Dear Colleagues,
It will come as no surprise to any of you that this is a crucial week for the six of us. As you know, the House will soon consider the Civil Marriage Protection Act (Senate Bill 116), a bill that will allow same-sex couples to marry in Maryland. Importantly, it will also reaffirm religious communities' constitutional right to solemnize only those unions that fit within their faith traditions. First and foremost, we write to ask you - on behalf of our families and thousands of families headed by same-sex couples in our state - to vote yes on this legislation. Just as important, though, we are writing to refocus this debate back to what this bill will actually do. Quite simply, it will secure for our families the protections that marriage - and only marriage - provides to loving and committed couples who have pledged to spend the rest of their lives together.
The General Assembly will consider many other important bills and initiatives during this legislative session, but few will be as important to a group of Marylanders as the Civil Marriage Protection Act will be for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The estimated 15,600 families headed by same-sex couples in our state are remarkably similar to all other families. As anyone who attended the House or Senate hearing can attest, we come from all walks of life and reflect the great diversity for which Maryland is known. Same-sex couples live in every single one of Maryland's counties. Fully one-fifth of LGBT families include children under the age of 18. Our households are financially interdependent in ways that any couple in the state would recognize. We are proud to live in Maryland.
Our families need the same protections because we face many of the same challenges. We stretch our paychecks to put food on the table, keep a roof over our children's heads and plan for emergencies. We struggle with the skyrocketing costs of health care, college tuition, and gas for our cars. And though we shoulder many of these same responsibilities, we cannot count on the same kind of safety net should life throw more at us than we can handle.
Marriage is at its best and most effective during some of life's worst moments. The protections it affords to families are especially crucial when one's spouse is in the back of an ambulance, or rushed into emergency surgery, or dies unexpectedly. For us, as for all of Maryland's families, a marriage license will mean far more than the paper on which it is printed. For us, it means the possibility of shared health insurance, more stable homes for our children, and fewer conversations about legal documents with attorneys. We would never want the responsibility of voting on you and your spouse's will, power of attorney, or advanced medical directive, but you've been put in that position this week for our families. We have faith that when faced with the option, you will vote to allow same-sex couples the opportunity to fulfill the commitments of mutual support and shared responsibility that we have already made to one another and to our children.
You will hear arguments during the course of this debate that, in our opinion, distract from what this bill does and what our conversation should be about. On the one hand, some proponents of marriage equality will speak of the recognition and respect that marriage confers on a relationship. Though this is undoubtedly true, we cannot legislate what is, at its core, a matter of the heart. We certainly seek to be thought of as any other family, but what is more important - and what is actually at stake with this bill - is that we are treated as any other family by the state and its laws. And on the other hand, some opponents of marriage equality will change the subject and seek to debate "the definition of marriage." But not only does this bill not affect any couple already married in Maryland, reframing the debate abstractly distracts from the very tangible protections that we seek for our families.
There will also undoubtedly be a debate about whether the state could design some institution other than marriage. We believe that any attempt to create a separate set of rules for our families will be far more complicated than ending the exclusion of our families from marriage and inevitably lead to unequal treatment. In the decade since civil unions were first created, this belief has been borne out by experience. Before Vermont passed marriage equality legislation, their civil union law was explicitly limited to not include all the protections of marriage. And in New Jersey, despite the promise of equal treatment, many private employers have declined to offer health benefits to the civil union partners of their employees. Marriage equality is a far simpler and more powerful solution.
We understand that for many of you this will be a close call and a tough vote - personally, politically, or spiritually. We know that for many of you with LGBT family members and friends, it is an issue as personal as it is for us. For those of you who have committed to supporting the Civil Marriage Protection Act, we thank you and ask you to stand strong with us. For those of you who are not yet sure if you can support us, what we ask you for is the opportunity to talk face-to-face about the challenges our families face and how this legislation will help us meet them. What we ask is for the opportunity to protect our families as you would protect yours. Thousands of families headed by same-sex couples need your vote on this legislation. Colleagues, we need you. Please vote yes on Senate Bill 116, the Civil Marriage Protection Act. Vote yes because you know it is the right thing to do. Vote yes because you want to stand on the right side of history. Vote yes because every family in Maryland needs the protections that marriage provides.
Your colleagues,
Luke Clippinger
Bonnie Cullison
Anne Kaiser
Maggie McIntosh
Heather R. Mizeur
Mary Washington
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
LGBT Delegates Make the Case for Marriage Equality
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Six Delegates Make a Direct Plea for Marriage to their Colleagues
Watch this testimony from Dels. Bonnie Cullison, Maggie McIntosh, Mary Washington, Heather Mizeur, Anne Kaiser, and Luke Clippinger.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Mizeur Calls for Moratorium . . .
. . . on Natural Gas Extraction from Marcellus Shale. Apparently, some families near the site can now light their tap water on fire:A flood of natural gas companies has swept into Appalachia, bringing the promise of both economic development and an American energy revolution. New technologies now allow them to extract gas from deposits long thought untappable.
The problem is with the process, not the gas. It's a real fracking problem (and not in the Battlestar Galactica sense):
And yet at least a few of these same companies have had to provide bottled water to whole neighborhoods. Why? Because in the shadow of new drilling operations, some families have discovered that their tap water is now flammable.But while the risks are real, so is the promise. The Marcellus Shale is an underground rock formation that spans from western New York to Virginia by way of Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, western Maryland and West Virginia. Geologists tell us that deposits within the Marcellus Shale and other similar rock formations around the country would make us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.
That could be a game changer. Natural gas produces only about half the carbon emissions of coal, and it is cheaper than oil. Businessman T. Boone Pickens and the environmental powerhouse Sierra Club agree that it could help us transition to a clean energy economy while improving our energy independence.
But it is the method of extraction — not the fuel — that has raised red flags. When combined with advances in deep drilling techniques, hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," has enabled companies to extract these once untappable natural gas deposits. Wells are drilled into the shale first vertically, and then horizontally, at a depth between 5,000 and 20,000 feet. To release the gas, the rock is injected with a highly pressurized mixture containing at least 2 million gallons of water, 200,000 pounds of sand and 80,000 pounds of chemicals.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Mizeur Pushes Back Against Nazi-Connected Rail Operator
The Post recently wrote about a rail operator partly owned by a French rail company that transported Holocaust victims to their deaths winning a Virginia Railway Express contract. It turns out that this same rail operator is being considered for a MARC contract. That aroused the attention of Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20), who wrote MDOT to protest their consideration of the Holocaust-connected company. We reproduce Delegate Mizeur’s letter to MDOT Secretary Beverly Swaim-Staley below.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Multitudes for Mizeur
District 20 Delegate Heather Mizeur is planning a colossal campaign kickoff this Saturday and 122 VIPs, activists, constituents and MoCo people-to-know have signed up as supporters.
Mizeur finished first in the 2006 primary and was picked by our spies as one of the county's most influential elected officials in 2008. You can lay money on the table that she's headed back to Annapolis.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Delegate Heather Mizeur's End of Session Email
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) sent the following end of session email to her constituents. The email contains a link to her eight-page (!) full briefing document.
Dear Friends,
Our state capital may be smaller than Rome, but Annapolis wasn't built in a day, either.
We've built a solid foundation over the last several years. But progress in Maryland state government sometimes happens slower than we'd all like.
Faced with a recession of historic proportions, this is especially true. Maryland's budget has all but squeezed blood from stone for several years, and this year was no exception.
Click here to read a round-up of the major action in the General Assembly this year.
Even in tough times, we protected our priorities. We maintained our strong support for education, increasing funding by 3.8 percent and preventing the transfer of teacher pensions to the counties. This steadfast funding commitment is paying off - for the second consecutive year, Maryland's schools were ranked first in the nation.
We will also be getting healthier soon. In addition to 172,000 Marylanders who will get public health insurance coverage, federal health reform finishes several projects we started here in Annapolis. Insurance companies will have to spend up to 85 percent of our premium dollars on medical care instead of marketing costs and CEO compensation; women will no longer pay more money for the same insurance coverage that men receive; and all young adults across America will now be able to stay enrolled on their family health plans until age 26.
Here in the state, we passed a law I introduced to ensure that Marylanders have easier access to preventive care so that they can stay healthy, and another that will leverage a new federal statute to improve enrollment outreach to children who qualify for public health coverage but aren't yet covered. With 100,000 eligible, uninsured children in Maryland, it's past time that our state's kids came first.
Same-sex couples are also taking a huge step forward: just a few months ago, Maryland decided to honor valid out-of-state marriage licenses like the one Deborah and I received in California. This is an important first step towards treating all families equally in the Free State.
But I wouldn't be honest if I said there were no disappointments this year.
I introduced common-sense legislation to ensure that low-income workers received information from their employers about the earned income credit, but after passing the House, it failed in the Senate. Bills to strengthen and expand family and medical leave and make clean energy biomass options more affordable for heating both died in the House.
Most disappointingly, I introduced and fought hard for legislation that would have saved the State tens of millions of dollars per year by giving low- and moderate-income women more reliable access to family planning services. The Family Planning Works Act didn't pass because we couldn't find modest start-up funding, but I will be working to find private foundation funding in the interim.
For a more detailed summary of the major legislation that was considered this year, please click here. For a summary of what the recently enacted federal health reform package means for Maryland, click here.
With the Maryland General Assembly adjourned sine die after another legislative session, I look forward to seeing more of you in Takoma Park, Silver Spring, White Oak and Colesville. As always, please let me know if you have any questions or feedback, and thank you for the opportunity to serve you in Annapolis.
All my best,
Heather
Heather R. Mizeur
Delegate, Maryland General Assembly
20th Legislative District
(301) 858-3493 Annapolis
(301) 270-0064 Silver Spring
heather.mizeur@house.state.md.us
Friday, February 19, 2010
Heather Mizeur Thanks Red Maryland
Heather Mizeur (D-20) is one of the state's most progressive Delegates and a Democratic National Committee Member to boot. And yet, she is thanking conservative blog Red Maryland. Yes folks, you read that correctly!
Mizeur's gratitude originates with a Red Maryland post by Mark Newgent pointing out that she had an active ActBlue account that was currently available for fundraising. State legislators are prohibited by state law from raising money during the general session. Mizeur sent this comment to Red Maryland:I want to thank Mark Newgent on Red Maryland for noticing that my ActBlue page was still set up to accept contributions. Unfortunately, he made two bad assumptions – first, by assuming that I knew; and second, by assuming that I was fundraising during the legislative session.
Lord Almighty! Conservative blogger Mark Newgent has one of Montgomery County's most prominent progressives thanking him. What will the state's knuckle-dragging Neanderthals think of him now? We predict he will never live it down!
In fact, I didn’t know, and there has not been any fundraising during the session. I had ActBlue take down the page immediately, and here’s the rest of the story.
If it seems odd that mine was the only ActBlue account still active, it is. Their team habitually deactivates the accounts of elected General Assembly members while allowing non-elected candidates to keep raising. They’re not sure why mine remained active, but they took it down within minutes of realizing their mistake.
More importantly, there were no actual funds raised through ActBlue during the legislative session or – as it turns out – ever. We set up an ActBlue account in the summer of 2009, in anticipation of launching my new website. But we went back to the drawing board on the website, and we’ve never either directed anyone to our ActBlue page nor received a single contribution there. Not one.
On the other hand, about a dozen people have tried to contribute after the General Assembly session started – totaling more than $1,500 in late-arriving checks – and each donation was immediately returned.
It’s the essence of an open and transparent government: citizens point out an oversight, and it gets fixed. And then there’s accountability: the buck stops with me and I take responsibility for the oversight.
So here I am: a blue Democrat sending a thank you to Red Maryland.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Mizeur Lauches Online Petition for Open Government Act
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) has launched an online petition in support of her Open Government Act. We have previously said that the bill "would enable free public access to the General Assembly's 'up-to-the-minute' bill tracking service, which is currently available only for an $800 fee; post General Assembly committee agendas a day in advance; webcast committee hearings; and substantially open up the proceedings of the Board of Public Works, which currently has the power to implement gigantic budget cuts without public input." We ask our readers to review the petition (which currently has 104 supporters) and consider signing on if they agree with it.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Mizeur Builds Massive Support for Open Government Act
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) has amassed 75 House co-sponsors and 30 Senate co-sponsors, a majority in each chamber, for her sweeping Maryland Open Government Act. The bill, which is lead-sponsored by Nancy King (D-39) in the Senate, would enable free public access to the General Assembly's "up-to-the-minute" bill tracking service, which is currently available only for an $800 fee; post General Assembly committee agendas a day in advance; webcast committee hearings; and substantially open up the proceedings of the Board of Public Works, which currently has the power to implement gigantic budget cuts without public input. Mizeur deserves credit for crafting a comprehensive bill and attracting widespread and bi-partisan support for it. We reprint her press release below.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Barking for Transparency
You’ve seen this before. It’s a quiet night in the neighborhood. Then one dog barks. And then another. And another. Soon the entire neighborhood is full of barking. So it is with liberals howling on behalf of transparency.
This round of noise in the night started with Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39), who proposed a bill based on a good idea: committee votes should be just as accessible on the General Assembly’s website as are floor votes. Ali worked the press hard on this issue, obtaining editorial support from both the Post and the Sun. But Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) said that Ali’s bill was not enough, arguing along with Common Cause Executive Director Ryan O’Donnell for a package of bills. And then Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) slammed Mizeur for not addressing the ancient practice by Committee Chairs of putting bills “in the drawer,” or not holding votes on them at all. Most improbably, individuals associated with Montgomery County’s Progressive Neighbors claim credit for the idea too, even seeking to trademark Las Vegas’ celebrated tourist slogan for themselves. Don’t they understand that successful advocacy groups heap credit upon their bill sponsors and not upon themselves? Now even the Republicans are involved.
And then this shameful squabble erupted on Delegate Ali’s Facebook page. The bickering goes on too long to fit on one screenshot, but it is enough for our readers to get the idea.
Meanwhile, little logistical work has been done. Who is briefing the presiding officers and their staff? Did anyone bother to do that before running off panting to the newspapers? Who is talking to the relevant Committee Chairs who will consider the bill(s)? Who is lobbying the committee members? Who is assembling research on how other states disclose committee votes, and on the benefits that ensue? Who is putting in the difficult, but invisible work of actually getting something passed? Is anyone? Or is everyone so busy getting their names into the press that no one is doing any work?
The only result of all of this barking for attention so far is to create mirth in the halls of Annapolis. One spy in the capital had this comment on the fracas:The transparency proposals are modifications of an idea that Republicans started pushing three years ago. In 2007, Warren Miller and Alex Mooney (two of the most conservative Republicans in the legislature) sponsored a transparency bill (it failed). In 2008, they brought it back, and it passed unanimously. In 2009, Verna Jones sponsored a bill (which passed unanimously), and the Senate began putting committee votes online. This year, everyone's trying to get in the mix. Heather Mizeur and Saqib Ali introduced bills. The Republicans in both chambers proposed rule changes. Nancy King wrote to the Senate President to request a rule change. And Common Cause is floating around, hopelessly unaware of what's happening or how to affect the outcome. If anything is going to happen, look for the Democratic leadership in both chambers to make the issue their own and resolve it without legislation... long before a hearing is even scheduled on Mizeur or Ali's proposals.
And so the most likely outcome is a limited administrative change. As for the broader agenda pushed by squabbling liberals? All of you Redskins fans should be acquainted with the phrase, “There’s always next year.”
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Anti-Spying Bill Introduced
Senators Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Brian Frosh (D-16) and Delegates Sheila Hixson (D-20), Sandy Rosenberg (D-41), Heather Mizeur (D-20) and Tom Hucker (D-20) introduced a comprehensive bill today to prevent improper spying by the state police. Following is a press release from their offices.
Legislative Leaders Introduce Comprehensive Bill to Ensure Police Spying on Peaceful Activists Never Happens Again
January 22, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On behalf of Senators Jamie Raskin; Brian Frosh, Delegates Sheila Hixson; Sandy Rosenberg; Tom Hucker, and Heather Mizeur
ANNAPOLIS – Calling for swift passage for a bill to ban police spying on political activists in Maryland, state legislative leaders today held a press conference to announce their introduction of The Freedom of Association and Assembly Protection Act of 2009. The leaders believe that the First Amendment protects the rights of all Marylanders to organize to advance their political and social views free of the chilling specter of government surveillance and dossiers. However, Maryland now has no law that protects these most basic of rights to organize, peacefully assemble, and petition our government. Lead bill sponsors are Senators Jamie Raskin and Brian Frosh; and Delegates Sheila Hixson, Sandy Rosenberg, Heather Mizeur and Tom Hucker.
The legislation seeks to codify the recommendations of the report issued in October by former Attorney General Stephen Sachs. Specifically, the bill will mandate that law enforcement use of covert techniques and compiling of criminal intelligence dossiers about Marylanders’ political views and activities be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
State Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20): “The State Police are not Maryland's thought police. Marylanders have a right to work for environmental protection, an end to the death penalty, marriage equality, peace, and bike lanes without being spied upon and called terrorists by law enforcement officials. Our bill will forbid covert tactics against our citizens unless there is specific reasonable suspicion that they are engaged in criminal activity. It will also forbid the Orwellian practice of keeping political dossiers on citizens that are not part of actual criminal investigations. At a time of staggering financial crisis, let's stop wasting our money spying on people nonviolently exercising their political freedom.”
State Senator Brian E. Frosh (D-16): "Obviously, we've got to make sure that this kind of surveillance doesn't happen again. Police need the tools to do their jobs in cases of criminal wrongdoing. But surveillance of law-abiding citizens shouldn't be an option."
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20): “My colleagues and I were shocked and appalled to learn of the covert police surveillance of our neighbors who were simply expressing their beliefs regarding the death penalty, the war in Iraq and environmental concerns. Still further and inconceivably, we learned that their names were entered on a ‘terrorist’ list. We ask: what has happened to our freedom to express ourselves? For that reason we have crafted legislation to prohibit inappropriate law enforcement that interferes with First Amendment rights.”
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20): “At a time when the state is cutting health care, transportation, and environmental protection, it boggles the mind to learn our state police were using precious tax dollars to spy on our constituents. We wrote this bill to make sure state tax dollars are never again used for surveillance of peaceful activists. We have a constitutional right to assemble, and we will fight to protect it.”
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20): “Takoma Park residents share a proud history of civic engagement and issue advocacy. Sometimes we have to fight to be heard. At other times, we’re being listened to when we least expect it. State sponsored spying on peace activists and death penalty advocates is a mark of shame on Maryland. We are here today to reaffirm the most basic of our rights granted by the First Amendment – that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Here and now, we make our petition: Never again will this be allowed to happen in Maryland.”
Delegate Samuel I. (Sandy) Rosenberg (D-41): “People exercising their First Amendment rights should not be subjected to the chilling presence of undercover police officers.”
ACLU of Maryland Legislative Director Cynthia Boersma: “The ACLU of Maryland applauds the bill’s sponsors for answering the call of Mr. Sachs’ report, which condemned the police surveillance that has taken place as ‘inconsistent with an overarching value in our democratic society—the free and unfettered debate of important public questions.’” Mr. Sachs believes such police conducted ‘ought to be prohibited,’ and we believe that legislation is necessary to ensure that the protection of our most basic rights do not change with changing administrations. This bill establishes clear standards to protect both our First Amendment rights and our public safety by directing that criminal intelligence and counter-terrorism resources are used to respond to suspected criminal activity rather than spying on legitimate political activity.”
Since July 17, 2008, when the ACLU of Maryland uncovered that the MSP engaged in covert surveillance of local peace and anti-death penalty groups for over a year from 2005-2006, we have learned that the Maryland State Police has engaged in a far-reaching program of covert surveillance of political groups in Maryland. Dozens of individuals and organizations have been targeted by the Maryland State Police which maintained criminal intelligence files on their political beliefs and activities, labeling them as suspected terrorists and security threats. According to their own files, the MSP had no evidence or suspicion that any identified target was engaged in criminal activity of any kind.
Go online to learn more about MSP spying on political activists:
http://www.aclu-md.org/Index%20content/NoSpying/NoSpying.html
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.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Democratic Democracy
By Delegate Heather R. Mizeur (District 20).
Neutrality guided my thinking as an uncommitted superdelegate during the recent Democratic nominating process, largely because I prefer building the Party to picking horses. Voters decided that Senator Barack Obama should be our presumptive Presidential nominee.
Sure, superdelegates came out to break the deadlock, but they opted for the candidate who had earned the most pledged delegates. Based on the rules that were in place, the nominating process came to its appropriate conclusion.
That’s different than saying the system worked.
Like any idea committed to paper but unproven in the real world, the flaws in our process only became evident when it was put to the test.
The last eighteen months have made it clear that there are many improvements needed, and that reform means more than preventing superdelegates from becoming the central front of another nominating process. Here are some of the things we should consider.
Superdelegates
The idea of superdelegates – or, more officially, an unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegate – strikes many as undemocratic. Many proposals aimed at curbing their influence center on making their votes more dependent on how the voters in a Congressional district, state, or the whole country voted.
Among these ideas was one I heard from many of Senator Obama’s supporters in Maryland, who believed superdelegates should pledge to vote the way their state (or Congressional district) voted.
The trouble is, Democratic superdelegates aren’t evenly distributed around the country – by population, by percentage of the nationwide Democratic primary vote, or by any other means. Several states – including Maryland and the District of Columbia, won by Senator Obama, and California, New York, and Massachusetts, won by Senator Clinton – are overrepresented by superdelegates. Others states are underrepresented.
This inequity happens for a number of reasons. Many superdelegates are appointed to be at-large DNC members, representing a particular constituency – Young Democrats, African-Americans, GLBT Americans, etc. Former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and some other high-ranking officials also continue to be superdelegates. Wherever these superdelegates live, they are counted with that state’s delegation.
If this logic had been followed by everyone, and all superdelegates had voted the way their States voted, the final numbers would have been much, much different – and this would have probably helped Senator Clinton more than Senator Obama.
Later in the campaign, as the process was nearing its end, I began to hear another argument emerge, mainly from Senator Clinton’s supporters: superdelegates should pledge to support the winner of the national popular vote. But this argument, too, is more complicated and problematic than it seems.
First – in addition to the disagreement about whether (and how) to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida – there was a lack of consensus about whether (and how) to count the votes cast by Michiganders and Floridians. Second, the contests weren’t all held on the same day, making the national popular vote a “photo montage” of the electorate rather than a snapshot. Third – and most importantly – the caucuses held in just over a dozen states do a poor job at capturing “popular” sentiment (more on that in minute).
For these reasons, using the national popular vote for a nominating contest would be as flawed as requiring superdelegates to vote the way of their state or district.
What does it all mean? What should we do about superdelegates?
We could require them (or certain categories of them) to remain neutral until after the primary contests have all concluded, as I did. We could devise a system to bind them (or certain categories of them) to primary vote totals in a way that wouldn’t give some states an outsized influence. We could reduce the overall number of superdelegates, making it less likely that they would exercise as much influence on the nominating process.
Or we could do away with superdelegates entirely.
Caucuses
After Senator and Michelle Obama move into the White House and we’ve secured expanded majorities in the House and Senate, the DNC needs to review whether or not we continue allowing states to hold caucuses. Though cheaper to hold than primaries, they are an imperfect way of nominating a President.
First, and most obviously, caucuses are a bizarre creature in a democracy that values secret ballots. But they also depress overall turnout, and skew what turnout there is away from older voters, working-class voters, voters with disabilities, and other who have trouble making it to a caucus site and staying there, sometimes for hours. There are no absentee ballots for caucuses, and so voters with unmet child care needs, voters who make a living through shift work, deployed members of the military, and voters without reliable transportation are shut out of the process.
We should invest in our democracy by requiring primaries, not caucuses.
A Rotating Regional Primary System
If only Michigan and Florida had followed the rules, their influence on the nominating process may have been greater. But they were only marginally more ambitious than most states in trying to increase their influence on the primary process. (See: Tuesday, Super)
It is past time to allow more states an opportunity to hold the first in the nation primary. We should strongly consider fundamental reform to our party’s nominating contest, taking a close look at a regional primary system. The DNC could carve up the country into 5-8 regions and then use a lottery system to determine the contest dates for each region. This would allow new, different voices to be heard.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Let’s use what we’ve learned from this extraordinary nominating contest to make further improvements for years to come.
Editor's note: This guest post is the second part in a two part series describing Delegate Heather R. Mizeur’s (D-Takoma Park and Silver Spring) status as a Democratic superdelegate in the recent Presidential nominating process.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
On the Sidelines but in the Fray
By Delegate Heather R. Mizeur (District 20).
The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing my fifteen minutes in the superdelegate spotlight.
I hope it’s the last fifteen minutes I’ll have to spend there.
Like a couple hundred other Democratic superdelegates around the country, I remained – as the Post put it – “adamantly, stubbornly undeclared” throughout the primary season. And so for nearly six months, the Clinton and Obama campaigns each lined up a small legion of surrogates, who dutifully called to sway my vote one way or the other.
And that’s the story the Post ran, the story most Americans wanted to read about uncommitted superdelegates: phone conversations and meetings with Governors and Senators, encounters with friends and neighbors on the Metro, and – of course – Melissa Etheridge calling.
But my experience is more nuanced than that.
The night before the article ran and my support for Obama’s candidacy became official, he had become our presumptive nominee by reaching the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
The timing of my decision prompted questions by people who posted online comments, emailed me, or blogged about the article. Why did she wait so long? Why now?
Fair questions – what I haven’t ever articulated well enough was why I stayed on the sidelines.
It’s quite simple: I wanted the voters to decide.
We have never had an election like this one, and we may never have another. Since their creation in 1982, superdelegates had never played a significant role in choosing our Party’s nominee for President.
Even when it became clear that we might be forced into that role, there was no rulebook to guide our decision-making process – or the campaigns’ and the public’s efforts to sway our votes.
I became a superdelegate when the Maryland Democratic Party chose me as one of its representatives to the Democratic National Committee. When I was elected as a Committeewoman in 2005, I pledged to work hard for our Party, to grow our base, to shape our platform, and to support our candidates. Since then, I have remained neutral in Party primaries, which isn’t always easy in a state and a county boasting a bumper crop of talented Democratic leaders.
Last fall, when faced with a heavily contested presidential nominating process, I decided to remain neutral until at least after the Maryland primary had concluded. Doing so lets me be an unbiased resource connecting voters and activists to all Democratic campaigns. It also allows me to advocate and assist all our candidates.
I held a house party for Bill Richardson, and offered to do the same for the other candidates. I volunteered at rallies for Barack Obama and John Edwards. I drove elderly voters to the polls for Hillary Clinton. I took pride in helping other Marylanders do the same.
As Maryland’s primary concluded, it seemed increasingly likely that the contest would remain close and the national dialogue would continue to unfold and flourish. My gut told me that it was important to let that conversation run its course – that Superdelegates should not prematurely end this race. Though my resolve to remain uncommitted was sometimes tested, it was never broken.
Along the way, I was encouraged to declare my choice for the Democratic nominee by both sides of the contest – campaign surrogates, advocates in Maryland and across the country, neighbors, and the candidates themselves. Sometimes it seemed that there were as many rationales as there were pundits to deliver them.
These were oftentimes compelling, but none ultimately convinced me that I should abandon my neutrality. And so I remained “adamantly, stubbornly undeclared,” waiting for the process to play itself out.
On June 3rd, it had ended. The last primaries and caucuses had been held, the last votes had been cast and counted. Senator Obama and his campaign had masterfully developed and executed their national strategy and he emerged as our presumptive nominee.
Never has staying out of a fight proved to be so bruising.
Committing my support when I did has been misinterpreted by some as political opportunism; remaining undeclared through the end of the races has been misconstrued by others as a self-interested joy ride. While I can probably do very little to change these opinions, I would like to offer some insights.
The Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama, and our candidates up and down the ballot are stronger than ever as a result of this primary season, and we stand ready to defeat Senator John McCain and the failed policies of the Bush Administration in November.
Because the process was allowed to play itself out, each state played an important role and we sent organizers to states and cities where Democrats normally do not compete. Because the process was allowed to play itself out, tens of millions of people voted and we registered record-breaking numbers of new voters. Because the process was allowed to play itself out, Senator Obama is ready to win in November, and we are all ready to help him.
And finally, because the process was allowed to play itself out, America decided – instead of me.
Editor's note: This guest post is the first part in a two part series describing Delegate Heather R. Mizeur’s (D-Takoma Park and Silver Spring) status as a Democratic superdelegate in the recent Presidential nominating process.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Superdelegate Heather Mizeur
Maryland Del. Heather Mizeur (D-20) is neutral in the presidential race according to MSNBC (and Maryland Politics Watch) and a Clinton supporter according to the Washington Blade. Will Del. Mizeur vote with or against her district? Every superdelegate faces this same quandary: alienating the Democrats who elect them and with whom they must work. "People are very much divided," said Mizeur.
Heather Mizeur is not just a delegate from District 20 but a superdelegate by virtue of her service on the Democratic National Committee as an elected member from Maryland.
Statewide, Obama won 60% of the vote compared to just 36% for Clinton. In District 20, represented by Heather Mizeur, voters supported Obama even more strongly, giving him 64% with only 35% for Clinton.
Last month, Mizeur said deciding who to support was tricky because one was bound to alienate one side:[Mizeur] acknowledged that if she were to support Obama or Clinton, there could be some unhappy Democrats in her district, the ones who support the candidate that she didn't endorse.
However, now it is clear that both her district and her state are not evenly divided but support Obama over Clinton by a margin of over 20 points. So I imagine that I am not the only one wondering how Del. Mizeur plans to vote at the Democratic National Convention.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Upcoming Public Forums
Councilman Roger Berliner will host a public forum on Woodmont East II tonight January 8th, from 7-9pm at the Bethesda Chevy Chase Regional Services Center located at 4805 Edgemoor La. in Bethesda.
Public Hearings on the BRAC DEIS (that's Base Closure and Realignment Commission Draft Environmental Impact Statement or, as I like to call it, BRACasaurus) for National Naval Medical Center (better known locally as "the Navy Hospital") on January 9 and 10 at the Pooks Hill Marriott. On January 10th, the Planning Board also has a planned briefing and public meeting on the same topic at 1PM.
Town of Chevy Chase Town Council meeting on January 9th at 7pm in the Town Hall at the Leland Center. The meeting should attract more interest than usual due to the introduction of a proposal for an emergency moratorium on construction (excepting additions of less than 500 sq. ft) and a petition in support of it.
Councilman Marc Elrich will discussing his proposed changes to the County's Forest Conservation Law at a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters on January 10th at 7 p.m. at the County Council Building at 100 Maryland Ave. in Rockville
District 20 Sen. Jamie Raskin, Del. Sheila Hixon, Del. Heather Mizeur, and Del. Tom Hucker will be holding a town hall meeting on Sunday, January 13th from 4-6pm at the United Methodist Church located at 52 Randolph Rd. in Silver Spring.
Finally, County Exec. Ike Leggett is holding a series of six public forums on the county budget throughout this month. I must say that the County Exec has admirable stamina for holding so many of these events.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Who’s Got the Biggest War Chests in MoCo?
If you have not done this already, go visit the UMBC Maryland Campaign Finance website. It’s a fun research tool and you’ll learn things about politicians you won’t believe. For example: who’s got money and who’s broke?
We here at MPW are, as always, dedicated to our growing legions of devoted readers. As usual, WE will do the work so that YOU – the informed political consumers who know enough to visit us every day – can draw your own conclusions. So, let’s go to the data!
Broadly speaking, candidate finances are reported in five categories: receipts, expenditures, cash/account balance, in-kinds and outstanding obligations. Think of the difference between account balance and outstanding obligations as a political balance sheet. High balances with no obligations can be liquidated as political ammo immediately. Outstanding obligations are almost always loans that candidates make to themselves. With every dollar they spend, candidates with high outstanding obligations are deciding whether to keep running for office or replenish their depleted nest eggs. These being politicians, most will decide to buy that extra campaign sign.
The last financial reports came in as of 1/17/07. The next batch should be in around Valentine’s Day – fitting, don’t you think? Of course, a lot has happened over the last year but fret not – we will update you.
So which MoCo state legislators have the most money? Measured by campaign account balance, the three best-financed MoCo Senators were Jennie Forehand (D17 - $64,092), Brian Frosh (D16 - $41,667) and Rob Garagiola (D15 - $31,024). The three poorest MoCo Senators were Jamie Raskin (D20 - $4,821), Mike Lenett (D19 - $7,518) and Nancy King (D39 - $8,875). To be fair to King, she was only recently appointed to the Senate.
Among the MoCo Delegates, the three best-financed were Susan Lee (D16 - $66,027), Heather Mizeur (D20 - $38,869) and Jeff Waldstreicher (D18 - $32,158). The three poorest were Al Carr (D18 - $280), Brian Feldman (D15 - $338) and Saqib Ali (D39 - $391). To be fair to Carr, he was not a Delegate at the time of his last report.
It’s not just about account balance though. Remember those pesky outstanding obligations? Sometimes they’re not merely pesky – they’re absolutely colossal. I know it’s shocking, but some politicians will spend lots of their own money to win. The only three MoCo Senators who reported outstanding obligations were Mike Lenett (D19 - $160,000), Jamie Raskin (D20 - $20,000) and Rob Garagiola (D15 - $10,000). All had contested races and all of these obligations were loans to their own campaigns.
The Delegates who reported the largest outstanding obligations were Ben Kramer (D19 - $114,450), Roger Manno (D19 - $70,000) and Jeff Waldstreicher (D18 - $42,417). Again, all had seriously contested races and all of their obligations were loans to themselves. So dear reader, if you had to put in $100,000 of your own money to just have a shot at winning office, would you do it?
Now here’s the interesting part. Subtract outstanding obligations from account balances and which incumbents were the most solvent? Among MoCo Senators, the leaders were Jennie Forehand (D17 - $64,092), Brian Frosh (D16 - $41,667) and Rob Garagiola (D15 - $21,024). No surprises there. But two Senators actually had negative net assets – Mike Lenett (D19 – negative $152,482) and Jamie Raskin (D20 – negative $15,179).
Among the delegates, the leaders in net assets were Susan Lee (D16 - $66,027), Heather Mizeur (D20 - $38,869) and House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D17 - $30,843). The worst off were Ben Kramer (D19 – negative $113,252), Roger Manno (D19 – negative $67,611) and Al Carr (D18 – negative $19,370). Seeing as how Kramer and Manno serve in the same district, they would be wise to run together on a slate to avoid bankrupting each other.
One note of caution. Many of these candidates have joint slate accounts that pay for multi-candidate signs and mailings. Those who stick together on slates and collect the Apple Ballot need less money to win (and almost always do win). So monetary weakness does not always equal political weakness.
What about potential Delegate challengers? Jean Cryor (D15), Joan Stern (D39), Aaron Klein (D20), appointment candidate Hugh Bailey (D39) and Ryan Spiegel (D17) all finished with positive account balances, though Bailey and Spiegel had very little money left. Regina Oldak (D16), Paul Griffin (D19), Alec Stone (D19) and Dana Beyer (D18) all finished with five-digit outstanding loans to themselves. Beyer’s outstanding loan total – $75,000 – was only exceeded by Lenett and Kramer. These four candidates will probably have to choose between running for office again or making a down payment on that Eastern Shore beach cabin we all want. Crab-loving hedonist that I am, I’d take the beach cabin.
