in the district who can claim to be a leader on the county’s number one issue – education. Her campaign took a long time to come together but we hear she is now out on the doors. Additionally, MCEA will be heavily invested in sending its former President to Annapolis. Jay Hutchins is a very likable person with a good biography and lots of endorsements, including the Apple Ballot. But some think he is not yet working hard enough to fend off Sam “Hunk of the Hill” Arora, who is coming on with a real head of steam. Arora has bundles of money, a whole bunch of campaign savvy and is out-hustling everybody. Any two of these three could win. One question still lingers: how will the intensely competitive Senate race affect the Delegate race?

More tomorrow!

Read More...

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Ben Kramer Files for Re-Election to House

District 19 Delegate Ben Kramer filed for re-election to the House on July 1. Kramer was rumored to be considering another run for Council District 4 or Council At-Large. This event brings all three contests into greater focus and has implications for the Lenett-Manno Senate race.

Read More...

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Equality MD Endorsements and Some Surprises

Equality Maryland released their early endorsements today. A complete list and some highlights below the fold.

In District 18, EM has endorsed four candidates for delegate: incumbents Al Carr, Ana Sol Gutierrez, and Jeff Waldstreicher as well as challenger and EM Board Member Dana Bayer. Next, in District 39, EM endorsed incumbent Sen. Nancy King over her challenger, Del. Saqib Ali.

In both the delegate race in District 18 and the senate contest in District 39, the challengers have attempted to position themselves as stronger on LGBT rights and EM's endorsement of the incumbents undercuts this theme. In any case, it's a positive sign that candidates now position themselves as more liberal on this; times have changed.

Meanwhile, in District 19, EM has not yet endorsed Bonnie Cullison--an openly lesbian candidate for the House of Delegates--though it did endorse incumbent Ben Kramer. For now, EM is staying out of the hot Senate race in that district.

On the other hand, Del. Karen Montgomery scored a coup with EM's endorsement of her challenge to incumbent Sen. Rona Kramer, also perceived as strong on equality. The complete list follows:

State Senate
Delores Kelley D-10
Bobby Zirkin D-11
Edward Kasemeyer D-12
Karen Montgomery D-14
Rich Madaleno D-18
Jamie Raskin D-20
Paul Pinsky D-22
Nancy King D-39
Catherine Pugh D-40
Nathaniel McFadden D-45

House of Delegates
D-3A Galen Clagett
D-10 Adrienne Jones
D-12B Elizabeth Bobo
D-13 Frank Turner
D-14 Anne Kaiser
D-15 Brian Feldman
D-16 Bill Frick
D-16 Susan Lee
D-17 Kumar Barve
D-17 Luiz Simmons
D-17 Jim Gilchrist
D-18 Dana Beyer
D-18 Al Carr
D-18 Ana Sol Gutierrez
D-18 Jeff Waldstreicher
D-19 Benjamin Kramer
D-20 Tom Hucker
D-20 Heather Mizeur
D-21 Ben Barnes
D-21 Barbara Frush
D-21 Joseline Pena-Melnyk
D-22 Justin Ross
D-23 James Hubbard
D-26 Kris Valderrama
D-30 Virginia Clagett
D-30 Judd Legum
D-34 A B. Daniel Riley
D-39 Charles Barkley
D-39 Kirill Reznik
D-40 Barbara Robinson
D-40 Shawn Tarrant
D-41 Samuel Rosenberg
D-42 Stephen Lafferty
D-43 Maggie McIntosh
D-43 Curt Anderson
D-43 Mary Washington
D-46 Brian McHale
D-46 Luke Clippinger
D-47 Jolene Ivey
D-47 Doyle Niemann

Read More...

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Sligo Creek Golf Course Gets a Boost

In response to a request for opinion by Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19), the office of Maryland’s Attorney General has found that a provision in the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission’s (M-NCPPC) lease with the Montgomery County Revenue Authority (MCRA) covering Sligo Creek Golf Course that permits the course to be shut down on a consultant’s opinion is illegal. This strengthens the hand of the Sligo Creek Golf Association in their efforts to keep the course open.

In 2006, M-NCPPC signed a lease with MCRA placing its four golf courses under MCRA’s operations. The lease contained a provision allowing MCRA to send one of the golf courses back to M-NCPPC if a third party found the course to have an “adverse impact” on the entire public golf course system and forbidding M-NCPPC to operate the property as a golf course if it competed with other MCRA-operated courses. The Attorney General’s office found that particular provision to be illegal. While M-NCPPC has the legal authority to lease its courses, it does not have the legal authority to delegate the decision on whether to close one of its courses to any third party – including MCRA or any consultant. Following is the relevant language in the opinion from the Attorney General’s office:

Under the Lease Agreement, if the Revenue Authority’s consultant determines that operation of a particular course is “adverse” to the golf system – a term not found in the statute and not defined in the Lease Agreement – and the Revenue Authority accepts that finding, the golf course is returned to M-NCPPC. If all that determination did was return the golf course to M-NCPPC’s direct control, there would be little issue under the nondelegation doctrine. However, once a park has been “extracted” from the lease and returned to M-NCPPC for that reason, the Lease Agreement purports to restrict M-NCPPC’s continued use of that park as a golf course for the remaining term of the lease, which could be as long as 40 years. M-NCPPC is barred from operating the park as a gold course even if, in M-NCPPC’s judgment, it is the most suitable use of the property.

The Lease Agreement thus effectively delegates a critical decision governing use of certain M-NCPPC parks, possibly for decades, to another agency – and, in a certain respect, to a private consultant hired by that agency – applying an undefined standard that may be at odds with the charge given to M-NCPPC in Article 28. In my view, M-NCPPC did not have authority to agree to a provision delegating its decision concerning the future use of a park that is extracted from its lease with the Revenue Authority. As a result, that provision is likely not enforceable by the Revenue Authority against M-NCPPC.

This is not to say that the M-NCPPC could not itself find the report of the Revenue Authority’s consultant persuasive, give credence to the Revenue Authority’s view that continued operation of a particular course is not viable, and come to the same conclusion. It could determine, for similar reasons, that Sligo Creek Golf Course should not continue to be operated as a golf course in its current form and that there are superior park uses of the property over the next 40 years. However, it is M-NCPPC, not the Revenue Authority or its consultant, that is charged by its statute with making the ultimate decision.
The Attorney General office’s opinion strengthened the argument behind Delegate Kramer’s local bill prohibiting M-NCPPC from signing leases that contain provisions forbidding it from operating park properties as golf courses. That bill was heard by the Montgomery County Delegation yesterday. The bill ran into opposition because even though Kramer had the law on his side, his manner of presentation offended several delegation members.

One person in the room commented, “Drama drama, as usual. Kramer is dislikable, and every word he said was losing votes. Then he accused Park & Planning of dishonesty. Not cool. More votes lost. Then he said anyone who votes against him doesn’t support honesty and transparency in government. More votes lost.” Delegates Kathleen Dumais (D-15) and Craig Rice (D-15) pushed to delay the bill. Delegates Luiz Simmons (D-17), Al Carr (D-18) and Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18) pushed back in favor of the bill, with Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) arguing that the Attorney General’s opinion clinched the case for the bill. Waldstreicher, Carr and Gutierrez represent the district that contains Sligo Creek Golf Course. Kramer’s bill won out by an 18-5 vote in the delegation, but not without a cost. One attendee fumed, “Delegate Kramer is arrogant and ineffective. Just because he says his bill is about whether you want transparency or don’t want transparency does not make it so. He has set up a false dichotomy to serve his own purposes. He may have won the battle today, but he also took one more step down the seemingly never-ending path of pissing off his colleagues.”

Because Kramer’s bill has passed the Montgomery Delegation, it has a good chance of passing through the General Assembly. But that does not decide the Battle of Sligo Creek Golf Course. All that will be decided is that MCRA cannot use its lease provisions to close Sligo. M-NCPCC could still decide to close Sligo on its own, and the County Council could decide not to subsidize it. Advocates for the course still have a lot of work to do.

Read More...

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Leggett Testifies in Favor of Drunk Driving Ignition Interlock Bill

Following is the testimony of County Executive Ike Leggett before the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of HB 743, a bill sponsored by Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) that would mandate ignition interlocks on vehicles owned by convicted drunk drivers. The interlocks are breathalyzers that require the driver to submit a sober breath sample to start the vehicle. Leggett and his wife were hit by a repeat drunk driver in a car crash last year. Last year, the bill passed the Senate unanimously but did not get out of the House.

Testimony of County Executive Ike Leggett
Before the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee
March 3, 2010

Chairman Vallario, members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to offer a few words of support for Delegate Kramer’s Drunk Driving Elimination Act, House Bill 743.

Last year I survived a very close call in an automobile collision.

My wife and I were hit by a repeat drunk driver - a man who allegedly ignored the conditions of his probation and jeopardized the public safety by making the decision to drink and drive again.

We cannot know how many times he made the decision to drive under these conditions since his sentencing in August of 2008.

Had this driver's sentence included the use of an Ignition Interlock device, I might not have experienced that crash. And, had this legislation passed last year, others might have been spared a similar ordeal.

Ignition interlocks are breathalyzer devices that arc wired into a vehicle's ignition system. To start the vehicle, the convicted offender has to provide a sober breath sample by blowing into the interlock device. Interlock technology has come a long way since their initial development in the early 1970s.

Interlocks are highly accurate, reducing repeat drunk driving offenses by 65 percent with circumvention protections in place to prevent cheating.

The polls show the public strongly in favor of mandating ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. In a recent poll even 82 percent of offenders believe interlocks are effective and fair.

The common misconception is that "first-time" drunk drivers have made a “one-time” mistake. That is far from the reality. Research conducted by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration shows that first-time offenders on average have driven drunk 87 times before their first arrest.

Plainly put, mandatory interlocks for convicted drunk drivers in Maryland can help reduce the risk to public safety from drunk drivers.

What we can do, we should do. I urge your support for House Bill 743.

Read More...

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Where are the District County Council Challengers?

We have written extensively about the At-Large County Council race. But what about the District County Council elections?

Sadly for us but happily for the incumbents, there’s not very much to report.

At first glance, it should be easier for challengers to overthrow County Council incumbents in the county’s five districts for one simple reason: it is cheaper to run in a district than at-large. But that has not helped recent district challengers. The only two district incumbents who were thrown out in the last two cycles were Republicans unseated by Democrats: District 1’s Howard Denis, who was defeated by Roger Berliner in 2006, and District 2’s Nancy Dacek, who was defeated by Mike Knapp in 2002. All of the Democratic incumbents who were challenged won.

Here are the Democratic primary statistics for all district seats held by Democratic incumbents from the last two cycles.

2006 Cycle

District 2 (Upcounty): Incumbent Mike Knapp vs. Sharon Dooley
Vote Percentage: Knapp 63.8%, Dooley 36.2%
Contributions: Knapp $213,547, Dooley $16,339

District 3 (Rockville/Gaithersburg): Incumbent Phil Andrews vs. Bob Dorsey
Vote Percentage: Andrews 75.9%, Dorsey 24.1%
Contributions: Andrews $98,298, Dorsey $25,570

District 4 (East County): Incumbent Marilyn Praisner vs. Mike Jones
Vote Percentage: Praisner 79.9%, Jones 20.1%
Contributions: Praisner $52,326, Jones filed no reports

District 5 (Silver Spring/Takoma Park/Kensington): Open Seat

2002 Cycle

District 3: Incumbent Phil Andrews vs. Bob Dorsey
Vote Percentage: Andrews 53.6%, Dorsey 46.4%
Contributions: Andrews $75,173, Dorsey $68,072

District 4: Incumbent Marilyn Praisner vs. Steve Joseph
Vote Percentage: Praisner 80.2%, Joseph 19.8%
Contributions: Praisner $27,739, Joseph $42,942

District 5: Open Seat

Averages, District County Council Seats Held by Democratic Incumbents, 2002 and 2006

Vote Percentage: Incumbents 70.7%, Challengers 29.3%
Contributions: Incumbents $93,417, Challengers $30,585

The only competitive district race in the last two cycles was incumbent Phil Andrews’ 2002 win over Bob Dorsey in District 3, which includes Rockville and Gaithersburg. Dorsey was a Rockville City Council Member who ran as part of County Executive Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock slate. Andrews survived twelve(!) pro-Dorsey mailings and numerous negative attacks in part because he was endorsed by MCEA. (My, how times change.) None of the other challengers had any significant institutional support. The only Democratic district incumbent to lose in 1998 was District 3’s Bill Hanna, who was driven out by none other than Andrews.

The winning recipe for district incumbents is straightforward: pay attention to constituent service, earn the support of community leaders around the district, wrap up important endorsements and raise more money than the opponent(s). All of that sucks up the oxygen needed by any challenger. At-large elections are more complicated since they are four-person round robins. Lots more factors count in those contests, including incumbent-on-incumbent rivalries. Both the 2002 and 2006 races featured one open at-large seat and one defeated incumbent, producing two at-large freshmen.

Currently, the district races do not look as interesting as the at-large contest. No incumbent has a confirmed challenger yet. Here’s what we are hearing.

District 1, Incumbent Roger Berliner
East Bethesda civic leader Ilaya Hopkins is exploring a challenge. We sized up this potential race last month.

District 2, Incumbent Mike Knapp
Knapp may not run for re-election. If he does, he may face civic activist Sharon Dooley again. Dooley lost to Knapp by 28 points in 2006. If Knapp does not seek to return, Gaithersburg/Germantown Chamber of Commerce CEO Marilyn Balcombe and Dooley seem certain to run, and there may be other candidates.

District 3
We reported rumors that former Rockville Mayor Larry Giammo was a possible candidate for this seat a year ago, but have heard nothing since. Phil Andrews may run unopposed.

District 4
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) is still smarting from his special election loss to Nancy Navarro in the spring of 2009. Kramer never conceded the race and never endorsed Navarro against Republican Robin Ficker. He may seek to challenge Navarro again. If so, he will likely be supported by at-large incumbent Duchy Trachtenberg, who lost her chance to become Council Vice-President in 2010 and Council President in 2011 because of Navarro’s election. The last Navarro-Kramer contest was a bitter affair culminating in multiple negative mailers by Navarro against Kramer. A rematch would see no quarter given by either side.

District 5
Incumbent Valerie Ervin has no rivals on the horizon. She could very well be a kingmaker in the at-large race. Many suitors will no doubt seek her support.

If anything changes, we’ll be sure to let you know!

Read More...

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Simmons-Kramer Hump-or-Dump Bill

Delegates Luiz Simmons (D-17) and Ben Kramer (D-19) have filed a bill allowing a divorce to be granted if the parties are not having sex. No, we are not making this up!

Current Maryland family law allows a divorce if the parties “are living separate and apart without cohabitation.” Simmons and Kramer would delete that language and replace it with “are not engaging in sexual relations.” In other words, get it on or get out!

This bill raises all kinds of questions, folks. With due respect to our former President, what does “sexual relations” include? Are we talking about first base? How about second or third base? Or is it just grand slams? Do toys count? What about surrogates? What evidence will be admissible in court? Would it have to be sterilized first?

Let no one accuse Delegates Simmons or Kramer of being chauvinists because their bill is not gender-specific. That means an awful lot of country club husbands with trophy wives should be trembling with performance anxiety. They will have to put out or pay up! This will be a real boon for prenup lawyers with imagination. The pharmaceutical industry will also see a bump-up in profits. Will this guy be testifying for the bill?


What if the spouse who says no to nookie is the one demanding a divorce? Imagine a couple marries way too quickly, and on the wedding night, the bride discovers why her new husband’s college nickname was “Stumpy.” Is she entitled to a quickie divorce? Or just a quickie?

In the event that this bill is passed, we would like to see a Blue Ribbon Commission write the implementing regulations. Here are our nominees.

Tiger Woods
Wilt Chamberlain
Madonna
Bret Michaels
Narain Dutt Tiwari, the 86-year-old former Indian Governor whose three-girl sex video has had more viewers than the Olympics
And of course, the butt-busting, bubbalicious babes of Cathouse.

Giddyup!

Read More...

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Manno Praises Kramer, Heller; Says Little About Lenett

In an email to his constituents entitled, "Looking Forward to 2010," Delegate Roger Manno (D-19) heaps praise on fellow District 19 Delegates Ben Kramer and Henry Heller, but mentions Senator Mike Lenett only in passing. This is sure to fuel rumors of a primary challenge. We reprint the email below.


2009: Giving thanks, taking stock
and looking forward to 2010...

Dear neighbors:

With 2009 just about behind us, I would be remiss if I didn’t take a few moments to reflect, to thank you for all of your support, and to wish you and your families peace, health and happiness in 2010.

Like so many other states, Maryland faced unprecedented challenges in 2009 due to the national economic climate – and it was clear throughout the year that the everyday difficulties facing working families, retirees and small businesses created additional responsibilities on state government to be resourceful and diligent in addressing these needs.

In addition to working to advance meaningful legislative solutions (please visit www.RogerManno.com for more information), my Annapolis office was inundated with requests for assistance with unemployment benefits, health care benefits, foreclosure assistance, and other aid from every level of government. In all my years working in government, 2009 was among the most challenging and humbling years I’ve encountered, with many heartbreaking cases of average folks facing great adversity. Throughout it all, however, I’ve been amazed by truly remarkable examples of personal triumph by residents coming together to help one another and collaborate for a better community. And throughout the year, my office has worked tirelessly to make government function efficiently in order to provide a high level of responsive public service.

In this regard, I’d like to thank my staff. First and foremost, I’d like to recognize the tireless work of my Office Administrator, Ms. Patricia Fallon. “Ms. Pat” came out of retirement to join our office team in 2007 after working for Maryland governors for several decades. Her understanding of state government, attention to detail, and diligence are only matched by her genuine commitment to public service and her loyalty to the 110,000 residents of the 19th Legislative District. It is always a great personal honor and learning experience for me to serve with her.

In addition, I’d like to thank Kevin Gillogly, Evan Goodman, and numerous volunteers, interns and Fellows in our office, including Ezra Rosenberg, Arie Stock, and Brian O’Laughlin. While all focused on different aspects of legislative, policy and constituent service, all did their level best in 2009 to improve the lives of our District’s residents.

I would also like to thank Delegate Ben Kramer and his terrific aide, Mrs. Sue Chessis, with whom I and my staff share an office in Annapolis. Over the last three years, Ben and I have collaborated to build a “one-stop-shop” legislative office in the House of Delegates that has collectively assisted with thousands of constituent and community concerns on a full-time, year-round basis. He is a hard working, serious legislator with whom I have been proud to work on numerous legislative and community initiatives.

In addition, I’m sure Ben and I can both attest to the leadership and enduring work ethic of our District’s senior legislator, Delegate Hank Heller. A soft spoken, learned public servant, Hank’s contributions to our community over the last 23 years are too vast to adequately articulate here – from extraordinary legislative leadership in the areas of disability rights, education funding and land preservation, Hank has represented our interests in Annapolis for decades. I’m sure that State Senator Michael Lenett and other elected officials will similarly attest to Hank Heller’s leadership, as well.

Finally, thank you for taking time out of your busy lives this year to share with us your thoughts and concerns on how to improve state government, and for working collaboratively with us to improve our community.

Once again, all the best to you and your family in 2010.


Read More...

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Monday, November 30, 2009

District 19 Race Snowballs Early

Three Delegate challengers are now raising money in the District 19 Battle Royal. But here’s the problem: there is no evidence that any of the incumbents are going anywhere.

Sam “Hunk of the Hill” Arora was the first one out of the gate in September. He has now held three fundraisers, one each in Maryland, D.C. and Virginia. His latest fundraiser featured former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Interestingly, House Majority Leader Kumar “Bad Boy” Barve (D-17) showed up. Arora is now a registered candidate with the State Board of Elections.



Bad Boy Barve and McAuliffe discuss why Annapolis needs a Hunk.

Multiple sources have received phone calls from former MCEA President Bonnie Cullison, who told them that she is running for Delegate and asked them for money. And now Lockheed Martin auditor and civic activist Hoan Dang has held his own fundraiser in the district.



Dang’s campaign card lacks both an authority line and a union bug.

All of this will surely pressure other Delegate contenders to step up their own activities. They are no doubt assuming that one or more of the incumbents are about to leave. Are they right?

Maybe. Here’s a rundown.

Senator Mike Lenett
Lenett is the most certain of the incumbents to run again for his current seat. He made a pre-emptive strike in October with an extravagant mailer touting his progressive institutional support. In 2006, Lenett helped drive long-time Senator Len Teitelbaum from his seat and knocked off two Delegates in the Senate race, producing a possible MoCo record for incumbent removal in one contest. He is smart, tough and well-financed. He also employs David Goodman, a notably aggressive campaign consultant who helped produce Nancy Navarro’s infamous negative mailers in the 2009 District 4 special election.

Delegate Roger Manno
Manno was the top vote-getter in the 2006 Delegate primary, his first race for office. He has a reputation for good constituent service, introduces and fights for numerous pro-labor bills and has many supporters inside the progressive community. If Manno stays in his Delegate seat, he would be a lock to return to Annapolis. But rumors of his considering a challenge to Lenett will not die, even though he has done nothing publicly to encourage them. If Manno ran against Lenett, that campaign would tie the District 17 Senate race as the premier state legislative contest in Montgomery County.

Delegate Ben Kramer
Kramer made it clear that he would rather be in Rockville than Annapolis by running for the District 4 seat in the recent special election. But above all, Kramer wants to be in public life, having run unsuccessfully for council in 1994 and 1998. The safe play for Kramer is to stay in his Delegate seat, which he won in 2006 without being on the Apple Ballot. Kramer is a late decider and a self-funder, so he may not make his decision until next summer.

Delegate Henry Heller
Everyone assumes Heller is retiring, but he has said nothing about it. The six-term Delegate and former MCEA President (see a trend here?) is retired and lives in Leisure World, so he has nothing else to do other than to be a Delegate. We wonder whether Heller will see the machinations of the challengers as disrespectful, causing him to gear up for yet another race. Heller has deep support in Leisure World and it is nearly inconceivable that MCEA could keep him off the Apple Ballot, so he has a real chance to return even if he does not knock on a single door.

So what happens if all four incumbents run again? Could they run as a slate? How many of the challengers will stay in? Would MCEA target an incumbent to help Bonnie Cullison? At this point, there are more questions than answers.

Read More...