Frank Hecker

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.)↩

In part 19 of this series we saw that in 1996 the voters by referendum adopted a change to the Howard County charter to have a redistricting commission create proposals for council district lines, as opposed to having this be the function solely of the council. However the council still had the power to influence the commission through its appointment of a seventh tie-breaker member. In this post and the next we review the council elections of 1998, which would determine the balance of power in drawing district lines after the 2000 census.

January 1998. The Baltimore Sun notes that 1998 will see the largest turnover among institutional leaders in Howard’s history, with Padraic Kennedy retiring as president of the Columbia Association after more than 25 years, Dwight Burrill retiring as president of Howard Community College after 16 years, Charles Ecker leaving the county executive position (due to term limits) after 8 years, James Robey retiring as police chief after 8 years (and 22 years on the force), and Darrel Drown leaving the county council after 8 years. Robey plans to seek the Democratic nomination for county executive, with Republican council members Charles Feaga and Dennis Schrader pitched to seek the position as well, leaving no incumbent Republicans on the council.

(The Year Ahead in Maryland, Baltimore Sun, January 1, 1998, 18A.)

March-April 1998. Former county Republican chair Allan Kittleman announces his candidacy for the District 5 council seat of Charles Feaga. The 39-year-old Kittleman touts his long experience in local GOP circles (I’ve been going to Republican events … since I was my children’s age) as the son of long-time state legislator Robert Kittleman (who notes in turn, I’m proud of him. He’s a good kid.). Opposing Kittleman in the GOP primary is Charles Ecker aide and Feaga ally Gail Bates.

In council district 2 former school board chair Susan Cook becomes the latest Republican to go up against C. Vernon Gray in what the Baltimore Sun calls a political kamikaze mission (I am well aware I am the underdog, acknowledges Cook), and in district 4 first-time Republican candidate K. Gregory Fox looks to unseat incumbent Democrat Mary Lorsung. Republicans Kirk Halpin and Wanda Hurt and Democrat Guy Guzzone vie to win the open council seat vacated by Dennis Schrader in District 3.¹

Meanwhile the competition between Charles Feaga and Dennis Schrader for the GOP nomination for county executive causes tension within the Howard County Republican party, as some suspect local GOP activists Paul and Margaret Rappaport of favoring Democratic candidate James Robey if Dennis Schrader wins the Republican primary. In response the GOP Central Committee asks all GOP candidates (including Margaret Rappaport, who is running again for Clerk of the Circuit Court) to sign a unity pledge promising to support only Republican candidates in the general election. Paul Rappaport counters: I think the Republicans have a good family and they ought to keep it together. They don’t need a contract to do that.²

(Craig Timberg, GOP scion seeks office, Baltimore Sun, March 9, 1998, 1B; Dana Hedgpeth, Cook to run against Gray, Baltimore Sun, March 17, 1998, 1B; Gady Epstein, Hurt kicks off council campaign, Baltimore Sun, April 9, 1998, 1B; Gady Epstein, Republican kicks off race to unseat incumbent Gray, Baltimore Sun, April 26, 1998, 1B; Gady Epstein, Fox acknowledges an uphill candidacy, Baltimore Sun, April 20, 1998, 12B; Gady Epstein, GOP asks candidates to vow loyalty, Baltimore Sun, April 10, 1998, 1B.)

May 1998. Republican council member and county executive candidate Dennis Schrader finds himself in a bind over whether or not to support the Board of Education’s proposed budget or go with Charles Ecker’s proposal for a tax cut and a smaller increase in school funding. In the end Schrader joins fellow Republicans Charles Feaga and Darrel Drown in approving a compromise budget that adds money to Ecker’s request but falls slightly short of the full Board of Education request. They come under attack not only by Democratic candidates James Robey and Guy Guzzone (Education is the crown jewel in Howard County’s crown, and what they’ve done is tarnish that jewel, charges Robey) but also by Susan Cook and Wanda Hurt, the Republican council candidates in Districts 2 and 3 respectively (Cook: Yes, I am a Republican. However, I am a Howard countian first.).³

However Cook and Hurt aren’t joined by their fellow council candidate (and Ecker aide) Gail Bates, who launches her campaign for a District 5 seat once thought to be hers to lose (If there’s such a thing as earning a position on the County Council, she fits the description 100 per cent claims current District 5 member Charles Feaga) before being challenged by Allan Kittleman.

(Gady Epstein, Candidate in dilemma as vote nears, Baltimore Sun, May 10, 1998, 1B; Gady Epstein, Both parties’ candidates attack school-budget action, Baltimore Sun, May 21, 1998, 1B; Gady Epstein, Bates kicks off campaign today with ice cream social, Baltimore Sun, May 31, 1998, 3B.)

June-July 1998. In District 1 second-time council candidate George Layman faces questions about his commitment to campaigning (You’re running for a part-time position, but you’re expected to run a full-time campaign, he complains), especially in a race against 27-year-old Republican candidate Christopher Merdon, who’s supposedly knocked on 6,000 voter doors thus far. Merdon touts his support of managed growth and his pledge not to accept contributions to developers (unlike Layman). The District 1 field gets larger, as Merdon is challenged by Timothy McCoy. Layman sees another would-be challenger, James Loar, file at the last minute and then quickly drop out, as Loar doesn’t realize the amount of time and money he’d need to mount a campaign (I guess in one week I learned a lot).

Meanwhile Susan Cook and Wanda Hurt reap no benefit from their dissent from the local GOP’s stance on school funding, as the Howard County Education Association votes an (almost) straight Democratic ticket, including an endorsement of Guy Guzzone, Hurt’s opponent in District 3. (Hurt is not surprised: The teachers union always endorses Democrats, period. Republicans need not apply.) Guzzone’s bid, along with that of James Robey, is seen by Democrats, including Guzzone himself, as key to their retaking control of the county government from Republicans: Even if my opponents happen to be good on the education issue or any other issue, the bottom line is they are going to cast a vote for their party on redistricting.

(Gady Epstein, Democrat vows intensified bid for council, Baltimore Sun, June 4, 1998, 3B; Gady Epstein, Merdon vows not to accept developers’ contributions, Baltimore Sun, July 8, 1998, 3B; Retired fire captain enters politics, then thinks better of it, Baltimore Sun, July 17, 1998, 3B; Gady Epstein, 3 Democrats get teachers’ endorsement for council, Baltimore Sun, June 4, 1998, 3B; Gady Epstein, Party aims to regain power, Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1998, 1B.)

I’ll continue the story of the 1990 county council elections in part 21.

1. The Baltimore Sun story Cook to run against Gray strongly implies that Wanda Hurt was running against Guy Guzzone in the Democratic primary. That was an error either by the reporter or introduced in editing: Hurt had previously run (unsuccessfully) as a Democrat for the House of Delegates in 1994, but had switched parties prior to the 1998 council race.↩

2. Like many Howard County Republicans in the latter half of the 20th century, Margaret Rappaport originally ran for office as a Democrat, being elected as a Judge of the Orphans Court in 1986; she then switched parties and was elected Clerk of the Circuit Court as a Republican in 1990.↩

3. It’s worth noting that the school funding controversy was over a $1.2 million difference between the council-approved budget and the Board of Education request, amounting to less than one per cent of an over $200 million total education budget.↩

How can Maryland promote job growth and the well-being of its citizens as the economy languishes and Federal spending shows every sign of declining, never to rise again? Should Maryland seek to model itself on its next-door rival, Virginia, or even on Texas and other states in the south touting themselves as business-friendly destinations? Or is there another way to grow Maryland and make it a better place to live and work, one that takes into account Maryland’s own characteristics and doesn’t try to make it into something it’s not and never could be?

I’ve been thinking about this a while, and was moved to write by the publication by Blueprint Maryland of a draft report (PDF) summarizing comments by people attending a series of roundtables on how Maryland can adapt to the changing economy. (One of these roundtable events was held last month in Turf Valley, and another at the BWI Marriott. Perhaps some of the readers of this blog attended and could comment on them?)¹

The draft report is well-worth reading in whole but by its nature it’s somewhat disjointed, reflecting as it does the many and varied comments of the people who attended the roundtables. Rather than discuss each of the many ideas contained within I prefer to step back a little and try to provide a high-level vision of what I think Maryland should be doing to transition to a new 21st-century economy. So without further ado here’s my own napkin sketch of what a blueprint for Maryland could look like:

First, although we can and should learn from the experience of Virginia and other states we should ditch the idea that all we have to do is make Maryland more like Virginia. Socially, politically, and economically Maryland is not like Virginia and likely never will be. I moved to Maryland from out of this area, and if I wanted to live in a state like Virginia I would have either gone there to begin with or crossed the Potomac many years ago. I’m sure the same is true of many people who currently live here.

Virginia does what it does very well, and has a well-established state brand that reflects its various aspects: relatively socially and politically conservative, and combining high-tech modernity with business-friendliness in the sense usually used in the U.S., e.g., having low taxes, anti-union measures, and so on. There’s no way Maryland is going to be able to match Virginia in those aspects any time soon, and even if it did historical perceptions would likely still hold sway and limit Maryland’s competitiveness in attracting businesses and people looking for a Virginia-like environment. Why settle for a (pale) copy when you can have the original?

So what we should focus on in Maryland? I think we should take our cue from a statement in the draft roundtable report: A key issue raised [was] the over-regulation in Maryland, and this appeared to be an even greater concern than the high taxes. People certainly don’t like taxes (as evidenced by the recent discussion of a proposed gas tax), but politically there’s little or no chance of Maryland turning into a low-tax haven. So instead of obsessing about taxes why don’t we instead put a major focus on reducing the regulatory burden? This could cover not just the traditional concerns of businesses large and small, but also address regulatory issues that affect both businesses in emerging industries and entrepreneurial individuals (freelancers, people with home businesses, street vendors, and so on), neither of which groups are necessarily well-represented by the existing business lobbies.²

At the same time we could take the taxes we’re not going to be reducing and focus on spending them on the core public goods for which we have government in the first place, including most notably public safety, public infrastructure, and the creation of a healthy, well-educated population that has the personal and family security to take the life chances that will be required to be successful in a 21st-century global economy that would otherwise be very stressful for the middle class and the poor.

If we’re not going to try and make Maryland into Virginia-lite, what should we model ourselves on? Is it even possible to combine a vibrant, dynamic, and relatively unregulated free-market economy with a robust social safety net and other government-funded measures to benefit the average citizen? Wouldn’t that amount to an example of politically crossing the streams? It would be bad, as Egon Spengler warned, even if didn’t result in every molecule in our bodies exploding at the speed of light. But as those who’ve seen Ghostbusters can testify, the plucky band of heroes did indeed cross the streams to great success, averting a disaster of biblical proportions.

In this case there’s an existence proof (as the mathematicians say) not in any U.S. state, but rather in the country of Denmark. For quite some time now various people, including many of the libertarian persuasion like Will Wilkinson, have been touting Denmark as showing that you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to free markets. Denmark is rated as high or higher as the U.S. on measures of economic freedom published by the Heritage Foundation and others, but at the same time has generously-funded social insurance, public education, and so on; in fact, strictly speaking Denmark is actually significantly economically freer than the U.S. when it comes to regulatory measures, but gets ranked lower than it otherwise might be because of its much higher level of taxation and government spending.

Some people object to comparing Denmark to the U.S. because it’s such a small country. But comparing it to Maryland makes more sense; they’re about the same size (16,641 square miles for Denmark vs. 12,407 for Maryland) and have about the same number of people (5.6 million vs. 5.8 million). When it comes to various measures of economic well-being though Denmark takes the lead: Maryland’s per-capita income is relatively high at $43,500, but Denmark’s is even higher at $56,147; Denmark also has a lower unemployment rate (recently 6.6% vs. 7.5% for Maryland), less income inequality, with a Gini coefficient of 0.25 vs. Maryland’s 0.44 (itself actually fairly low in comparison to the rest of the U.S.), and a higher rate of economic mobility than the U.S. (i.e., the ability of someone to make it from a lower socioeconomic class to a higher one).³

Of course there are also significant differences between Denmark and Maryland: Maryland’s freedom of action is hampered by the U.S. Federal government (Denmark is a member of the European Union but did not adopt the euro), the U.S. and even Maryland political climate is much more hostile to high government spending (the center-right party that until recently ruled Denmark would likely be considered raving socialists in the U.S. context), and Denmark is much more ethnically homogeneous than Maryland (with over 90% of the population being native Danes). That limits the extent to which Maryland could adopt generous social programs to complement a laissez-faire regulatory framework.

But even given that, I think the key to finding answers for Maryland’s economy is starting with the right questions, and I think how can Maryland be more like Virginia is the wrong question to ask. I think a much better question would be, how can Maryland be more like Denmark?

1. For more background information see Blueprint Maryland’s previous report (PDF) on Maryland’s vulnerability to Federal government downsizing.

2. For one example of Maryland regulations adversely affecting emerging industries see my blog post on 23andMe, a direct-to-consumer genetics testing company that was funded by a venture capital firm with Maryland offices but that itself can’t do business in Maryland.

3. Figures are from the Wikipedia articles on Denmark and Maryland, except for the information on the Maryland Gini coefficient (from the Maryland state government) and economic mobility (from the associated Wikipedia article).