Frank Hecker

This is my third post in Dividing Howard week on my blog, as I discuss some topics related to my new book on the history of council council redistricting in Howard County, Maryland, and the broader events of Howard County politics from 1960 on. Previous posts discussed the role of Columbia in spurring creation of a county council, and the struggles of Howard County Republicans under the council district system. In today’s post I take a step back and look at the overall impact of having a council district scheme with drawing of district lines primarily controlled by one party.

There are really two questions here: First, has there been gerrymandering going on with respect to council district lines? I think the answer to this is yes, as evidenced by the past behavior and statements of the people engaged in drawing district lines; see the later chapters of Dividing Howard for many examples. (Although arguably the gerrymandering in question has been less egregious than in other jurisdictions.) That’s not to say that it’s simply a matter of evil Democrats and victimized Republicans; there’s no question that Howard County Republicans would return the favor if they were ever in a position to do so. (And in fact Republicans in other jurisdictions have happily engaged in blatant gerrymandering against Democrats when given the chance.)

Second, why exactly is gerrymandering bad? There are many answers that people have given to this question: It reduces competition and prevents having a healthy two-party system, it advantages incumbents and discourages “new blood” in politics, it violates principles of fairness, and so on.

However I think a better answer is that gerrymandering works against the nominal purpose of government, to provide for the greater good of all. A good explanation for why this is the case comes from “selectorate theory“, an idea in political science recently discussed in the popular work The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics. Selectorate theory provides a simple general model of how those who exercise power are motivated to behave, no matter the type of political system in which they operate.¹

In our context the important characteristics of the model are as follows:

1. The primary goal of all leaders is to remain in power. (They could certainly also be motivated by more noble motives, like serving the public, but if they do not remain in power then they will be unable to act on those motives.)
2. Given point 1, leaders will act first in the interests of those whose support is needed to stay in power, and only secondarily in their own interest. The interests of everyone else will always come last.
3. When the number of needed supporters is very small relative to the size of population (or, in general, the size of the group over which the leader exercises power) then leaders will attract supporters primarily by providing them private goods not made available to others. As the number of needed supporters increases to a significant fraction of the total population then providing private goods to supporters becomes less and less feasible and leaders will provide support increasingly in the form of public goods that benefit supporters but are generally available to others as well.

In this model the difference between a dictatorship and a representative democracy is not that leaders of democracies are more moral and public-spirited, rather it’s that
unlike dictators they must rely on coalitions of supporters that are much larger: A typical dictator might require the support of only a few dozen or few hundred people (key members of the military, intelligence service, personal guard, and various cronies), while the typical leader of a populous representative democracy might need the support of at least a few million people to gain and hold power.

In this light the problem with gerrymandering is this: It lowers the size of the “winning coalition” needed to put a leader into power, and therefore increases the chance that the leader will focus on the needs of the supporters in that coalition to the detriment of the needs of everyone else. This is most clearly seen in cities like Baltimore that are heavily dominated by Democrats or states like Utah that are heavily dominated by Republicans: In such jurisdictions the general election is essentially irrelevant, the outcome having already been decided in the party primaries, in which the number of people voting is relatively small. As long as politicians in these jurisdictions can keep their primary voter base happy it doesn’t matter whether anybody else is satisfied.

Closer to home, let’s look at the 2010 general election results for the Howard County Council. In Council Districts 2, 3, and 4 the Democratic candidates won the general election with approximately 67% of the vote, and in Council District 5 the Republican candidate won the general election with 67% of the vote. Only District 1 was relatively competitive, the Democratic candidate winning with 53% of the vote.²

In 2010 there were almost 180,000 registered voters in Howard County. However most of these were irrelevant to the final results. In particular, since Democratic dominance of Districts 2, 3, and 4 was so complete those races were arguably decided at the time of the party primaries. For example, in District 4 there were approximately 37,000 registered voters (the so-called “nominal selectorate”), but the race was essentially decided by the roughly 6,200 voters in the Democratic primary (the “real selectorate”), so that Mary Kay Sigaty’s winning coalition could be as small as about 3,100 voters—less than 10% of the total voter population in the district.

Similar calculations could be done for the other districts. As it happens both Calvin Ball in District 2 and Jen Terrasa in District 3 had no primary opposition, but if they had it’s likely that their winning coalitions could have been roughly the same size as Mary Kay Sigaty’s. The net effect is that three out of the five council members, and thus a council majority, could likely be selected based on the votes of as few as 9,000-10,000 people, or about 5% of the total number of registered voters in Howard County.

This is not to say that Calvin Ball, Jen Terrasa, or Mary Kay Sigaty don’t care about the other 95% of Howard County voters; I think they, like Courtney Watson and Greg Fox, in general are sincerely working for the good of Howard County as a whole. However if there’s something to selectorate theory, and I think there is, then I think it makes sense to arrange things so that politicians need as large a winning coalition as possible in order to get elected. This minimizes any incentives to favor a limited set of supporters at the expense of others, and maximizes the chances that their actions will be to the good of all.

Minimizing gerrymandering also can help prevent situations where a relatively small minority of voters can thwart the will of the majority and in essence demand special favors for themselves. For example, consider the current structure of the U.S. Senate: Because of the Senate’s rules on filibusters a minority of 40 senators can prevent legislation from passing unless it is modified to meet their demands (which, per selectorate theory, are really the demands of their winning coalitions). That minority of senators could then be elected from as few as twenty states, and those could be states with relatively small populations. If those states are also dominated by one party then in effect the direction of the country as a whole could hinge on the votes of at most a few million people.³

In a local context the Taxpayer Protection Initiative promoted by Howard County Republicans could have produced a similar effect had it been passed, allowing two council members out of five to block tax measures. Those members in turn could be elected with as few as 13,000-14,000 voters—about 2,500 voters in the Republican primary in District 5 and about 11,000 voters to elect a Republican in the general election in District 1—and would have the opportunity to hold spending measures hostage in order to extract special favors for their own supporters.⁴

So what would I suggest we do with respect to the current system of drawing council district lines? That will be the topic of my next two posts.

In the meantime I encourage you to check out Dividing Howard if you haven’t already; it’s only $2.99 from Amazon or Barnes and Noble, and all royalties go to the local charity Voices for Children, which recruits and trains volunteer advocates to represent the best interests of abused and neglected children in Howard County courts.

1. Selectorate theory isn’t restricted to political systems; it can also be applied in the context of business, for example to explain why CEOs act the way they do. Also note that for purposes of this post I’ve simplified an already simple model even further.

2. These and other figures are from the official results for the 2010 general election and 2010 party primaries, as published by the Howard County Board of Elections.

3. To take an extreme example, Wyoming is the least populous state in the U.S., with less than 600,000 people. It is also reliably Republican; in the 2008 race for the Wyoming Senate seat Republican Mike Enzi won election with over 75% of the vote. The number of Republican voters in the primary that year was about 70,000, so as few as 35,000 voters could determine Wyoming’s two U.S. senators. (As it happens Enzi was unopposed in the 2008 primary, but the general point stands.)

4. Had I thought of it at the time I would have added this to the list of the reasons why the Taxpayer Protection Initiative was and is a bad idea.

I’m continuing Dividing Howard week on my blog, as I discuss some topics related to my new book on the history of council council redistricting in Howard County, Maryland, and the broader events of Howard County politics from 1960 on. Today’s post poses the question: Is the current disadvantaged state of the Howard County Republican party, especially with respect to council redistricting, partly or even mostly of its own making?

Democrats have held a voter registration advantage over Republicans for the past fifty years in Howard County, and that advantage has reliably translated into an electoral advantage. Since Howard County’s current charter form of government came into effect in the late 1960s and the Howard County Council was established, Democrats have had a majority on the council for all but four years of that time.¹

That in turn has translated into Democrats having ultimate control over drawing the district lines for county council elections. The later chapters of Dividing Howard are filled with complaints from local Republicans about Democratic gerrymandering of council districts and exhortations to draw council district lines in a way that is allegedly more fair.

As it happens I too am concerned about the possibility of gerrymandering, both with county council districts and more generally. (I’ll have more to say about this soon.) However at the same time I don’t see local Republicans simply as innocent victims of a dastardly Democratic plot. To a large degree Howard County Republicans are complicit in the creation of the current council system under which they’re struggling to achieve electoral success.

First, as I discussed in yesterday’s post, if the planned community of Columbia had not been established then Howard County would likely have remained under the county commissioner form of government; it was local Republican leaders who originally formed the “How-Char-Go Committee” to promote switching Howard County to a charter form of government, and local Democratic leaders who pushed back, telling voters to reject a charter referendum in the 1964 general election (which the voters proceeded to do). Local Democrats eventually joined the charter movement, but there’s no question it started out as a Republican project.

In retrospect Howard County Republicans clearly didn’t realize that the establishment of Columbia would lead to a major influx of liberal Democrat voters, and any “buyer’s remorse” they might have felt is completely understandable. (See for example local Republican leader Charles Miller’s comments in 1977 on the tenth anniversary of Columbia, in which he expresses regret at having listened to Jim Rouse’s sale pitch.) However rather than accepting the new situation and trying to do their best to deal with it electorally, Republicans then proceeded to make it arguably worse from their point of view.

More specifically, when the Howard County Council was originally established in 1969 there were no council districts. All Howard County Council members were elected at large. However as discussed in chapter 2 of Dividing Howard, in the 1974 general election the growing population of Columbia led to the election of four Columbia Democrats to the county council, as well as the election of a county executive (Edward Cochran, father of Courtney Watson) who was sympathetic to the concerns of Columbia voters.

As outlined in chapters 3 through 6 of Dividing Howard, the result was a growing backlash in the rest of the county against Columbia’s political power, a backlash that led to a push by local Republicans and conservative Democrats to elect council members by district, in order to minimize as much as possible the influence of Columbia voters. In fact, the original district proposal would have expanded the council from five members to seven, and would have required that the five council incumbents, including the four council members from Columbia, compete in only two council districts of the seven proposed—this at a time when Columbia voters were approaching half of the Howard County electorate. No wonder 80% of Columbia voters rejected this plan in 1976.

Undeterred, local Republicans continued to join conservative Democrats in pushing for a council district scheme: Local Republican leader Charles Feaga led a petition drive to revive the seven-district scheme in 1980 after a Democrat-dominated commission had rejected the scheme. After his unsuccessful council bid in 1982 (in which he came in sixth as Democrats won all five at-large council positions) Feaga continued to push for establishment of council districts, along with other Republicans. Once council districts were approved by Howard County voters in 1984 Feaga was able to take advantage of the district system to finally become the first (and at that time, only) Republican council member in 1986.

So although Republicans were not the sole force behind the creation of council districts (I think the role of conservative Democrats outside of Columbia was more important), they certainly were consistently vocal in support of the district system and happy to see it established. Once districts were actually in place Republicans found themselves on the losing end of the council redistricting game, beginning with the 1986 redistricting effort, since the council was empowered to draw district lines and the council still had a Democratic majority. That’s when the Republican complaints of Democratic gerrymandering began.

Subsequently Howard County Republicans arguably botched their best chance of countering such gerrymandering. After the 1990 election of Republican Charles Ecker as county executive, Republicans were able to throw some sand in the gears of the redistricting process, using Ecker’s veto and a subsequent lawsuit, but still lacked the council majority necessary to control the process. However in 1994 Ecker won re-election and Republicans won a three-seat majority on the county council, as Feaga was joined by Darrell Drown and Dennis Schrader. If the Republicans had been able to repeat that success in 1998 then they would have been in a position to control council redistricting after the 2000 census.

However in 1998 Ecker had to step down due to term limits and Darrel Drown declined to run again for personal reasons. Charles Feaga and Dennis Schrader chose to give up their council seats and run against each other for the county executive position. This meant that there were open seats in all three council districts previously held by Republicans. Allan Kittleman succeeded Feaga in the safe Republican seat in western Howard, and Chris Merdon was able to hold Drown’s Ellicott City seat for the GOP. However in the absence of Dennis Schrader Republicans lost the District 3 seat in southeastern Howard to Democrat Guy Guzzone, and Schrader himself lost to James Robey in the county executive race.

The result was that a Democratic-majority county council had control of the council redistricting process after the 2000 census, and (unlike 1990) they had a Democratic county executive to back them up. That same situation holds true after the 2010 general election, except that Republicans have further lost ground on the county council, now retaining only the western Howard seat originally won by Charles Feaga back in 1986.

However as I said above, even if Howard County Republicans have committed a number of own goals in getting to their current state, I still think they have have a good general point about the undesirability of the current district system in terms of providing opportunities for gerrymandering. I’ll have more to say about that topic beginning with my next post.

In the meantime I encourage you to check out Dividing Howard if you haven’t already; it’s only $2.99 from Amazon or Barnes and Noble, and all royalties go to the local charity Voices for Children, which recruits and trains volunteer advocates to represent the best interests of abused and neglected children in Howard County courts.

1. The footnote to my post “Howard County likely voters in the 2010 general election” has links to party voter registration and electoral composition data for Howard County elections since 1988. For more on the Howard County charter push, including more quotes and complete links to primary sources, see chapter 1 of Dividing Howard.

This is Dividing Howard week here on my blog, as I discuss some topics related to my new book on the history of council council redistricting in Howard County, Maryland, and the broader events of Howard County politics from 1960 on. Today’s post poses the question: If Columbia didn’t exist in its present form, would Howard County have a county council and county executive?

In his recent post “Meanwhile, in an alternate universe…” Bill Woodcock of 53 Beers on Tap speculated on what would have happened in Howard County if the planned community of Columbia had never been built. His conclusion:

Howard County would have developed further along its major highways—I-70, US 40, US 29, US 1. …

Without a major population center, rather several smaller ones, Howard County would’ve become an exurb of Baltimore and DC rather than a suburb. Pressure would be great to build more homes in Howard, absent a major employer or tax base. …

In short, life in Howard County would have become radically different. Howard County would have become a balkanized bedroom community with no identity or clear sense of purpose. It would become sounthern Carroll County, on steroids.

I think this is pretty much on the mark. However at one point Bill mentions in passing what “the new charter government” would have done in the absence of Columbia. This is where I differ from him: As I discuss in chapter 1 of Dividing Howard, the fact that Howard County has a charter form of government, that is, a county council and county executive, is pretty much a direct result of the establishment of Columbia.

As Lewis Nippard, a member of the committee pushing for a charter change, said back in September 1963, “We do not believe the [existing] county commissioner form of government can meet the needs of the future as the county population begins to increase toward astronomical levels.” Nippard and others also pointed to the fact that Howard County had no incorporated towns or cities (in fact, it still doesn’t), and thus no real local government beyond the three county commissioners, who had to look to the Maryland General Assembly to enact any legislation needed to address Howard County local issues.¹

As it turned out, Nippard was right about the “astronomical level” of population growth; as Columbia was created and new residents flooded in beginning in the late 1960s, Howard County population growth grew to over 10% a year, a rate that would have doubled the county population every seven years if it had been sustained. (See my blog post “Howard County population growth, 1950-2009“ for more on this.) Absent the prospect of that growth I suspect that Howard County would have remained under the existing county commissioner system, and at most there would have been a push to formally incorporate Ellicott City (as Bill speculates).

The experience of neighboring counties is a guide here: Both Frederick County and Carroll County are situated similarly to Howard County in terms of their proximity to major major metropolitan areas, and both have experienced exurban development over the years. However neither of them had comparable developments to that of Columbia, and both also had existing incorporated towns and cities. Although both counties have considered or are considering moving to a charter form of government, both still remain governed by a Board of Commissioners. If Columbia had never existed I strongly suspect this would be true of Howard County as well.

One other key thing to note about Carroll and Frederick counties is that every county commissioner in both counties is a Republican. I’ll have more to say on that topic in my next post.

In the meantime I encourage you to check out Dividing Howard if you haven’t already; it’s only $2.99 from Amazon or Barnes and Noble, and all royalties go to the local charity Voices for Children, which recruits and trains volunteer advocates to represent the best interests of abused and neglected children in Howard County courts.

1. For more on the Howard County charter push, including more quotes and complete links to primary sources, see chapter 1 of Dividing Howard.

For more on the various forms of government allowed for Maryland counties, see the page “Forms of County Government” published by the Maryland Association of Counties, and the documents linked to from that page.

For those of you who enjoyed my blog posts on Howard County Council redistricting so much that you’d like to read them all again in one convenient package, your wait is over: I’m proud to announce the publication of my new book Dividing Howard: A History of County Council Redistricting in Howard County, Maryland, now available for the Kindle from Amazon.com and for the Nook from Barnes and Noble.

I’m selling the book for $2.99, and will donate all royalties I receive (about $2 per copy) to Voices for Children, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program in Howard County. Voices for Children recruits and trains volunteer advocates to represent the best interests of abused and neglected children in the Howard County Courts. I’ll post updates from time to time on how many copies of the book I’ve sold and how much I’ve been able to donate.

To answer some questions you may have:

You don’t actually need a Kindle or Nook device to read the book; you can use the Kindle or Nook applications for iPhone, iPad, and Android phones and tablets, available at no charge from the application stores for those devices. Don’t have a smartphone or tablet? You can use the Kindle or Nook applications for PC or Mac instead; just google “Kindle PC,” “Nook Mac,” and so on to find the application of your choice.

At this time I don’t have versions of the book available for download directly to the iBooks ereader application for iPhone or iPad or to ereader devices from Kobo, Sony, and others. That’s because those ereaders and their associated online stores don’t support an easy-t0-use no-charge self-publishing system like those provided by Amazon.com (Kindle Direct Publishing) and Barnes and Noble (PubIt!). However if your ereader device or application supports the EPUB ebook format and “sideloading” content then you can buy the Barnes and Noble version for the Nook application for PC or Mac, make a copy of the resulting EPUB-format file (which is DRM-free), and load it for use in your favorite ereader. (Ask your tech-y friends if you need more information on how to do this.)

At this time I have no plans to publish a print version of the book. Beyond the extra work involved, I’ve tried to take advantage of the ebook format and have included a lot of web links to primary sources. You can’t grep a dead tree, as the saying goes, and you can’t click on a link on one either. However if there’s a lot of people wanting this and I have copious spare time in the next month or two then I might reconsider.

Finally, the book ends where the blog series does, with the passage of the redistricting bill after the 2001 census (almost exactly ten years ago, as it happens). After the current round of redistricting ends I may produce a second edition that brings the story up to the present day, again depending on your interest and my time.

In the meantime buy the book, tell your friends, write a review or send me your suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks to all of you for reading the series over the past year and for providing the inspiration to collect it into book form.

P.S. A final note: There’s a minor glitch with the Kindle version of the book that causes the book to open to the last page the first time you read it after downloading. (Once you start reading it in the right place then the Kindle will remember where you were after that.) There may also be a few remaining typos I haven’t caught. At some point I may issue an updated version of the book and replace the current version on Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble. If and when I do that I’ll post instructions on how you can update your copy if you’d like to do that.

In part 22 the redistricting commission created an initial set of proposed council district maps. In this post the commission makes its final recommendation and the council acts on it, as we also see the emergence of some fresh faces in Howard County politics.

August 2001. Speculation arises over future council candidates, and in particular over who will succeed the retiring Mary Lorsung in District 4. At the center of attention is 27-year-old Columbia native Ken Ulman, championed by District 3 incumbent Guy Guzzone and other local and state Democratic politicians. Republican hopeful Greg Fox, who ran unsuccessfully against Lorsung in 1998, puts his own plans on hold pending resolution of council redistricting, which might put his Fulton home in any one of Districts 3, 4, or 5.

Meanwhile the redistricting commission winnows the number of plans down from five to three, moving forward with the Democratic plans proposed by David Marker and Priscilla Hart and the Republican plan proposed by Michael Deets. Deets modifies his plan to keep Kings Contrivance and thus Guy Guzzone in District 3 (I’m hoping that will be more to his liking) but regrets abandoning his proposal to keep all of Columbia within District 2 and 4 (I never bought into the idea that a community that represents 40 percent of the county’s population should get 60 percent of the County Council). Marker focuses on not diluting the voting strength of minorities in Districts 2, 3, and 4 (Any plan that doesn’t keep them strong in three districts could be attacked for weakening minority representation) while Warren Miller stresses the need for better equalizing the number of Democrats and Republicans in those districts, claiming that Republicans are close to having parity in the county.

In any case expectations are that a Democratic plan will prevail given the composition of the redistricting commission and the county council (They have the votes, notes District 5 incumbent Allan Kittleman), and David Marker sees a path to a compromise between his plan and that of fellow Democrat Priscilla Hart. Guy Guzzone professes no hard feelings over the attempt of Michael Deets to redistrict him out of District 3 (Would I get mad at someone for doing what’s best for their party? No. I understand where they’re coming from) while Allan Kittleman accepts the inevitable outcome (I will be happy to represent anyone they put in my district. Whatever they want to give me, I’ll take).

(Michael Cody, Political jockeying under way, Columbia Flier, August 9, 2001; Laura Cadiz, Redistricting plans picked for hearing, Baltimore Sun, August 15, 2001, 1B; Laura Cadiz, Redistricting apt to favor status quo, Baltimore Sun, August 19, 2001, 1B.)

September 2001. As the redistricting commission prepares for public hearings on the (now) three plans, speculation about future county council candidates shifts to District 2, where a previously-passed term limits measure means Democratic incumbent C. Vernon Gray will have to step down after a run of five terms and 20 years on the council. Local activists lament the absence of any African-American candidates to replace Gray (We’re still struggling for representation here. I think there needs to be a wake-up call, says the Rev. John Wright) while the Howard County NAACP stays out of the fray (We’re not a political group, notes chapter president Thelma Lucas) and Gray himself declines to recruit a successor ([It's] unreasonable for someone in political office to drag someone into the political process). In the absence of a clear front-runner several potential candidates ponder their options, including Cameron Miles of Ellicott City and 26-year-old Calvin Ball III of Columbia. Meanwhile in District 4 community activist Mary Kay Sigaty joins Ken Ulman as a potential county council candidate now that Mary Lorsung is retiring (There’s no way I would run against [Lorsung]. She’s very good at what she does, notes Sigaty).

A public hearing on the three proposed plans is as sparsely attended as previous redistricting commission hearings, with 14 attendees of which nine make public statements. However the speakers make up in intensity what they lack in numbers, as former council candidate John Taylor complains about being moved from District 4 to District 5, Sherman Howell worries about changes to District 2 making it harder to elect an African-American candidate to replace C. Vernon Gray, Republicans Louis Pope and Kirk Halpin protest the relatively wide population variations between the districts in the Democratic plans, and Libertarian council candidate David Margolis criticizes the entire redistricting process (All of you have played political games. Your arrogance has been on display from Day 1).

The redistricting commission prepares to select one of the three remaining plans to recommend to the council. Facing certain defeat for their own plan, Republicans call for a vote to approve the plan proposed by Democratic commission member Priscilla Hart. Commission chair David Marker issues a whispered warning to Hart (Priscilla, you can’t vote for this!) and Hart abstains from the vote out of party loyalty (I was caught in the middle). The vote fails 3-3 with Hart abstaining, and the commission proceeds to approve the other Democratic plan (with a few amendments) by a 4-3 margin. Marker expresses regret at the party-line vote (I thought we compromised a lot. I was disappointed) while Republican commission member Michael Deets begs to differ (Democrats weren’t even willing to accede to our standards of fairness). The plan extends District 5 to encompass parts of Fulton and Scaggsville, moves Dorsey Search from District 1 into District 4 with the rest of west Columbia, and puts almost all of Owen Brown into District 3.

(Larry Carson, No one vying to fill Gray’s council seat, Baltimore Sun, September 9, 2001, 1B; Larry Carson, Differences help define hopefuls for council post, Baltimore Sun, September 17, 2001, 1B; Larry Carson, Public hearing on tap for voting districts, Baltimore Sun, September 9, 2001, 1B; Larry Carson, Council district plans critiqued, Baltimore Sun, September 16, 2001, 1B; Larry Carson, Democrats prevail in redistricting vote, Baltimore Sun, September 21, 2001, 1B; Michael Cody, Democrats set to gain strength in redistricting, Howard County Times, September 27, 2001.)

October 2001. Candidates formally announce in the District 2 race to succeed C. Vernon Gray, as Calvin Ball joins community activist Michelle Williams to pursue the Democratic nomination. Ball notes that being a council member sounds just like my job now. People call me whenever they have a problem. Redistricting commission member Jared Thornton notes the high likelihood of electing an African-American candidate in a district with a 23% black population: A lot of things about Columbia seem to be different from any other place. We don’t need a super-majority in Howard County. Ball and Williams join announced candidates Mary Kay Sigaty and Ken Ulman, who are seeking the Democratic nomination for the other open council seat in District 4.

(Larry Carson, State employee, 26, files for council seat, Baltimore Sun, October 4, 2001, 1B; Michael Cody, Schools activist plans run for County Council, Columbia Flier, September 13, 2001.)

November 2001. The council holds a public hearing on the plan recommended by the redistricting commission, and prepares for a vote. However various council members propose last-minute changes to the plan: Mary Lorsung wants to keep parts of Fulton in District 4 instead of moving them to District 5, and keep some areas north of Route 108 in District 5 instead of moving them into District 4; the changes affect 70 voters in total. On the Republican side, District 5 incumbent Allan Kittleman wants to move 2,707 voters from Scaggsville and elsewhere in southern Howard County from his district into District 3, while District 1 incumbent Christopher Merdon tries to keep part of Ellicott City in his district and move part of Elkridge back into District 2. Democratic council members C. Vernon Gray and Guy Guzzone warn that they won’t stand for further changes to their districts.

(Larry Carson, Panel vote favors raises, Baltimore Sun, November 6, 2001, 1B; Larry Carson, Council district changes proposed, Baltimore Sun, November 28, 2001, 1B.)

December 2001. The council finally votes on a redistricting plan. Democrat Mary Lorsung joins Republicans Allan Kittleman and Christopher Merdon in approving various amendments to the plan, with her fellow Democrats C. Vernon Gray and Guy Guzzone opposing the changes. Angered by the passage of the amendments, Gray waits for the other members to deadlock 2-2 and then casts a deciding vote against the final bill as amended, thinking to take advantage of the charter provision that would force adoption of the original redistricting commission plan in the absence of council agreement.

Allan Kittleman smiles broadly (I bet my mouth was touching both ears), realizing that the defeat of the bill would allow Republicans the opportunity to pursue further changes and try to get three votes in favor of an alternative plan before the March 15 deadline (I thought, My gosh, he’s given me an opportunity to write the plan. It certainly was something I was relishing). After a series of consultations between Gray and Guy Guzzone and Guzzone and county solicitor Barbera Cook, Gray changes his vote and the council approves the plan as amended. It’s important to put this to bed and move on, Gray notes.

The amendments do not affect Districts 2 and 3, but instead make several minor changes to move small numbers of voters between Merdon’s, Kittleman’s, and Lorsung’s districts: keeping in District 5 a section of Ellicott City in which Kittleman’s legislative aide resides, keeping all of the Font Hill community in District 1, and moving some voters along Homewood Road back into District 5 in exchange for keeping some voters in Fulton and Highland in District 4. The final districts range in size from under 48,000 to over 50,000.¹

(Larry Carson, Lines drawn for council, Baltimore Sun, December 4, 2001, 1B; Michael Cody, Redistricting re-vote erases GOP’s momentary edge, Columbia Flier, December 6, 2001.)

Thus ended the post-2000-census council redistricting process, as the Democrat’s retaking control of the council in 1998 paid off with a Democratic-friendly district map that would be in effect for the next three council elections.

Almost ten years later and exactly one year to the day after I posted part 1, this is an appropriate point to end this series on the history of county council redistricting in Howard County. But I’m not quite done yet; please stayed tuned for an upcoming special announcement of possible interest to those of you who’ve been reading these posts thus far.

1. Note that the Baltimore Sun and Columbia Flier differ in their reporting of the district populations. I’ve phrased my account to be consistent with both stories.↩

In part 21 in this series we saw Democrats succeed in taking back both the Howard County Council and the county executive position from Republicans. In this post we see how that success translated into control over the council redistricting process, as the new redistricting commission scheme faced its first test.

December 2000. Facing a tight deadline for county council redistricting (with the 2002 council elections less than two years away), the Democratic and Republican parties prepare to name members to the seven-person redistricting commission. The Democrats publicly advertise for any party activists willing to serve, an action that surprises county GOP chair Louis Pope: You want people who understand the numbers, the issues and who can work toward a compromise. Both parties praise the new system as a better way to do redistricting than that followed in the previous cycle, in which conflict between the Democratic council majority and Republican county executive Charles Ecker degenerated into a lawsuit. Notes Maryland state delegate Robert Flanagan, At the very least members of the commission won’t be worried about their own [political] hides.

(Larry Carson, Parties will present names for redistricting commission, Baltimore Sun, December 14, 2000, 3B.)

February-March 2001. The two parties feud over appointments to the redistricting commission, as Republicans object to the Democrat’s choice of David Marker as commission chair, citing his actions during the early 1990s redistricting controversy and his public comments about working to produce a favorable result for Democrats. GOP council members Allan Kittleman and Christopher Merdon (representing Districts 1 and 5 respectively) propose instead appointing Carole Conors, president of the county chapter of the League of Women Voters, and take advantage of District 4 Democratic council member Mary Lorsung’s absence in Europe to force a postponement of the creation of the commission.

District 2 Democratic council member C. Vernon Gray fumes, This is nothing more than blatant partisan game-playing, while Marker acknowledges it as a good ploy by the Republicans to maximize their advantage. Meanwhile Conors protests that she wants to be on the commission to represent the League (We belong at the table) but not as chair, and the Columbia Flier worries about a return to the partisan bickering of the previous redistricting effort (If the council blows this job, the people—not the politicians—will pay the price.).

Back from Europe, Mary Lorsung is outraged that, unlike Republicans (who nominated B. Diane Wilson, aide to former Distrct 3 council member Dennis Schrader), Democrats did not nominate any women to the redistricting commission: Frankly, I thought we had gotten way beyond that. … One [woman] out of seven was just not acceptable. Trying to put an end to the controversy, Democrats add Lorsung ally Priscilla Hart to the commission, while still nominating David Marker as chair. District 3 Democratic council member Guy Guzzone notes that Republicans didn’t get rid of David Marker … [but they] certainly created a bit of anger within the Democratic Party, while Allan Kittleman and Christopher Merdon voice their approval of adding a Democratic woman to join GOP nominee Wilson (Kittleman: We agree with Mary [Lorsung] on that. Ms. Hart wouldn’t be there without Chris and I.). In addition to Marker, Hart, and Wilson, other nominees to the redistricting commission are Neil Quinter and J. T. Thornton for the Democrats and Michael Deets and Warren Miller for the Republicans.

(Michael Cody, Councilmanic redistricting again under the microscope, Columbia Flier, February 22, 2001; Larry Carson, Feud delays redistricting commission, Baltimore Sun, March 6, 2001, 1B; Council deadlocks on naming districting panel, Columbia Flier, March 7, 2001; Don’t let partisan strife again poison county redistricting, Columbia Flier, March 7, 2001; Larry Carson, Democrats add woman to redistricting panel, Baltimore Sun, March 28, 2001, 6B.)

April 2001. As the county council waits for another try at appointing the redistricting commission, local politicians speculate on the effects of Howard County’s population growth (an increase of 32% since the 1990 census, to 247,800 people) on its political clout in Annapolis (I would certainly hope that we will gain a whole legislative district for Howard County, says local Democratic chair Wendy Fiedler) and on the political balance between Columbia and the rest of Howard County (the growth that’s occurred [outside of Columbia] has got to help Republicans more than Democrats, says local GOP chair Louis Pope).

Relatively even population growth throughout the county means that only two council districts are outside the desired size of approximately 50,000 residents, with District 1 needing to become somewhat smaller and District 3 somewhat larger. However changes to District 1 and District 3 would force changes to other districts as well. Christopher Merdon anticipates a big counter-clockwise turn, in which District 3 would expand toward Columbia, District 2 would take part of Elkridge (splitting it with District 1), and District 1 might expand westward a bit into District 5.

District 3 incumbent Guy Guzzone looks forward to the possibility of having all of Owen Brown in his district, a move which would increase the chances of his retaining the seat. (Merdon concedes, They’ll probably try to make Guy’s [district] a little more Democrat to solidify that for the majority.) Local GOP chair Louis Pope also anticipates Democrats wanting to expand District 4 to remove from District 2 people angered by Guzzone’s position on rezoning of the Maple Lawn Farm property in Fulton. Meanwhile the council looks forward to approving the final composition of the redistricting commission.¹

(Larry Carson, Census gains may bring more political power, Baltimore Sun, March 21, 2001, 1B; Larry Carson, Border shifts for districts may be small, Baltimore Sun, April 15, 2001, 1B; Michael Cody, Council districts likely to shift for next election, Columbia Flier, April 5, 2001; Larry Carson, Higher fire tax looking likely, Baltimore Sun, April 17, 2001, 1B.)

June 2001. The newly-appointed redistricting commission holds its first public hearing at Long Reach High School and almost outnumbers the audience, as only a handful of residents show up and only three of them speak. Why? Because there’s nothing to react against [yet], explains commission member Michael Deets, while fellow commission member Priscilla Hart concurs: We know it’s easier to react to a plan than to put one together. Of those speaking, Ken Stevens endorses re-unifying all of Owen Brown in a single district, Rosemary Mortimer recommends not splitting school districts across council district boundaries, and David Margolis expresses a hope the the process doesn’t get mired down in politics.

(Larry Carson, Residents speak out on redistricting, Baltimore Sun, June 27, 2001, 1B; Redistricting group hears from citizens, Columbia Flier, June 28, 2001.)

July 2001. As the redistricting commission gets down to the task of drawing up plans, redistricting commission member and Columbia Democratic Club president Neil Quinter presents his and the club’s proposal, which would (as previously discussed) move all of Owen Brown from District 2 (east Columbia/Jessup) into District 3 (north Laurel/Savage/southeast Columbia), move Dorsey’s Search from District 1 (Ellicott City/Elkridge) into District 4 (west Columbia), and extend GOP-dominated District 5 from western Howard eastward to encompass parts of the Fulton/Maple Lawn/Scaggsville area that were previously part of either District 4 or District 3.

They’re trying to get rid of areas bad for them, claims District 5 council member Allan Kittleman, a claim with which Maple Lawn Farms opponent Peter Oswald concurs: [There's] a substantial amount of dissatisfaction with Guzzone on Maple Lawn Farms. … It is to Guzzone’s advantage to move that area to Kittleman’s district. Quinter defends the proposed plan (I’m not going to apologize for the fact that we’re trying to strengthen Democratic districts), while his fellow commission member Jared Thornton notes that at least Howard County is free of the pitched disputes over racially-related redistricting seen in neighboring Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties (In redistricting, Howard is sort of a boring county).

The Quinter/Columbia Democratic Club proposal joins four others championed by one or another of the commission’s members, two more Democratic plans (from chair David Marker and Priscilla Hart respectively) and two Republican plans (from Michael Deets and Warren Miller respectively). All three Democratic plans propose expanding District 3 northward to incorporate more of Columbia, while Deets’s plan takes the opposite approach and proposes a Columbia-free District 3; since Guy Guzzone lives in Kings Contrivance this would remove him from his district and put him into District 4 to compete for the seat being vacated by the retiring Mary Lorsung. By contrast Miller’s plan makes relatively minor changes to existing districts in an effort to keep them compact while still making Districts 3 and 4 more competitive for Republicans.

(Larry Carson, Democrats map plan for keeping majority, Baltimore Sun, July 26, 2001, 1B; Democratic club floats new council district map, Columbia Flier, July 26, 2001; Larry Carson, 5 plans offered for new districts, Baltimore Sun, July 27, 2001, 1B; Michael Cody, Rival redistricting plans seek an edge, Columbia Flier, August 2, 2001.)

In the next post we’ll see the outcome of the redistricting commission’s deliberations, and what the county council did with the commission’s recommendation.

1. Apparently the final council measure actually appointing the redistricting commission was noncontroversial; neither the Baltimore Sun nor the Columbia Flier saw fit to record the event of part of their county council coverage.↩

Dear Ken,

Thanks for inviting me to your reception last Thursday, an invitation that (after a reminder from Jessie Newburn) I was happy to accept, because I think on balance you’ve done a good job as county executive and also because I thought it would be fun to spend some time among the movers and shakers of Howard County. I’m not very forward in social settings so I didn’t stop by to say hello, but now that I’m back in my element I thought I’d bend your ear for a few minutes.

My fellow bloggers Dennis Lane and Tom Coale think you’re serious about running for governor; if so I commend you for doing so given the likely bumps on the road ahead for the world, the nation, and Maryland: Europe crashing and possibly pulling us into a second depression, burdensome public and private debt, and likely Federal and state spending cutbacks in the years ahead—not to mention the continued impact of globalization, climate change, and the possibility that someday computers may take over most professional jobs (no, I’m not kidding).

So, what to do? I’m a Democrat, and think the Republican party has run out of gas intellectually in terms of policy ideas that could improve our country and our state. But that doesn’t mean the Democratic party is that much better, especially if we rely primarily on partisan redistricting and the inertia of Maryland voters to stay in power and then fail to meet the challenges of the coming years.

What are those challenges? Primarily to jump start economic growth and improve productivity in an era of extreme economic dislocation, while at the same time helping people survive those dislocations and find a productive place in the new economy that emerges. You talked a bit along those lines the other evening; allow me to comment briefly on those remarks and provide my own thoughts.

Providing a safety net for those who need it is a traditional Democratic value. You name-checked Healthy Howard and a follow-on effort to create a Maryland health care cooperative (presumably a reference to the Evergreen Project). It sounds like a good idea, and I wish it well. I don’t have much more to say about social services issues in this post, and in general leave blogging about such issues to Duane St. Clair, who does a much better job that I ever could.

On the economic development front you mentioned the Inter-County Broadband Network (which I’ve previously blogged about) as well as your recent trip to Silicon Valley. Here I do have some thoughts: Wiring the state is like setting tables in a restaurant; it doesn’t guarantee anyone’s going to show up to dine. In particular I’m pessimistic about the idea of this region becoming the Silicon Valley of cybersecurity given the area’s reliance on Federal defense and intelligence spending, the secretive nature of the work, and the barriers to participation by those not holding security clearances—the polar opposite of the entrepreneurial and open culture of the real Silicon Valley.

How to promote such a culture? One possible approach is to combine a traditional social safety net with a relentless focus on the free market: to promote the economic liberty of everyone to produce and sell useful goods and services while at the same time helping everyone to fulfill their inborn potential to be a productive contributor in the free market (and be rewarded accordingly). As I’ve written previously, there are Maryland-sized places that do this well, and we can look to them for guidance.

In practice this first means looking seriously at the business-friendly initiatives proposed by the major business lobbies, but pushing back when such initiatives seem designed simply to reward incumbent players and ensure a docile work force. Then talk to someone like Trevor Greene and ask what he thinks Democrats should do to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses like his. What about the challenges faced by the growing population of self-employed professionals? Talk to Thursday Bram and David Hobby. Could we do a better job of promoting street entrepreneurs? Have Mr. Howchow introduce you to the folks on Route 1 who are enlivening the culinary landscape of Howard County.

Of course, small businesses and micro-entrepreneurs don’t drive major job growth; for that we need to attract companies in emerging industries, the potential Apples and Googles of the future. So, for example, look at the emerging personal genomics industry and ask why one of the leading companies in that space (a firm funded in part by Maryland-based VCs) can’t sell its service in Maryland. If we’re going to be touting Johns Hopkins and NIH as foundations for a biotech industry then we also need to look at regulatory factors that influence whether biotech entrepreneurs will want to locate here.

Suppose we can more effectively unleash the forces of free market innovation. Where do we want that innovation to be focused? As TJ Mayotte recently discussed, we need to have places that are economically productive enough that they can generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the costs of both constructing and maintaining government-created infrastructure over the long-term. And the places that are more productive than anywhere else are cities; in fact, cities become relatively more productive the larger they grow.

As Chris Leinberger discussed recently (in the same room where you held your reception)
cities provide walkable urban places where people like to live, and make investments in mass transit and related infrastructure much more cost-effective than in suburbs (as Sarah has noted). Howard County would be a more economically productive place if relatively more people lived in Columbia Town Center, a region like western Maryland would be more economically productive if relatively more people lived in Cumberland, and Maryland as a whole would be economically productive if relatively more people lived in Baltimore.

How to accomplish that? Part of the solution lies in addressing perceived disadvantages of cities relating to school quality and public safety, and another in discouraging growth outside cities by reducing government subsidies for inefficient land use. And part may also lie in reducing the barriers to growing cities and overcoming heartfelt but I think ultimately misguided objections to higher-density residential development—the exact problem you and the county council successfully addressed with Columbia Town Center, with support from the folks at Columbia 2.0 and others. The goal: that anyone who wants to can afford the advantages of living and working in a socially, culturally, and economically vibrant urban environment.

To conclude, we need to look beyond the traditional way of thinking (blue state vs. red state, liberal vs. conservative, Maryland vs. Virginia, and so on) and come up with more creative ways to make Maryland a better place without changing what we love about it. As Trevor Greene remarked in the post I linked to above, maybe we should take some things from column A and some things from column B. If FDR could steal ideas from socialism to help save capitalism from itself, maybe it makes sense to steal ideas from free-market libertarianism to help save big-government liberalism from the rut it’s gotten into. FDR was reviled by rabid socialists and rabid capitalists alike, but everybody else seemed to like him just fine. Perhaps that would be true here as well.

In any event I enjoyed the reception, and wish you luck in your future career wherever it may take you. Thanks again for the invite.

Frank

Back in October 2010 pollsters were dueling over their predictions in the Howard County race for county executive, with pollster Patrick Gonzales of Gonzales Research seeing the race between Ken Ulman and Trent Kittleman tightening to only a 49-41% advantage for Ulman, a conclusion pooh-poohed by Ulman’s campaign staff. One major bone of contention was choosing a pool of likely voters in doing the polls, and in particular determining how many Democrats should be in the pool vs. Republicans and independents.

Gonzales used a likely voter pool of 46% Democrats, 40% Republicans, and 14% independents (i.e., unaffiliated voters and members of other parties). Gonzales commented at the time that this division was being generous to the Democrats and predicted that the percentage of Republicans in the voting population would actually exceed 40%.

For a separate Ulman-commissioned poll showing Ulman with a 25-point lead (57-32%) pollster Fred Yang used a likely voter pool of 50% Democrats, 33% Republicans, and 17% independents. (Yang also did an alternative 46/40/14 pooling that showed Ulman with a 53-36% lead.)

I got interested in the question of the likely party breakdown of the 2010 electorate and did a series of posts on this, starting with a two-part series (part 1 and part 2) with an initial estimate of the percentages of likely voters and following up after the election (but before I had final turnout data) with a four-part series (part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4) that described in detail how I used the R statistical software to generate my estimates.

I recently got reminded of this topic and recalled that I never went back and compared my estimates to those calculated from the official turnout figures. That prompted me to update my Google spreadsheet of Howard County general election turnout data, which computes the values I needed.

So who was right? The table below shows the three estimates of the predicted party breakdown of voters in the 2010 general election, along with the actual party breakdown.

From this we can conclude three things: First, the Gonzales poll was using a likely voter breakdown that was significantly off. However well Republicans did nationally in terms of voter turnout, that success did not translate into comparable turnout in Howard County.

Second, I came the closest of the three in estimating the percentage of independent voters in the general election. Recall from my posts that the percentage of independents voting in Howard County elections has been steadily going up over the years in an almost linear trend, so doing a simple linear regression produced a reasonably good estimate.

Finally, Fred Yang nailed the respective percentages of Democrats and Republicans in the electorate. His estimate of a 25-point lead for Ken Ulman was also right on the money; Ulman’s actual margin of victory was 26 points (63-37%). If Ken Ulman does run for governor then he could do worse than retaining Yang to do his polling again.

In this post I continue the story of the 1998 elections for Howard County Council that I began in part 20 of this series.

August 1998. As Guy Guzzone faces no opposition in the District 3 Democratic primary his would-be Republican opponent, ex-Democrat Wanda Hurt, has her party credentials questioned by her primary opponent, lifelong Republican Kirk Halpin. (Hurt protests: I was miserable as an active Democrat in this county. I suffered a heck of a lot.) Though Hurt is backed by incumbent Dennis Schrader, the endorsement of the Baltimore Sun goes to Halpin for his vigor and fresh perspective.¹

The Sun also endorses Christopher Merdon in the District 1 Republican primary, C. Vernon Gray in the District 2 Democratic primary, and Debra Ann Slack-Katz and Allan Kittleman in the District 5 Democratic and Republican primaries respectively. Meanwhile in District 4 self-described moderate Republican Greg Fox has a 3-1 fundraising advantage over his general election opponent, Democrat Mary Lorsung, raising hopes of GOP success in November. (Claims Dennis Schrader’s pollster J. Brad Coker, The county has a slight Republican lean. There have always been a lot of Democrats with conservative feelings.)

(Gady Epstein, Hurt finds peace in GOP, Baltimore Sun, August 16, 1998, 1B; Halpin for GOP in District 3, Baltimore Sun, August 19, 1998, 16A; Merdon in Council District 1, Baltimore Sun, August 17, 1998, 6A; Gray in 2nd Council District, Baltimore Sun, August 18, 1998, 8A; Slack-Katz, Kittleman in 5th, Baltimore Sun, August 20, 1998, 18A; GOP race intensifies in Howard, Baltimore Sun, August 24, 1998, 1B.)

September 1998. As the primary approaches, Howard County Republicans find themselves in the unlikely position of having vigorous primary battles for county executive and three of five county council seats, with the fights being variously cast as old Howard vs. new Howard, youth vs. age, conservatives vs. moderates, or just a matter of differing personalities and styles. On primary day itself the Republican nominations go to Christopher Merdon in District 1, Wanda Hurt in District 3, and Allan Kittleman in District 5, with C. Vernon Gray once again easily winning the Democratic nomination in District 2 and Debra Ann Slack-Katz winning the right to face Allan Kittleman in District 5.²

(GOP offers several choices, Baltimore Sun, September 13, 1998, 1B; Parties choose known names, Baltimore Sun, September 16, 1998, 1B.)

October 1998. The battle in District 3 goes to the air waves, as both Democrat Guy Guzzone and Republican Wanda Hurt air television commercials in what is widely seen as the key race for control of the county council. Meanwhile Hurt and other GOP council candidates join county executive candidate Dennis Schrader in touting their support for education and trying to put behind them Charles Ecker’s controversial decision to not fully fund the Board of Education request and instead go for a small tax cut. (Guzzone dismisses the joint announcement as a stunt.)

Republicans also address that other perennial county issue, development, with Allan Kittleman and Christopher Merdon proposing restrictions on residential growth. Schrader praises Kittleman’s and Merdon’s good ideas (while declining to fully endorse them) and separately calls for redevelopment of the U.S. Route 1 corridor in eastern Howard. Merdon’s focus on managing development doesn’t help him with the Baltimore Sun however, as the Sun endorses his Democratic opponent George Layman, pointing to his experience with county zoning issues.

In other races, Greg Fox hopes his high energy pays off with a win in District 4 against Democratic incumbent Mary Lorsung, and District 5 candidate Debra Ann Slack-Katz laments the Democrats being late on the draw in matching the coordinated messaging put forth by the county’s Republican candidates (I would have liked to have had more exposure, quite honestly). District 3 candidate Guy Guzzone is the exception among the Democrats, as he continues his campaign blitz of TV ads, mailers, knocking on doors, and personalized notes to voters. (This is by far the hardest thing I’ve ever worked at in all my life, he observes.) His reward is a Baltimore Sun endorsement; the Sun also endorses incumbents C. Vernon Gray and Mary Lorsung, as well as first-time candidate Allan Kittleman.

(Gady Epstein, Council control likely to be set in District 3, Baltimore Sun, October 5, 1998, 1B; Gady Epstein, Republicans list education goals, Baltimore Sun, October 7, 1998, 1B; Two County Council candidates propose standards for growth, Baltimore Sun, October 15, 1998, 3B; Jamal Watson, Schrader promises to revitalize portions of the U.S. 1 corridor, Baltimore Sun, October 22, 3B; Layman in 1st Council District, Baltimore Sun, October 26, 1998, 8A; Gady Epstein, Challenger counting on high energy, Baltimore Sun, October 28, 1998, 1B; Guzzone for 3rd District seat, Baltimore Sun, October 28, 18A; Gray for 2nd Council District, Baltimore Sun, October 27, 14A; Re-elect Lorsung in the 4th, Baltimore Sun, October 29, 20A; Kittleman for 5th District seat, Baltimore Sun, October 30, 18A.)

November 1998. Former council member Dennis Schrader’s bet on moving up to the county executive position proves to be a loss twice over for Howard County Republicans, as Democrat James Robey defeats him by a comfortable 55-45% margin and Wanda Hurt, his would-be successor in District 3, is crushed by Guy Guzzone 58-42%. Democratic council incumbents C. Vernon Gray and Mary Lorsung win re-election by equally impressive margins in Columbia-dominated Districts 2 and 4 respectively. Christopher Merdon and Allan Kittleman retain Districts 1 and 5 respectively for Republicans, with Kittleman in particular rolling up the highest vote totals of any council candidate. However Hurt’s loss means that control of the county council passes to the Democrats.³

Although some of the blame for the reversal is attached to Schrader (who performed less well than other Republicans in District 5, home of his GOP primary opponent Charles Feaga), Howard County Republicans and others see the results as reflecting national trends, including most notably the unpopularity of Newt Gingrich and the GOP congressional majority. (I went down and checked off every Democratic box, even for people I didn’t know, says one voter. I think Newt Gingrich is disgusting.) County GOP chair Carol Arscott comments, I’ve coined a new phrase: All politics is national. I understand now how the Democrats felt in 1994.

(Gady Epstein, Democrat Robey defeats Schrader in executive race, Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1998, 8D; Gady Epstein, Democrats seize council, Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1998, 1D; Gady Epstein, Tide takes out GOP, Baltimore Sun, November 5, 1998, 1C.)

December 1998. Republican county executive Charles Ecker steps down and the 3-2 Republican council majority ends, as Democrat James Robey becomes county executive and Democratic incumbents C. Vernon Gray and Mary Lorsung are joined by Guy Guzzone to create a 3-2 Democratic majority on the county council. Gray is elected chair of the council and Lorsung vice chair.

The newly-sworn-in officeholders shy away from talk of radical changes and emphasize the need for unity in addressing challenges facing the county. However, as the Baltimore Sun notes,

Party differences are likely to harden when the council handles redistricting after the 2000 census. The power to draw new councilmanic districts is perhaps the Democrats’ biggest prize for reclaiming the majority, giving the party a chance to solidify its base by shifting conservative voters from the three Democratic-held districts.

(Gady Epstein, New leaders take charge, Baltimore Sun, December 8, 1998, 1B.)

Thus did the brief era of Republican dominance in Howard County end, with the GOP having the ill-luck of prevailing in the only county election of the 1990s that had no impact on council redistricting. In the next post we’ll see how the new electoral dynamics affected council redistricting after the 2000 census.

1. The Sun article Hurt finds peace in GOP on the dispute between Wanda Hurt and Kirk Halpin is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it highlights the extent to which the Howard County Republican party during its era of electoral success was populated by ex-Democrats and others who in the current climate would likely be characterized as Republicans In Name Only. Second, the article is a classic example of journalistic snark, from the opening paragraphs to the final sentence.↩

2. The official 1998 primary election results for the county executive and county council races were as follows (incumbents are marked with an asterisk):

• County executive (R): Dennis Schrader, 7,559 (52%); Charles Feaga, 6,902 (48%).
• District 1 (R): Christopher Merdon, 1,980 (68%); Timothy McCoy, 929 (32%).
• District 2 (D): C. Vernon Gray (*), 3,019 (79%); James Fitzgerald, 826 (21%).
• District 3 (R): Wanda Hurt, 1,443 (71%); Kirk Halpin, 584 (29%).
• District 5 (D): Debra Ann Slack-Katz, 1,978 (65%); Bernard Hoppinger, 1,078 (35%).
• District 5 (R): Allan Kittleman, 2,665 (58%); Gail Bates, 1,620 (35%); James Adams, 191 (4%); Xaver Gramkow, 89 (2%).

James Robey was unopposed in the Democratic primary for county executive, as were the Democratic candidates in Council Districts 1, 3, and 4, and the Republican candidates in Council Districts 2 and 4.

(Election results are from the Howard County 1998 primary election returns page hosted by the Maryland State Archives.)↩

3. The official 1998 general election results for the county executive and county council races were as follows (incumbents are marked with an asterisk):

• County executive: James Robey (D), 44,960 (55%); Dennis Schrader (R), 36,746 (45%).
• District 1: Christopher Merdon (R), 9,560 (59%); George Layman (D), 6,676 (41%).
• District 2: C. Vernon Gray (D) (*), 9,289 (60%); Susan Cook (R), 6,204 (40%).
• District 3: Guy Guzzone (D), 7,679 (58%); Wanda Hurt (R), 5,522 (42%).
• District 4: Mary Lorsung (D) (*), 9,466 (58%); Gregory Fox (R), 6,765 (42%).
• District 5: Allan Kittleman (R), 12,071 (64%); Debra Ann Slack-Katz (D), 6,853 (36%).

Turnout for the 1998 general election was 64%, down considerably from the almost 70% turnout in the 1994 general election but significantly higher than the 57% turnout in 1990. Democratic turnout was slightly higher than Republican turnout (68% vs. 66%). Of those voting, the party breakdown was 50.4% Democratic, 37.5% Republican, and 12.1% independent (i.e., unaffiliated or registered with other parties). Compared to 1994 Democrats made up 1% less of the electorate and independents about 1% more, with Republicans remaining the same as a percentage of the electorate.

(Election results are from the Howard County 1998 general election returns page hosted by the Maryland State Archives. Turnout figures are from my blog post Howard County likely voters in the 2010 general election and sources referenced in that post.)↩