Here are the incumbents in MoCo who either face no Democratic opponent or no opponent at all. Congratulations!
No Democratic Opponent
County Executive Ike Leggett
Council Member Phil Andrews (D-3)
Council Member Nancy Navarro (D-4)
Council Member Valerie Ervin (D-5)
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16)
Delegate Kumar Barve (D-17)
Delegate Jim Gilchrist (D-17)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17)
No Opponent at All
State’s Attorney John McCarthy
Clerk of the Circuit Court Loretta Knight
Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15)
Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20)
Showing posts with label Council District 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Council District 4. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Lucky, Lucky!
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Monday, May 03, 2010
Franchot Endorses Navarro
Comptroller Peter Franchot released the following statement of support for County Council Member Nancy Navarro.Like me, Nancy Navarro is an independent voice who puts the interests of working families first. Her campaign message of "standing up for all of us" is guided by the same Democratic principles I fight for every day -- making government open and accountable and ensuring that all Marylanders have the opportunity to succeed. I am proud to endorse Democrat Nancy Navarro for re-election to the Montgomery County Council.
Navarro has already been endorsed by Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20), Delegates Sheila Hixson (D-20) and Karen Montgomery (D-14) and County Council Members George Leventhal, Nancy Floreen, Marc Elrich and Valerie Ervin. So far, she has no announced challenger for her seat.
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!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Twenty Stories the MSM Missed in the Special Election
The mainstream media (MSM) did a sparse job in covering the District 4 special election, a swing-vote race with implications for next year. Here are twenty stories they missed ranked in order of ascending importance.
20. Leventhal vs. Klumpp
When County Council Member George Leventhal invoked the memory of Marilyn Praisner in advocating for Nancy Navarro, Mrs. Praisner’s daughter, Alison Klumpp, struck back with an essay entitled, “I Really Know Marilyn Praisner.” Both blog posts were unsolicited submissions to MPW. Neither probably decided many votes, but they sure were entertaining!
19. Help Save Maryland’s Electoral Activity
Help Save Maryland, a group that opposes illegal immigration, did not yet exist during the 2006 elections. But they became active this time, distributing a questionnaire, passing out a flyer against Ben Kramer and mobilizing against Navarro. The MSM missed this, but MPW readers know to expect more from the group next year.
18. Marilyn Praisner’s Authorship of the Special Elections Law
After Don Praisner called for an appointment to replace him, MPW revealed that his wife was a driving force in creating special elections for County Council vacancies. The irony of Mr. Praisner’s recommendation against one of Mrs. Praisner’s greatest achievements was lost on the MSM, which did not report it.
17. State Board of Elections Problems
The Maryland State Board of Elections (SBE) was slow to release the first batch of campaign finance reports, taking 11 days to post one of Navarro’s. We organized a four-candidate letter to urge them to release the reports on a timely basis. You would think that the MSM would have been as interested in getting the financial information as we were but they did not cover the story.
16. Implications for Council President
Even the MSM knows that there is an informal 4-4 split on the County Council. If Kramer had won, Vice-President Roger Berliner would have been Council President in 2010 and Duchy Trachtenberg would have been President in 2011 (assuming she is re-elected). Now that Navarro has won, Council Members Nancy Floreen and Valerie Ervin may be President instead. We reported that on May 6 but the MSM has not talked about it.
15. More Illegal Robocalls Against Navarro
Navarro’s enemies seem to love illegal robocalls. They used them in 2008 and used them again in 2009. Last year, the Gazette ran with the story after we broke it but no MSM showed any interest this time around.
14. History Between Kramer and Lamari
Ben Kramer and Cary Lamari have been stepping on each other’s toes for a long time but you would never have known that from the MSM. We investigated the subject of one of their most contentious disputes – the Georgia-Norbeck intersection – but we could have written even more about these old enemies.
13. Navarro’s Micro-Targeting
Eric Luedtke wrote about Navarro’s micro-targeting, one of the most important tactics of the 2009 race and one sure to be copied next year. The Gazette hinted at this but did not grasp the full impact of it. The Post just ignored it.
12. Ficker’s Violation of the Law
In March, we broke the story about Robin Ficker’s illegal flyers, which were replicated on his website. His frequent handouts of the flyer was a repeated violation of Maryland election law and no one else caught it. The MSM also totally missed his suspect residency in the district. Weeks after we questioned Ficker’s eligibility, the Post is still pretending that he lives in District 4.
11. Board of Elections Plan to Close Precincts
Near the beginning of the campaign, the Montgomery County Board of Elections proposed closing half the precincts in District 4, a plan that would have had a disparate impact on Navarro. The plan did not pass even though the MSM was silent.
10. Lack of Coattails for Ike Leggett and Rona Kramer
We reported that even with Ike Leggett’s endorsement, Ben Kramer lost ten of the eleven precincts with a black population percentage of 30% or more. And even with his sister, Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), appearing on his mailers, Ben Kramer lost thirteen of the sixteen precincts in both Council District 4 and State Legislative District 14. He even lost his sister’s home precinct. Where is the MSM’s analysis?
9. Post Office Fumbles Absentee Ballot Applications
The Postal Service’s failure to deliver 314 absentee ballot applications by the Board of Elections deadline could have been an even bigger story than it was if Kramer had used it as grounds for a court challenge. Curiously, we learned about this from the Pew Center’s Election Line, which did excellent work on this story even though it was never spotted by the local MSM.
8. Kramer’s Record in Annapolis
Our research on Ben Kramer’s record as a state legislator found that he was the lowest-ranked Montgomery Delegate by Progressive Maryland and the Maryland League of Conservation Voters and tied for the lowest-ranked by Equality Maryland. That provided a nice foil for Navarro, who has always run from the left, and gave her a basis for her negative mailings. That tactic would not have worked against a more liberal primary opponent. No one in the MSM made that point.
7. Role of the ICC
District 4 is home to most of the Intercounty Connector’s alignment. The ICC was a subject of concern for Kramer, who lost the precincts along its route by 17 points despite trying to mitigate its traffic impact. Only one MSM source picked up on this: Baltimore Sun reporter Michael Dresser, who cited MPW. If the Sun identified the ICC’s role in the race, then why didn’t the Post or the Gazette?
6. Rise of the Blogs
We don’t have to tell you how heavily the blogs covered this election. Just Up the Pike set its record month in March while MPW set its record in April, more than doubling conservative blog Red Maryland’s visit total that month. In terms of Google searches, the blogs totally overwhelmed the MSM. But if you only read the MSM, you would have no idea that the blogs even existed. The Post ran an excellent article on blogs in the Virginia Governor’s race, but its Maryland reporters seem to not know what a blog is. For example, take Ann Marimow’s short reference to MCGEO’s “Boy King” flyer in which she does not bother to mention that its content is almost entirely derived from this blog. Or her reference to Drew Powell’s campaign finance statistics with no mention of where they were first published: MPW.
5. Disrespect of Cary Lamari
Lamari had lots of things going for him: decades of community service, a stint as President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, prior experience running for County Council and strong support from the civic activist community. More than anyone, he was associated with the growth restraint message used by County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg, Marc Elrich, Roger Berliner and Phil Andrews in 2006. And yet none of these politicians supported him. Throw in the Post’s omission of his candidacy from its coverage and the Boy King’s unrepentant spin on his views and you have to wonder what the poor guy has to do to catch a break. More importantly, civic activists everywhere have to wonder just how much the county’s establishment truly respects their work.
4. Duchy Trachtenberg’s Rupture with Progressives
In 2006, at-large County Council candidate Duchy Trachtenberg was supported by a wide range of progressive groups including the Sierra Club, Progressive Maryland, many unions and – as a President of Maryland NOW – the state’s women’s rights movement. In 2009, almost all of these groups backed Navarro while Trachtenberg sided with Montgomery County’s least-progressive Delegate. This is going to have a heavy impact on next year’s at-large County Council race.
3. Park and Planning Lobbies District 4 Candidates
Folks, this is a BIG scandal. Park and Planning is not supposed to get involved in political races at all. But it made an exception this time, lobbying the District 4 candidates for its North Four Corners soccer field. Where is the same MSM that investigated Park and Planning’s conduct in the Clarksburg debacle? More importantly, where are the state authorities?
2. Kramer’s Broken Pledge
While the Post originally reported Kramer’s pledge not to take developer money, they totally missed his failure to follow through. Our readers now know the excruciating details of Kramer’s taking money from Josh Rales, the Bernstein Companies and the Maryland Realtors PAC even while repeating his broken pledge at Leisure World. Where were the MSM’s watchdogs?
1. Sources of Campaign Finance
This was the biggest story of all. No matter which candidate you supported (or opposed), you could find some aspect of the money chase to get jacked up about. Whether it was Navarro’s heavy reliance on union money, Kramer’s heavy reliance on himself or even Lamari’s receipt of a check from a child sex offender (which he returned), this race had something for everybody. The Post reported none of this in its lone, skimpy article on the subject on March 25. Campaign finance is an eternal issue in politics – any kind of politics – and voters must have a press that can keep an eye on it.
Lord have mercy on us if the MSM coverage of this race is a preview of 2010!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Reflections and Advice for 2010
Eric Luedtke’s analysis of the impact of the District 4 campaign on future Montgomery races was truly excellent. So naturally, I’d like to spoil it with my own two cents.
First, many politicians I talk to seem to have learned the wrong lesson from this race. They assume Nancy Navarro won in part because of the negative mail and anticipate more of that in 2010. They may be right that negative campaigning will increase, but it is fundamentally unknowable whether the anti-Kramer mailers put Navarro over the top. Ben Kramer was able to use those mailers to depict Navarro as a nasty opponent and himself as a victim, and that may very well have helped him to increase turnout among his base in Leisure World. Politicians emphasize this tactic in part because of its mass visibility. In contrast, the micro-targeting that Navarro’s campaign used was never matched by Kramer and had no downside. Since it was largely invisible, it does not receive sufficient credit for helping Navarro win the primary.
Eric also said this:I think we saw a profound difference between the way the Navarro campaign treated bloggers – as real media targets in the same way they pursue reporters – versus how the Kramer campaign treated bloggers – as, well, bloggers.
And how! I have two pieces of advice for politicians on how to deal with bloggers in 2010.
1. Send us every bit of positive information about your own campaign.
The Navarro and Lamari campaigns fed us a steady diet of positive news about themselves. Navarro’s staff sent us lots of endorsements, pictures, videos, mailers and everything else short of a new sauna. Lamari did the same thing and even contributed an op-ed column. (We encourage all politicians to steal Cary Lamari’s community land trust idea as long as they give him credit!) But the Kramer campaign sent us very little positive info about him. We had to go out and obtain his endorsements from those organizations themselves. We also had to ask Duchy Trachtenberg’s staff for her endorsement of Kramer. We only received two unsolicited pro-Kramer statements – one from Kevin Gillogly and another from Alison Klumpp – and neither of them were paid Kramer staffers. If we did not affirmatively seek out positive information on Kramer, very little of it would have appeared here because his campaign did not volunteer it.
Kramer’s people did respond to requests for information. One item they sent me – a set of notes from the State Highway Administration about the Georgia-Norbeck intersection – directly contradicted a statement made by Lamari in a debate. Why didn’t they offer this to me right after the debate and not wait for me to ask for it? If I had not gone out of my way to pursue this information, Kramer’s side of the Georgia-Norbeck issue would not have been told.
2. Don’t lie.
At the very beginning of the campaign, I asked Ben Kramer this question:Delegate, the last time you ran for County Council, you finished seventh out of eight candidates in the 1998 at-large race. If you finished that badly last time, why do you think you will win this time?
Kramer replied the reason he ran poorly in 1998 was that he dropped out of the race but missed the withdrawal deadline. He told me that his name was still on the ballot, but since he did not campaign, he attracted few votes.
I quickly discovered this was untrue. Kramer earned County Executive Doug Duncan’s endorsement prior to June 1998. He participated in a candidate debate in August. The Gazette mentioned Kramer’s candidacy on August 26 and discussed his mailers on September 2. Also on September 2, the Gazette reported that 40% of Kramer’s contributions came from developers. The Gazette reported the results from a poll on the at-large race, including Kramer, on September 9. And on election night, Kramer went to a vote count at Richard Montgomery High School before learning of his loss. The Gazette carried this quote:“I don’t have an answer [about what happened],” said a key Kramer supporter, Gino Renne, president of the Municipal and County Government Employees Organization.
I did not report this at the time because I was hoping that Kramer had made a mistake. What candidate would deliberately make such a claim when it could be so easily checked? But the more I thought about it, the more my skepticism of his campaign’s statements grew. One problem was Kramer’s position on ICC traffic mitigation. His sister, Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), defended a plan by SHA to build a bypass around Georgia Avenue and Norbeck Road at a community meeting attended by Ben Kramer. But shortly afterwards, both Kramers slammed it in writing as “convoluted.” The honesty issue boiled over when Kramer told Leisure World that he was not accepting contributions from developers while looking me in the eye, a statement that I had previously found to be untrue and exposed again the day before the election. Thousands of visitors saw that post. The Kramer campaign never responded and I caught them taking a developer contribution again after the primary. The issue of truthfulness will now dog Ben Kramer throughout the rest of his political career.
We are not naïve. We understand that some issues can be interpreted in multiple ways. We know the differences between honest disagreements, spin, parsing words, using context and outright falsehood. Remember that this blog is based in part on research. If you lie, we will find out. So just tell the truth. It’s easier that way for you and for us.
Nancy Navarro Declares “New Day” in Montgomery County
Following is the press release from her campaign.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Contact: David Moon, Campaign Manager
Email: david@navarroforcouncil.com
Nancy Navarro Declares “New Day” in Montgomery County
SILVER SPRING, MD – Today, Nancy Navarro declared victory in the Montgomery County Council, District 4 Special Election. After the now annual voting ritual that District 4 voters are becoming accustomed to, Navarro looks forward to reaching out to all members of the community and providing the steady, responsive representation that the late Councilmember Marilyn Praisner was so well-known for.
Navarro commented, “I am humbled to be able to give back to the community that has been so wonderful to my family for the past two decades. I am ready to get right to work and pick up where the Praisners left off.”
Navarro will host a series of town hall meetings in the coming months to meet residents throughout the many unique neighborhoods of District 4 and hear their concerns. During the campaign, in addition to reaching out to likely Democratic voters, Nancy began extensive outreach to communities traditionally taken for granted by politicians -- a strategy modeled partly after President Obama’s successful campaign.
As a result, this election is likely to have repercussions beyond simply filling a council vacancy. Many experts had been speculating about whether the droves of “unlikely” voters that Obama brought into the electorate would participate in off-year, down-ticket races. The answer in Montgomery County seems to be a resounding “yes.” Navarro’s campaign notes that 3,500 Democrats participated in the April 21st primary that did not participate in the 2008 Special Primary. The campaign plans to release a more thorough analysis of the 2009 Special Election in the coming weeks – but it is already clear that with the larger, and typically more diverse electorate expected to participate in the 2010 election cycle, Navarro’s margins can only improve.
###
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
District 4 General Election Precinct Final
At 10:35 PM with all 45 precincts in, Nancy Navarro has 6,637 votes (63.36%), Robin Ficker has 3,423 votes (32.68%), George Gluck has 372 votes (3.55%) and write-ins accounted for 43 votes. 10,475 votes were cast and turnout was 8.78%.
Robin Ficker is perhaps the most famous Republican in Montgomery County still trying to run for office. Yet, his voting percentage was actually below little-known Mark Fennel's in the 2008 special general (33.44%). In November 2008, 35,270 District 4 residents voted for the Ficker Amendment (51.3%). But less than one-tenth of them voted for Ficker in this election. Apparently, the popularity of the anti-tax issue did not translate into personal popularity for Ficker.
Ficker's name recognition, while significant, is offset by his baggage. Check out the results of a simple Google search on his name.
Other than the heckling articles and his website, the first page of search results contained his Just Up the Pike profile and two MPW posts: our questioning his residency and our description of his history in politics. Both of those posts have received several dozen direct visits every day over the last several days. Special election voters tend to be exceptionally well informed about candidates and they may very well have considered that information in the voting booth.
District 4 General Election Results (Updated)
At 9:07 PM with 31 of 45 precincts reporting, Nancy Navarro has 4,152 votes (62.01%), Robin Ficker has 2,276 (33.99%) and George Gluck has 243 votes (3.63%). There are 25 write-in votes and 6,696 total votes. Turnout so far is 5.62%.
Last year, Don Praisner defeated Mark Fennel by 6,123-3,092 (66.22-33.44%). Turnout was 8.90%.
Update: At 9:32 PM with 37 precincts in, it's Navarro 4,885 (62.58%), Ficker 2,617 (33.53%), Gluck 277 (3.55%) and write-ins 27. Total votes are 7,806 and turnout is 6.55%. It's interesting that Robin Ficker's percentage is virtually identical to Fennel's last year. Who could think that Ficker would draw the same level of support as an unknown like Fennel?
Update 2: At 9:53 PM with 42 precincts in, it's Navarro 5,768 (62.60%), Ficker 3,078 (33.41%), Gluck 327 (3.55%) and write-ins 41. Total votes are 9,214 and turnout is 7.73%. There are only 3 precincts left to be counted.
Monday, May 18, 2009
What is at Stake on Tuesday
It is only one County Council seat in a low turnout special election, right? How much does that really mean? A lot, actually. What is at stake is the future of the Montgomery County Republican Party and the broader direction of the county as a whole.
Historically, Montgomery’s GOP has been comprised of three factions who have barely coexisted, much less worked together effectively.
1. Moderates
Montgomery has a long tradition of socially liberal and (relatively) fiscally conservative Republicans. Prominent examples include James P. Gleason, the county’s first Executive; former eight-term Congresswoman Connie Morella; former Delegate Jean Cryor (D-15); and former County Council Members Howie Denis (R-1), Betty Ann Krahnke (R-1) and Nancy Dacek (R-2).
This branch of the GOP established a niche in county politics by advocating a similar, but more modest, agenda of liberal government than the Democrats. But since Montgomery’s voters are so attuned to national politics, moderate rank-and-file Republicans were mostly driven out of the party by Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Some Republicans, like Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) and former Senator P.J. Hogan (D-39), joined the Democratic Party. Denis and Cryor stayed in office as long as they could until they were defeated by Democrats in a very bad year for the GOP (2006).
Another factor in this branch’s decline is that (relative) fiscal conservatism has found a home in part of the Democratic Party. It’s worth noting that in 2006, Denis and Cryor appeared on the Apple Ballot while Democratic County Council Members Nancy Floreen, Phil Andrews and Marilyn Praisner did not.
2. Social Conservatives
This wing of the party has been around for awhile but has never achieved the prominence of the moderates. The two foremost social conservative organizations in the county are the anti-GLBT group Citizens for a Responsible Government and the anti-illegal-immigration group Help Save Maryland. Both groups are tiny but very loud. Neither of them will ever win a majority of county voters over to their agenda. But both have received some attention from the GOP. Witness Republican Central Committee Member Adol Owen-Williams’ cry of “Heil Hitler” after the County Council’s passage of the transgender protection law and the appearance of several elected GOP leaders at a Help Save Maryland rally.
3. Anti-Tax Activists
Say what you will about Robin Ficker, but he is no ordinary politician. He is a sincere and highly-motivated advocate of one of the core principles of modern conservatism: tax restraint. His theatrics and repeated runs for office have caused many to underestimate him but the victory of his tax-limiting charter amendment should be a wake-up call to the Democrats.
Consider the following facts:
1. In the 2008 general election, 440,774 Montgomery voters cast cards. That is the highest number of votes cast in the history of the county. The turnout rate was 79%. This was the electorate that approved the Ficker Amendment.
2. The Ficker Amendment carried the county’s precincts located in Congressional Districts 4 and 6, State Districts 14, 15, 17, 19 and 39 and Council Districts 2, 3, and 4.
3. The Ficker Amendment passed by double digits in precincts located in Darnestown, Laytonsville, Clarksburg, Damascus, Sandy Spring, Dickerson, Poolesville and Germantown. It also passed in Derwood, North Potomac, Potomac, Gaithersburg, Olney, Burtonsville, Montgomery Village and (by 58 votes) Rockville.
Nothing in Montgomery associated with the Republican Party or right-of-center politics has approached the success of the Ficker Amendment since Connie Morella was last elected in 2000.
Anti-tax activism has a chance in Montgomery County in part because of our disadvantaged fiscal relationship with the state. The county’s relatively high nominal household incomes guarantee that it will be hit disproportionately hard by the state’s income tax. But the county’s high housing costs lead to high mortgage costs and a calculation by the state’s wealth formula, which is based partly on property values, that we are “too wealthy” to receive much state aid. As a result, we are third from the bottom in state aid per capita among Maryland’s counties even though we are first in mortgage costs and gasoline prices and second in foreclosures. All of this makes it harder for the county to maintain the quality of its schools and public services, without which Montgomery is merely a high-cost place to live and create jobs.
Robin Ficker’s answer is to limit local tax increases. He would follow the example of Prince George’s County, which passed its TRIM amendment over thirty years ago and has seen a relentless decline in its schools and police service ever since. Montgomery County is not as far away from going down that road as many Democrats may think. This represents perhaps the only viable return to relevance for the Montgomery GOP.
Beating Ficker on Tuesday will be one step off that path. But making the case that good government is worth paying for is essential to preventing a rebirth of the Montgomery County GOP, a surge in single-issue anti-tax activism and a resulting decline in the county’s fortunes.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Cardin and Leggett Support Navarro in Leisure World
This mailing went out from the Navarro campaign into Leisure World.
It’s All Over But the Voting
By Sharon Dooley.
Wednesday evening the final debate of the Council District 4 campaign was held at Sherwood High School in Sandy Spring. This evening was sponsored by two local groups - Sandy Spring-Ashton Rural Preservation Consortium (SSARPC) & Greater Sandy Spring Green Space.
It was obvious that fatigue has crept in like those fogs mentioned in Carl Sandburg’s poetry …on little cat feet. None of the candidates were spouting fiery rhetoric, although Robin Ficker at times returned to his favorite lines about the voters being the ATM for the council. But, he even forgot his handwritten prop about taxes, which had to be retrieved by one of his sons who were in attendance with their mother. Ah yes, when all else fails – bring in the family to show what a man of the people the candidate might be.
Taking note of MPW recent posts, Ficker did claim to be among the residents of Council District 4 and introduced one of his sons as the actual farmer on the family farm in Boyds, (the one where the candidate no longer lives, if he is to be believed). He also benefited from a rude and noisy cheering section, which made frequent and often inappropriate outbursts; all were discouraged by the moderator.
The two other candidates in this upcoming Tuesday election were also there. George Gluck - the Green candidate - is a serious man, an engineer and grandfather who cares about such things as global warming and free trade and other progressive issues and his sincerity shone through his remarks. He also spoke of living in the Brookeville area previously and noted he had a real appreciation for the quaint town and other rural areas nearby where the residents are trying to preserve historic areas and open spaces.
Nancy Navarro, recently returned from her native country of Venezuela and the funeral of her mother, who died suddenly, seemed subdued, but did not cave under the attacks of Ficker, or the accusatory questions his supporters submitted. Living in the most diverse district council district was a theme she returned to, as she mentioned ensuring services for all residents of the county. She stuck to the issues she had identified early on in the race as the core components of her campaign – reaching out to the minority members of District 4, promoting her successes on the Board of Education and speaking of the need to bring jobs and affordable housing to the eastern portion of the county. She also mentioned the needs for safety and security for our elder residents. She spoke of painful education budget cuts and sacrifices of the union members who turned back raises that they were expecting. She plowed no new ground, nor was she expected to at this late date. Each candidate was more in safe mode – not willing to make a mistake that might provide any opening for an opponent to exploit in a last minute mailing or robo-call.
Growth was a concern on the minds of the sparse audience as questions concerning zoning and the ICC were asked as well as future development. Navarro – who touted her Sierra Club endorsement – spoke against the ICC and the fact that Council District 4 would suffer disproportionately from the devastating effects of this highway, which has been questioned by many over the years. Gluck mentioned the deforestation that has already occurred. Ficker claimed the negative environmental effects will be worsened by the shopping malls and high rises that will appear at each ICC interchange and mentioned the need to replace devastated parklands. He claimed that development dollars, which fuel politics, will be in play in this area.
None of the candidates voiced support for the plan to move the Wheaton Library to the urban center as is planned. Each mentioned the need for the new planning board member to be smart and independent; Navarro spoke also in favor of a new member who could support Smart Growth concepts.
In closing statements, Navarro repeated her themes, mentioned the schools, which are the jewel of Montgomery County and the need to protect the quality of education for our community. She spoke of the need for a council member to speak up for the neighborhoods as a voice for those locals who might not be heard on the council.
Gluck was philosophical in a benediction to his campaign, speaking of lessons learned while sometimes speaking truths before their time. He mentioned his hope for progressive issues such as verifiable voting, campaign finance reform and an instant run-off system. He quoted Mark Twain in mentioning that “Irreverence is a Champion of Liberty and its’ only sure defense.”
Ficker was rambling in his closing and mentioned that all of his campaign funds had come from District 4 residents – a statement not verified by this writer! He claimed that the council was spendthrift and irresponsible with taxpayer dollars. He repeated his frequent ATM remark and noted that his multiple petitions over the years had garnered over 2 million votes (not mentioning the costs to the taxpayers of dealing with all of the defeated petition drives during this time.) He repeated that he was a man of the people who had lived in the county his entire life and he would do a good job and not be aloof; in proof he gave out his cell phone number if any in the audience had questions.
So District 4: The horses are in the starting gates – you can stay home and let the wrong winner be selected, you can vote your party and if turnout is along registration lines, elect a Democrat, or you can confound the experts and vote for a 50 to one third party candidate. The choice is up to you. But if the Preakness were any harbinger, I’d say keep your eyes on the filly in the race – she may well gallop to the finish!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Nancy Navarro-Robin Ficker Debate on Political Pulse
The Navarro-Ficker debate will air on "Political Pulse" on Channel 16 TV on Saturday, May 16th at 6 p.m., Sunday May 17th at 6 p.m. and Monday May 18th at 7:30 p.m.
Nancy Navarro and Robin Ficker are running for Montgomery County Council in District 4.
Navarro's Enemies and the Company They Keep
Help Save Maryland has released its latest challenge to Nancy Navarro to answer its questionnaire. But the challenge appeared on the "American Jingoist" blog, a national right-wing site with some eye-popping content. Check out some of the company Help Save Maryland keeps.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Does Robin Ficker Live in District 4?
Republican District 4 nominee Robin Ficker has been making a big deal about his new East County residency, referring to “our district” in debates and criticizing Democrat Nancy Navarro for out-of-district contributions. But it turns out that Ficker himself may not actually live in District 4.
Section 102 of the Montgomery County Charter states:The Council shall be composed of nine members, each of whom shall be a qualified voter of Montgomery County. Four Councilmembers shall be nominated and elected by the qualified voters of the entire County. Each of the five other members of the Council shall, at the time of election, reside in a different Council district, and shall be nominated and elected by the qualified voters of that district.
A County Attorney Opinion from 1990 further clarifies that:Charter Section 102 requires those candidates running for election to the County Council from a councilmanic district to reside in the district they are seeking to represent. Residency must be established by the date of the primary election and maintained throughout the Council member’s term of office.
On February 23, the Gazette’s Janel Davis broke the story that Robin Ficker was moving from Boyds to “a house in the Fairland Estates area of the district on the perhaps ironically named Peaceful Lane.” We looked up the tax assessments for every house on that street and post them below:
Ficker is not listed as an owner of any of these houses. Furthermore, all but two of them are claimed as principal residences by their owners, who receive homestead credits towards their property taxes. The other two houses have the following listed phone numbers:
The phone number for 1303 Peaceful Lane is disconnected. The phone number for 1411 Peaceful Lane is answered by a message from “the Beanes.” None of this rules out the possibility that Ficker lives in a basement or accessory apartment in one of the homes on the street.
But there is more. On his property tax bill, Ficker still claims his house in Boyds as his principal residence. He is saving $2,250.81 in homestead and property tax credits this year.
Ficker “changed his residency” once before to run for office, challenging Senator P.J. Hogan in District 39 in 2002. But Ficker continued to claim his Boyds home as his principal residence back then too.
Finally, Ficker has just one listed home phone number in Maryland: the one at his home in Boyds.
If Robin Ficker truly is a resident of District 4, why does he own no property and have no phone number inside the district while he continues to have a listed phone number and a homestead credit for his “principal residence” in Boyds?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Navarro General Election Mailer
Here is some proof that Navarro is taking Ficker seriously. So should the rest of the Democrats.
Navarro and Ficker Debate on Political Pulse
Political Pulse host Charles Duffy sent us this notice:
The Nancy Navarro - Robin Ficker District 4, Montgomery County Council debate will air on "Political Pulse" on Thursday, May 14th at 9:00 p.m. on Channel 16 TV. (The debate will also air this weekend; dates/times forthcoming).
The debate between State Delegates Brian Feldman (D. Montgomery County) and Chris Shank (R. Washington County) will air on Tuesday, May 19th at 9:30 p.m. and Thursday, May 21st at 9:00 p.m. on "Political Pulse."
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Politics, Money and Lies
The latest batch of District 4 campaign finance data is in and there’s something for everybody: a little bit of politics, a whole lot of money and a big fat lie! Following are cumulative totals for the 2009 election and details on contributors.
Nancy Navarro
Beginning Balance: $43,220.69
Contributions: $46,653.06
Loans: $5,000
Expenditures: $92,002.27
End Balance: $3,156.37
Navarro has received almost three times the contributions (excluding loans) as Ben Kramer and Cary Lamari combined. In our last post, we reported a list of everyone who had contributed at least $500 to her campaign. Since then, additional contributors who have exceeded that level include SEIU Local 500 PAC ($4,000), UFCW Local 400 ($4,000), County Council Member Valerie Ervin ($2,000), IBEW Local 26 ($1,000), Metro Washington Food & Allied Service Trades ($1,000), CWA COPE of Virginia ($500) and Silver Spring lawyer and developer Robert Hillerson ($500). Labor pulled out all the stops to help Navarro get elected, providing invaluable volunteer support and at least 44% of her contributions.
A few of Navarro’s other contributors in this filing include IMPACT Silver Spring Executive Director Frankie Blackburn ($100), fellow School Board Member Patricia O’Neill ($62.50), MCDCC Member Oscar Ramirez ($50), former County Council candidate Hans Riemer ($50) and, most interestingly, District 20 Delegate Sheila Hixson ($250). Hixson joins Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18) and Heather Mizeur (D-20) as the only state legislators to back Navarro in the primary.
Lastly, Navarro accepted a $5,000 loan. The state’s database is crawling with bugs at the moment but her campaign tells us the loan came from Navarro’s husband. Even with abundant financial support from both business and labor, the nearly six-digit primary cost compelled Navarro to sink family money into the election.
Cary Lamari
Beginning Balance: $0
Contributions: $5,512.24
Loans: $10,000
Expenditures: $10,182.18
End Balance: $5,330.06
Lamari received just $1,080 in new contributions in the last days of the race. His new contributors included County Council Member Valerie Ervin ($200), a strong Navarro supporter, and former District 4 candidate Pat Ryan ($200).
Lamari earned just 730 votes, or 8.4% of Democratic primary voters. Despite being a decades-long civic activist and a former President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, Lamari could not keep up with Navarro and Kramer because both of them outspent him by about nine to one. Aspiring County Council candidates should heed this lesson: for a non-incumbent, even a district race now costs nearly $100,000 to compete.
Cary Lamari’s message of restraining overdevelopment and his emphasis on constituent service was closer to Marilyn Praisner’s philosophy than any other 2009 candidate. (Just ask Council Member Marc Elrich.) Yet, none of the politicians who endorsed Don Praisner supported Lamari and two of them (County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg) sided with developer Ben Kramer. Lamari’s supporters have just cause to wonder whether these politicians truly believe in the growth-restraining message on which they campaigned three years ago.
Ben Kramer
Beginning Balance: $316.44
Contributions: $11,761
Loans: $90,000
Expenditures: $93,262.71
End Balance: $8,814.73
Kramer’s contributors in the last days of the primary included philanthropist Carol Trawick ($500), land use attorney William Kominers ($100), lobbyist Ashlie Bagwell ($100), real estate lawyer Lawrence Shulman ($50) and Senator Brian Frosh’s (D-16) law firm, Karp, Frosh, Lapidus, Wigodsky & Norwind PA ($250). Kramer also received a loan for $40,000, which given his past history, probably came from him. (The state database is not being cooperative today!) But the following contribution is particularly troublesome.
Alison Klumpp famously told Maryland Moment that Kramer had “no intention of taking developer money” on March 9. Kramer himself went further, declaring at Leisure World, “I have not taken and agreed that I would not take money from developers in this campaign.” We then exposed Kramer’s acceptance of a $1,000 contribution from developer Josh Rales as well as the independent mailings on his behalf by the Maryland Realtors PAC. The Kramer campaign has ignored our research for over a month. Now we have caught him breaking his pledge again.
Below is a partial contributor list to Kramer from his latest report. Note the $500 contribution from Bethesda Center LLC, an entity based at 3299 K Street, NW, Suite #700, Washington, DC, 20007.
Here is Bethesda Center LLC’s Maryland corporate registration. Note its intention to “develop certain property in Montgomery County, Maryland” and the signature of Marc N. Duber, Executive Vice President.
Bethesda Center LLC’s address matches the Bernstein Companies.
The Bernstein Companies describes itself as “one of Washington D.C.’s oldest real estate development, investment, and management organizations.”
Here is their management team. Note the presence of Marc N. Duber, who signed Bethesda Center LLC’s registration.
Here is more on their development activities. 
If that is not enough for you, Kramer also accepted a $6,000 contribution from the Maryland Realtors PAC on 4/29/09, a check that was reported eight days after the primary.
Some believe developer contributions matter and others do not. Nancy Navarro and Cary Lamari both accepted them but neither pledged not to do it. Whether developer contributions are inherently corrupting is a matter for the voters to decide but we are more concerned with basic honesty. And it’s time we called Kramer’s pledge not to take developer money exactly what it is:
A lie.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Democrats Unite Against Ficker... Except the Kramers
An all-star cast of Democrats came together today to support District 4 County Council Democratic nominee Nancy Navarro against Republican Robin Ficker. All of Maryland's statewide elected leaders added their support to County Executive Ike Leggett and a unanimous County Council to put the party over the top. Notably absent were Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) and Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), who were asked to endorse Navarro but did not answer. Following is the press release from the Navarro campaign.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
Monday, May 11, 2009
Contact: David Moon, Campaign Manager
Email: david@navarroforcouncil.com
Maryland Democrats Unite Behind Nancy Navarro
Press Conference Highlights Broad Support for County Council Bid
ROCKVILLE, MD – Today, Maryland Democrats united to endorse Nancy Navarro for Montgomery County Council, District 4. Convening outside the County Council building, Maryland Democratic Party Chair Susan Turnbull announced endorsements for Navarro from Governor Martin O’Malley, Lt. Governor Anthony Brown, U.S. Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, Attorney General Doug Gansler, Comptroller Peter Franchot, as well as Rep. Donna Edwards and Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Turnbull cited the importance of Democratic unity in the May 19th Special Election and noted the steps the Navarro campaign had taken to try and expand the Democratic base.
Navarro was also joined by numerous members of the General Assembly, including Delegation Chairs Senator Rich Madaleno and Delegate Brian Feldman, who announced the near-unanimous support from the Montgomery County Delegation. Also in attendance were County Executive Ike Leggett, Council President Phil Andrews, and Councilmembers Roger Berliner, Valerie Ervin, Nancy Floreen, Mike Knapp, George Leventhal, and Duchy Trachtenberg. A representative from Councilmember Marc Elrich’s office also joined the proceedings. Leggett noted that though County Democrats may have supported different candidates in the recent special primary election, it was now time for all Democrats to rally behind their nominee, Nancy Navarro.
The numerous Democratic state and county officials were joined by a broad coalition of endorsers, including representatives from diverse constituency groups, the Sierra Club of Montgomery County, local labor unions, and the Montgomery County Business PAC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
