By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Now that the General Session is over, the politicians are getting into high gear for the election. And so is MPW! Once again, Marc and Adam are going to dissect the ten top primaries in MoCo. (You can see our prior assessments from September and December here.) Let the fun begin!
Marc
Off the list:
District 18 Challengers - There are two challengers running for Delegate in District 18 (Vanessa Atterbeary, and Dana Beyer). They are challenging a unified slate with a tough-as-nails Treasurer.
Congressional 4 - Donna Edwards dodged her toughest primary foe when Glenn Ivey declined to run. District 14 Delegate Herman Taylor is poised to announce, but it would take a minor miracle for him to make a dent.
Council 2 - Sharon Dooley has already entered the race. The big mystery is who she will be running against. Until incumbent Mike Knapp makes a decision about whether to run or retire, this race is largely unformed. Craig Rice’s potential candidacy would make for an exciting race but he would need to catch up on local issues and prepare to mount a more aggressive primary campaign than he would need in District 15.
Back on the list:
District 14 Senate
10. Hopkins vs. Berliner, Council District 1
Prior Rank: None
Marc
Ilaya Hopkins has been making the rounds and raising money in her bid to unseat first district Councilman Roger Berliner. Hopkins does have a shot at the Apple Ballot, which endorsed Berliner’s Republican opponent in 2006. Berliner’s biggest headlines this year were also somewhat embarrassing, as five votes on the Council passed him over for President.
Hopkins would be an extremely competitive candidate in an open seat race given her personality and civic experience. But challenging an incumbent is a very different scenario. Berliner will likely have far superior resources, name ID, and a record of accomplishment to run on that includes aggressive environmental positions like his recent carbon tax proposal. The Council’s unanimous votes for the White Flint sector plan and Purple Line also help inoculate Berliner from criticism on those major issues, which small parts of his constituency could be angry about.
Finally, Hopkins does not have a long history as a Democrat to rely on in a party primary the way Berliner does. Hopkins is a relatively new and welcome addition to the Democratic fold. On the other hand, Berliner has spent his entire career as a Democrat, including tours on Capitol Hill with liberal stalwarts such as Senator Howard Metzenbaum (OH) and Congressman Henry Waxman (CA). That history can make a difference in party primaries.
Adam
Berliner is a Democrat who runs with a big “D” on his chest and that makes Hopkins’s registration history relevant. Hopkins bought her current residence along with her husband on 2/19/98. She filled out a voter registration card as an unaffiliated voter on 9/5/01 and was formally registered with the county on 9/19/01. That means she did not vote in Maryland in the 1998 and 2000 elections. Hopkins voted in the 2002, 2004 and 2006 general elections. On 9/4/07, she changed her registration to Democrat and voted in the 2008 primary and 2008 general. Berliner registered as a Democrat in the county in 1991 and has been a consistent voter since then. We show both candidates’ initial voter registration applications below.
Hopkins has been running an able campaign against Berliner. She has a campaign manager (even if he was caught spying by the enemy), holds regular events, releases videos and has a nice first literature piece. She has a chance to pick up some union support. But Berliner started the year with almost $100,000 in the bank before Hopkins had a campaign account and it’s unclear if she has closed that gap. Even if Hopkins gets the Apple Ballot, Berliner’s occasional conflicts with the unions will probably earn him the Post endorsement. That means Berliner may have to commit a mistake of some kind for Hopkins to win. Judging by last year’s Council President fiasco, that possibility cannot be ruled out.
9. District 39 Delegate Open Seat
Prior Rank: #9
Marc
Montgomery Village Board of Directions Foundation President Bob Hydorn started running for Delegate even before an open seat emerged. His official announcement is on May 1st. This could be a problem for Delegate Kirill Reznik, who will be before the voters for the first time. At a minimum, almost 8,000 of the 29,000 registered Democrats in District 39 reside in Hydorn’s base of Montgomery Village. One District 39 activist told me that over 25% of the so-called “super Dems” in the District are in Montgomery Village. It is an active and organized area that Hydorn has worked before. That said, Reznik has been in office for three years and has spent that time wisely talking to individuals and groups throughout his district, advocating good legislation, and preparing for his first election.
Since a seat has now opened, a few other candidates could also enter the race. Adam has spent a lot of time talking about Shirley Rivadeneira. She would be a great candidate, but there is no chance she will run. She just resigned from the Central Committee for a White House job.
Full disclosure, I am Kirill Reznik’s campaign chair.
Adam
Hydorn was first out of the blocks. He has an organization and a big geographic base in the district. He is also a former Republican who has Republicans as his Treasurer and campaign manager. That creates an opening for other Democrats to get in. Two possibilities are party activist Francine Towbridge-Winston (who is receiving an award at the party’s spring ball) and MCPS administrator Juan Cardenas, who applied for the 2007 Delegate appointment ultimately won by Kirill Reznik. It is getting late to start a campaign from scratch and that gives Hydorn an advantage.
Surprisingly, I am more bullish on Reznik than his own campaign chair. Like the other appointees, Reznik is highly motivated to win an election in his own right. An open seat will just encourage him to work harder. That’s a mini-problem for Senate challenger Saqib Ali since more joint literature featuring incumbent Nancy King will be passed out on the doors. Delegate Charles Barkley has annoyed the House leadership but that won’t hurt him back home. In fact, if it matters at all, it may actually help!
We’ll have races Eight and Seven tomorrow.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Primaries to Watch III, Part One
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Reznik and Barkley: Build CCT Now, Study More Transit Later
Here's an interesting take on the CCT/all-transit debate from District 39 Delegates Kirill Reznik and Charles Barkley: they want to build the CCT now and study the other transit options named by Action Committee for Transit later. We reprint their letter to the County Council below.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Two-Seventy Two-Step
Some people favor widening I-270 as one component of dealing with the corridor’s infamous state of gridlock. Other people oppose widening and would like to see an all-transit solution. Those would seem to be diametrically opposed views, right?
Not if you’re in politics!
On July 29, a group of state legislators signed a letter to the State Highway Administration calling for both I-270 widening and a light rail Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). On I-270, the letter said:Additionally, we support two Express Toll Lanes (ETLs), as a component of this project, to help reduce congestion on I-270. We also think that the Montgomery County Planning Board's recommendation of reversible lanes is worth further exploration, as it could alleviate traffic congestion while mitigating negative environmental impacts. These ETLs should be combined with general-purpose lanes without tolls, so that these new transportation facilities will be financed in large part by private investments.
On September 8, a group of state legislators signed a different letter calling for study of an all-transit alternative to road widening. The letter said in part:The large transportation investments proposed along I-270 will take years to implement, and they will shape the development of the corridor for decades. There is time to decide carefully and wisely. We request that you ask MDOT to add an all-transit alternative to this study. After a complete range of options is evaluated, policy-makers and the public will be able to choose the solutions that are best for our communities, our economy, and our environment.
Five Delegates signed both letters: Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Craig Rice (D-15), Jim Gilchrist (D-17), Charles Barkley (D-39) and Kirill Reznik (D-39). We asked them how they could call for road widening plus transit and then – just two months later – call for nothing but transit. Here are the responses we received:
Delegate Kathleen DumaisWith reference to your specific question, I do not think that the two letters I signed are inconsistent. All options should be explored. I strongly support the CCT and studying Express Toll Lanes for I-270.
In a second email, Delegate Dumais stated:As I indicated in my previous E-mail, I do not think the letters are inconsistent. I believe all options should be reviewed -- without excluding one or the other. The truth of the matter is that a solution to the congestion should include both road improvements and transit.
Delegate Craig RiceI went back and read both letters again and don’t believe they contradict each other. In Senator Garagiola’s letter the point was clear that the CCT was our top priority and in Chairman Hixson's letter it says we want them to look at a transit alternative. I have always been of the position that the CCT is our number one priority and as far as other transit needs, everything needs to be considered.
Delegate Kirill ReznikIn response to the concern over my having signed two letters to the Governor, one from Senator Garagiola and one from Delegate Hixson, I wanted to provide a response.
First, let’s credit Delegates Dumais, Rice and Reznik for being willing to discuss this issue on the record. They have not joined Delegates Barkley and Gilchrist in whatever undisclosed location they are hiding.
I do not believe that signing onto both letters was a contradiction. I have always advocated for and will continue to advocate for the Corridor Cities Transitway. It is imperative that mass transit is extended into Germantown and points north and long term, sustainable solutions are found to our ever growing need to travel and commute between Washington, DC, Montgomery and Frederick counties, and beyond.
That being said, I do not believe that any single solution will be satisfactory in dealing with traffic, and all reasonable options need to be explored. I also do not believe that a continued effort to explore other options should be an excuse for delay and inaction on the Multi-Modal Corridor Study.
But there is a real failure of logic here. The I-270 letter was an unambiguous statement of support for road widening as well as a light rail CCT. In their responses, Delegates Rice and Reznik omit any reference to their previous support of extra road lanes and proclaim only their fealty to transit. It is as if they never signed the first letter, which called for both. (Delegate Saqib Ali, on the other hand, withdrew his signature from the widening letter when he realized that it indeed called for widening.) Delegate Dumais reiterates her support of road widening while saying “all options should be reviewed.”
The problem is that review is costly. In planning money alone, the state has allocated $38 million for Baltimore’s Red Line, $36 million for the Purple Line, $9 million for the CCT and $17 million for I-270. Every additional project sent to study will cost millions – and probably tens of millions – more from a Transportation Trust Fund that is nearly broke. For a person who has never wanted more road lanes like Senator Brian Frosh (D-16), advocating use of that funding for extra transit projects is a logical and consistent position. But why would anyone who has already declared their support for road widening – as have the five Delegates above – advocate for spending tens of millions of dollars to study an all-transit plan that explicitly excludes the option that they have already picked?
Saying that you want both road widening and all-transit is like saying that you root for the NFL team that wears Redskins helmets and Cowboys uniforms. If football fans know better, shouldn’t our elected leaders?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Inside Story Behind Charles Barkley’s Ouster
The Gazette reported yesterday that Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39) was stripped of his Public Safety and Administration Subcommittee chair (a subcommittee of House Appropriations) because of his opposition to last year’s millionaire tax proposal. Barkley told the Gazette, “I thought it hit Montgomery County too hard, and we just increased taxes back in November. Another tax increase that quick wasn’t right.” County Executive Ike Leggett said he was “disappointed,” noting, “It comes at a crucial time when we are leaning very heavily on Annapolis that the county's interests are protected.” So is this a case of a Montgomery legislator being punished because he stood up for the economic interest of the county?
The vast majority of our spies say no. They claim the real reason for Barkley’s demotion, and his impending departure from House Appropriations altogether, is his repeated public battles with leadership. The protocol of Annapolis is to keep conflicts in the backroom. If you are a subcommittee chair and you lose an internal committee battle, you may vote against the resulting bill on the floor but you may not publicly attack the committee’s work product.
Barkley ran afoul of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Norman Conway (D-38B) twice, blindsiding him with amendments on the floor after losing in committee. The more recent of the two incidents involved the millionaire tax. Barkley was unable to stop the tax in committee, so he offered an amendment against it on the floor and criticized Chairman Conway (and the committee) for insufficiently restraining spending. Barkley’s open defiance was too much for leadership, who took away his subcommittee chair and arranged for him to move to the Economic Matters Committee.
One spy sighed, “When you’re in leadership, you work with leadership. But he won’t play with the team. He’s just very, very stubborn. He wouldn’t change his mind to save his soul. No one did this to him – he did it to himself.” Multiple informants pointed out that none of the other millionaire tax rebels were punished.
Will the loss of Barkley’s seat on Appropriations hurt Montgomery County? No. We hear that Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16), already an Appropriations member, will be given a subcommittee chair. And Barkley's replacement on Appropriations will be Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20). So Montgomery will neither lose its total number of seats on Appropriations nor its number of subcommittee chairs.
A minority of our informants takes a different view. They acknowledge Barkley’s “hacksaw” approach in defying the millionaire tax. But they praise him for standing up for the county’s interest and note that there is no comfortable way to challenge leadership. They worry that excessive reliance on protocol and deference to leadership will discourage Montgomery’s delegation from aggressively challenging budget cuts that disproportionately impact the county.
One informant comments:Here’s the deal in Annapolis. We get screwed if we don’t speak up, and we get screwed if we do. Why? Because we don’t stand up as a group. For every Charles Barkley there are five others who cower and fear losing their positions, so they go along to get along. At some point, those five need to stand with Charlie and tell leadership that they can’t keep screwing us, they can’t do it without us, and they need to play ball with us.
That view is typical of the way many county officials see the Montgomery delegation.
A pipedream, I know. Because it takes courage. And it seems many in our delegation would rather be the “deputy assistant to the senior advisor to the true insider with an ear to the ground” than an effective Montgomery County representative.
Regardless of Barkley’s fate, this episode should cause our delegation to think long and hard. With both GCEI and teacher pensions at risk of being cut, Montgomery’s head is inside the state’s guillotine. How can the delegation work together to protect Montgomery from bearing the lion’s share of the upcoming budget debacle? Our advice last summer was to devise a common strategy, stick together and punish defectors from the county's team.
The alternative will create a couple more Barkleys and a whole lot of lost money for Montgomery County.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
MoCo Delegation Speaks Out on Slots, Part Three
The Montgomery County Sentinel’s series on the MoCo delegation’s positions on slots concludes this week. Following are the positions of legislators from Districts 19, 20 and 39. The Sentinel did not report responses from Senators Mike Lenett (D-19) and Nancy King (D-39) and Delegates Hank Heller (D-19) and Kirill Reznik (D-39), but as we have seen, that does not necessarily mean that those legislators did not contact them. Of the legislators who are quoted in the Sentinel, Delegates Roger Manno (D-19), Sheila Hixson (D-20) and Tom Hucker (D-20) voted for the referendum and Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Delegates Ben Kramer (D-19), Heather Mizeur (D-20), Charles Barkey (D-39) and Saqib Ali (D-39) voted against it.
Delegate Ben Kramer (Against):Kramer voted against the referendum during the special session and said he has some difficulty understanding why many voted for the referendum last year and now claim they oppose it. “I question their rationale,” he said.
Editor’s Note: Can someone explain to us in the comments section what this alternative could be?
Kramer said he would like to see, as an alternative to slots, a repeal of a tax cut that was disapproved.
Delegate Roger Manno (Against):Manno said he will vote against the slots referendum on the November ballot. “I do not believe that the slots proposal offers a stable or justifiable source of revenue, even if we assume the most generous slots revenue projections,” he said.
Senator Jamie Raskin (Against):
“As a legislator,” he continued, “my focus is to protect vulnerable populations, shore up critical infrastructure commitments, fulfill our contract with retirees who have paid into the system, and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.”
In lieu of revenue from the slots proposal, Manno said cuts and efficiencies in the range of $100 million to $200 million are “likely unavoidable. In addition, alternative revenues include cracking down on the misclassification of employees (yielding some $200 million annually in other states), and implementing combined reporting to capture revenue from corporate tax loopholes (yielding perhaps $100 million annually). If enacted, these measures would close the portion of the budget shortfall that slots revenue would assume.”Raskin said he voted against the slots proposal in the Senate and intends to vote against it at the polls as well. “To me, it seems like a low road for the state to go down,” he said. “After so many home foreclosures, risking bankruptcies and staggering consumer debt, I cannot imagine that it’s a good idea to set up 15,000 slot machines in our state.”
Delegate Sheila Hixon (For):
He said if there was universal health care, universal accessibility and a stronger safety net, then the state could, perhaps, responsibly rely on people’s gambling losings to fund essential state services. “We don’t have a real social safety net,” he said. “Just a tight rope and it’s already shaky enough for a lot of people and kids right now. I don’t think the government should help push people off of it with the introduction of slot machines.”
Raskin said he believes there are people of good will on both sides of the issue. “Our economic problems, flowing downhill from the fiscal recklessness and out-of-control spending of the Bush Administration, are deep and will require sustained attention,” he said.
Alternatively, Raskin said he would like to see a tax on liquor and continued pruning of the state budget, including a repeal of the death penalty, which, according to the Senator, will save millions of dollars a year.Hixson said that without slots, the budget would be very tight. “We have given the voters to choose,” she said. “If they want it, they will vote for it.”
Delegate Tom Hucker (Against):“While there is no question that the state needs additional revenue,” Hucker said, “any significant revenue from slots won’t arrive until fiscal year 2012, too late to fix the budgets for next year or the following year.”
Editor’s Note: As we will see in an upcoming post, next year’s budget deficit is projected to be $1.3 billion. That’s a lotta gold bullion! Hey Tom – how many of those “gold bullion collectors” live in District 20?
He said the revenue from slots is “overestimated” and will be “offset by millions of dollars that will be needed for increased bankruptcies, gambling addiction treatment, domestic violence and other crimes that typically increase in the states that legalize slots.”
Hucker said he has been an organizer and vocal advocate for a progressive state income tax for years and said he was proud to vote last year to finally make the income tax progressive. He said he also worked in 2003 and 2004 to close the Delaware corporate tax loophole, which dozens of large companies, according to him, were using to cheat Maryland out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
“We need to end our state tax breaks for yacht owners, gold bullion collectors and country clubs. And most important, we need to enact combined reporting to make sure multinational corporations pay taxes in Maryland just like the rest of us. Taking those steps would raise more than $500 million annually – enough to close our budget deficit next year, not years down the road.”
Delegate Heather Mizeur (Against):“Maryland is the wealthiest state in the nation for a reason,” Mizeur said. “We invest in our people, in their skills and in our communities. Our state thrives on job creation fueled by creativity, research and new technologies.”
Delegate Saqib Ali (Against):
Mizeur said slots are “a regressive throwback to 19th Century thinking.” She said that the state should focus on science and technology and not slots to help balance the budget. “Instead of betting on slots, Maryland could expand its individual and corporate tax bases by promoting economic winners like nanotechnology, renewable energy or biotechnology,” she said. “Let’s bet on science, not slots.”Ali said that slots are a tax on the poorest members of society. “I think the detrimental aspects of slots, like addiction, ruined finances and broken homes, outweigh the fiscal benefits.”
Delegate Charles Barkley (Against):
He said he is also concerned that the gambling companies will be unjustly enriched by the referendum.
Ali said he would like to see the same budget cuts the government has made in the past. “Additionally, I see no reason why alcohol taxes in Maryland shouldn’t be raised,” he said. “They have not been raised in more than a generation.”“I am not a fan of gambling,” he said. “We shouldn’t base our revenue on slots because too many things come with it.”
Barkley said he is afraid, like many others, that the social problems that are attached to gambling such as crime, corruption and gambling addiction will burden the state.
“Cutting certain programs and spending could help turn around the budget crisis,” he said.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Senator King, Delegate Barkley Propose Changing MCDCC Membership
Senator Nancy King and Delegate Charles Barkley, both of District 39, are proposing legislation that would change the membership composition of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC).
Currently, MCDCC has 23 members: two elected from each of the county's eight legislative districts and seven elected at-large. Senator King and Delegate Barkley's bill, MC-802-08, would expand the committee's membership to 27, with three elected from each legislative district and three elected at-large. Senator King told the Gazette, "It’s a fairness thing more than anything. It’s to even out the playing field... With the upcounty growing like it is we need three members to help build the upcounty part of the membership."
MCDCC spokesman Milton Minneman (who has spoken on reform issues before) had this reaction:Although the Central Committee has taken no official position on the bill, they believe the discussion would be better if tabled and taken up during a summer county legislative session, committee spokesman Milton Minneman said.
Hmmm, Mr. Minneman. Now who would those "various people" be? You surely are not referring to any blog authors in this county, are you?
"We don’t think there is any reason to make the change. We know this is all a kickback because various people are concerned with the filling of the delegate and senate seats," Minneman said. "The system we’ve been under has worked for years and only in the last year or so has the issue popped up."
Of MCDCC's current at-large membership, five members are from down-county legislative districts (one from 16, one from 18, one from 19 and two from 20) and two are from up-county districts (one each from 14 and 15). Districts 17 and 39, the latter represented by King and Barkley, have no at-large members. This is the likely prompt for King and Barkley's bill.
There is another side to this issue. It is not the easiest thing in the world to find active, dedicated Democrats willing to volunteer for MCDCC. The position has no pay. Its occupants achieve little fame and fortune. The committee is constantly dogged by fanatical bloggers. And remember House Majority Leader Kumar Barve's famous joke that if committee members could not appoint themselves to be delegates, they would have to be paid to serve? Perhaps Mr. Barve was not kidding. While I understand Senator King and Delegate Barkley's position, it's important to have a way to attract the most talented, well intentioned Democrats to serve on MCDCC regardless of where they live.
But the issue addressed by this bill is a small matter relative to MCDCC's other issues. Far more important is that MCDCC members can and do appoint themselves to state office, do not adhere to formal standards in deciding vacancy selections (with Alan Banov being a prominent exception) and are not required to consider any measure of actual voter sentiment within the district in which a vacancy occurs. These are the matters that should be addressed by MCDCC itself, or failing that, state legislation.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Should the MoCo Dem Central Committee Be Expanded?
There is a proposal to do just that and the hearing is tonight. It is part of a series of local bills being heard by the County Affairs Committee of our MoCo Delegation. Betta you didn't know that our General Assembly folks have their own web site. Worth a look.
Back to the bill, Sen. Nancy King and Del. Charles Barkley -- both of District 39 (Montgomery Village, portions of Germantown, Derwood and unincorporated Gaithersburg) -- want to expand the MCDCC from 23 members (2 members from each of the 8 districts and 7 at large members) to 27 members. The MCDCC is opposed. Click here to learn more.
The hearing for this bill and 17 others will begin tonight at the Stella Werner Building (MoCo County Council Building) at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome.
Other bills of interest are: Delegate Susan Lee (District 16 -- Chevy Chase, Bethesda) is submitting a bill on behalf of Councilman Phil Andrews (District 3 -- Rockville, Gaithersburg, Darnestown) to regulate campaign finance for races in MoCo. The offices that would be affected are: the MoCo Executive, State's Attorney and the nine members of the County Council. They might be more but I guess don't the details all that well. But I do know that the races for the MD GA will not be covered. Click here for more.
Finally Charles Barkley is proposing that cell phone towers at MoCo Elementary and JR High Schools be banned. Since that is a big money maker for the School Board, guess who is against it: The Superintendent of the Schools, Jerry Weast, the School Board and the MCEA. Click here for more.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Proposal to Change MCDCC Membership
Senator Nancy King and Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39) have sponsored a bill to change the composition of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee. MCDCC currently has 23 members with two elected from each of the eight state legislative districts within the county and the remaining seven elected at-large. The bill would expand the size of the MCDCC to 27 members with three elected from each of the eight state legislative districts and the remaining three elected at-large. The composition of the Republican Central Committee would be left unaltered--the same as the MCDCC before the change.
A hearing for the King-Barkley bill is scheduled currently for November 8th at 7pm in the third floor hearing room of the Stella Werner Council Building in Rockville. A hearing on Delegate Saqib Ali's bill to require open votes for filling state legislative vacancies (cosponsored Delegates Gutierrez, Heller, and Montgomery) is scheduled for November 15th for 7pm at the same location (see also the Gazette article). However, one can imagine that both hearings will be postponed due to the special session.
