A history of Howard County Council redistricting, part 1

Now that the 2010 Maryland general election is over, the thoughts of Howard County political activists are turning to the 2014 county elections. Adding an extra twist to the conversation is the upcoming task (occasioned by the 2010 census) of redrawing district lines for national, state, and county legislative districts. I have a particular interest in redistricting as it relates to the Howard County Council, and have been doing some research into past council redistricting efforts in an effort to understand how we came to the present point.

Rather than keep the results of that research to myself, I present it to you now in the form of a multi-part series on the history of Howard County Council redistricting, going all the way back to the beginning of modern Howard County politics at the creation of Columbia. We’ll learn how Howard County does council redistricting, why Howard County does council redistricting in the way it does, and indeed why Howard County has council districts (or, for that matter, a county council) in the first place.

It’s an entertaining and even exciting story (really!) that includes heated disputes between the Democratic and Republican parties, internal fights between factions within the Democratic party, epic battles for political power between Columbia and the rest of the county, both failed and successful petition drives and referendums, multiple court cases (including one featuring a former US attorney general), provocative quotes from Howard County politicos past and present, and even a special guest appearance by a young Brian Meshkin.

The entire saga illustrates that there is truly nothing new under the sun when it comes to Howard County politics, and may provide some useful perspective as we head into the next round of redistricting controversies. Those with more knowledge of these matters than I are welcome to supplement or correct my account in the comments section, or suggest additional online historical resources.¹

Here’s the complete list of posts and the years and events they cover:

• Part 1, 1963–1969. The birth of Columbia and the beginning of modern Howard County politics.

• Part 2, 1970–1974. Columbia’s rise to political power in an era of at-large council elections.

• Part 3, 1975–1976. Political opposition to Columbia, and the first push to adopt council districts.

• Part 4, 1977–1980. A setback to Columbia’s political power, and the second council district campaign.

• Part 5, 1981–1982. The height of Democratic political dominance of Howard County in the at-large era.

• Part 6, 1983–1984. The third and final campaign for council districts.

• Part 7, January–October 1985. The first districting effort begins.

• Part 8, November 1985–January 1986. The first districting effort concludes.

• Part 9, February–August 1986. The first council campaigns waged on a district basis.

• Part 10, September–December 1986. The first council elections held on a district basis.

• Part 11, January–September 1990. The second set of council elections held on a district basis.

• Part 12, October–December 1990. The second set of council elections held on a district basis (continued).

My post on Howard County’s population growth also provides some additional context.

Without further ado let’s begin:

1963–1964. Howard County is governed by three Republican commissioners who must look to the Maryland state legislature to enact local laws. A group of young Republicans (the “How-Char-Go Committee”) lobbies for “home rule” for the county. Lewis Nippard, a member of the committee, explains: “We do not believe the county commissioner form of government can meet the needs of the future as the county population begins to increase toward astronomical levels.” The effort attracts support from Democrats and nonpartisan groups, committees are formed and reports are made, and then partisan bickering over the schedule for a vote threatens to derail the project.

An effort to put the question on the ballot in 1964 goes forward, as a petition is circulated, signatures are challenged and ruled invalid, and the whole matter ends up in court. Finally the court orders the issue to be placed on the ballot (even as legal wrangling continues), with voters also asked to elect members of an official charter board.

In the November 1964 presidential general election Howard County sees a 90% turnout as the county joins the national LBJ landslide and votes for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in twenty years. The charter effort is collateral damage as voters follow the recommendation of the local Democratic organization and vote 53%-47% against creating a charter board.

(“Home Rule: Howard,” “Shift Urged in Howard,” “Row Brews on Charter,” “Gains Cited on Charter,” “Howard Vote Board Finds Charter Petitions Too Few,” “Charter Due on Ballot,” “Charter Board Loses”)

1965–1966. Almost immediately after the 1964 general election another bipartisan effort gets underway to try to put the charter issue on the ballot. After more controversies and partisan wrangling the issue is again voted on in the November 1966 gubernatorial general election, and this time passes by a 72%-28% margin. Voters also elect five members of a charter board empowered to draft a charter for the county, and replace two of the three Republican county commissioners with Democrats.

(“Howard Parties Seek Unity In Campaign For Home Rule,” “Bipartisan Howard Group Renews Charter Argument,” “Democrats Sweep Howard; Clark Piles Up 2-1 Margin”)

November 1967. After a year of work, the charter board submits its third and final proposal for a new form of government in Howard County. The “highly workable” proposal (as charter board members refer to it) recommends that Howard County become a “charter county,” replacing the current system of three county commissioners with a county executive and a county council (with members elected county-wide). The Howard County Council would then be able enact its own legislation on matters affecting the county, instead of relying on the Maryland legislature. A vote on the proposal is scheduled for the November 1968 general election.

(“Strong Executive-Council Howard Charter Proposed”)

May–October 1968. After Maryland voters defeat a proposed revision to the Maryland constitution, organized opposition surfaces to the Howard County charter proposal, claiming that the charter board had “belittled” the intelligence of voters and worrying about “concentration of power . . . on a local level.” Despite the charter’s endorsement by the three sitting county commissioners and the Maryland state legislators for Howard County, concerns grow about the likelihood of its passing.

Meanwhile 23 candidates file to run in the primaries to be held for the new county executive and county council positions, including the Rev. John Holland, a moderate Republican who is president of the Howard County branch of the NAACP and “the first Negro to file for a legislative office in the county, and only the second Negro ever to run for county office.” On the Democratic side the ranks of candidates are swelled by a feud between state senator James Clark, Jr., and the “United Democrats” faction, which fields its own slate of candidates.²

(“Group in Howard studies charter,” “Charter bid is all uphill,” “Howard sets party fight”)

November 1968. Turning out in large numbers, by a 57%-43% margin Howard County voters approve a new charter form of government for the county, replacing the previous system of three county commissioners by a County Executive and a five-person County Council. The charter section relevant to our topic reads as follows:³

Section 202. THE COUNTY COUNCIL. The legislative power of the County is vested in the County Council of Howard County which shall consist of five members who shall be elected from the County at large.

Voters also select Democratic and Republican candidates for a general election in January 1969 to fill three county council positions (with the other two seats to be filled by two of the previous county commissioners with time remaining on their terms).

(“Howard Votes for Charter With Record 75% Turnout”)

January 1969. In the first general election under the new charter, Howard County voters elect Democrat Omar Jones as county executive by an almost 2–1 majority over Jack Larrimore, the current (and according to Jones, soon to be former) Howard County police chief. Larrimore indicates that he is “not surprised” by the result given the almost 2–1 Democratic edge in voter registration. Voters also elect three Democratic county council members, Edward Cochran, William Hanna, and J. Hugh Nichols, by substantial and almost identical majorities. (“It’s just like a triple dead heat in the Kentucky Derby,” marvels one party worker.) They join previous commissioner Alva Baker to form a 4-1 Democratic majority on the council, with fellow commissioner Charles Miller the only Republican.⁴

(“Democrats Sweep First Howard Vote”)

In part 2 of our series Columbia rises to political dominance in this era of at-large council elections.

UPDATE: For the convenience of readers who come here from the Patch story or otherwise, I’ve added a handy list of links to all the posts in this series. I’ll continue to update the list as I publish new posts.

wildelakemike (mdavis@darslaw.com) - 2010-11-29 13:44

Frank, you have done it yet again! Marvelous effort. I wonder how many of the people involved in the 1960’s struggle to bring charter government to Howard County may still be alive and be able to contribute to this history. I believe Lou Nippard may still be able to contribute. Others? This is a story that needs to be told so that we will have some record for the future. Also, Senator Clark’s autobiography may provide some clues as well. I am not in the area right now, but upon my return, I will take a look. Senator Clark was certainly instrumental in so much of our county’s political history that his role needs to be understood as well. Great job, Frank!

hecker - 2010-11-29 14:17

Glad you enjoyed the post. I really didn’t mean to write this much, but the back story to the present-day council structure was just so interesting.

Sarah - 2010-11-29 18:16

Super interesting, especially the historiography in the footnotes! I look forward to the next parts.

Trevor - 2010-11-29 21:15

Once again, you write a magnificent post. I am looking forward to the next in the series. There are quite a few books on Columbia’s history over the last 40-50 years, but unfortunately, very few with details on Howard County’s history for that same time period. You have inspired me to go to the library and look up some old Baltimore Suns. Was there a Howard County newspaper before the Columbia Flier? Was the Howard County Times around then?

hecker - 2010-11-29 22:38

Note that I plan to have the second installment out tomorrow night, and part 3 on Thursday. The schedule for parts 4 and beyond is TBD. (I expect to have at least five posts in this series.)

hecker - 2010-11-29 22:41

I think there was a local Howard County paper prior to the Flier, but I don’t know what the name was. I suggest asking the folks at the library.

Ken Stevens (kstevens8@verizon.net) - 2010-12-11 12:11

I too say “great job.” I came to Howard County in 1961 and am fairly familiar with what you’re writing about. Anyway, I have these added comments: (1) Rev. Holland and Bob Kittleman were far from the only Republicans in the Howard County Branch, NAACP when I joined it in the early 60s. Among the others were Leola and Remus Dorsey (with whom I rode to many meetings). By the way, when Rev. Holland ran as a Republican for County in 1970, he was endorsed for the general election by the Columbia Democratic Club (which was then more concerned with issues than being robotic party loyalists). Rev. Holland, who eventually became a Democrat, was much more in agreement with the views of CDC than was Democrat Ridgely Jones (who CDC failed to endorse). (2) Bob Kittleman’s presidency of the county NAACP Branch came about only because he was first vice president when the president had to move (temporarily as it turned out) out of the state for employment reasons. As I recall, there was a fairly quick election for a new president (maybe at Bob’s suggestion) and he didn’t run. (3) Beyond power, I believe the main dispute between the Jim Clark faction and what I’ll call the anti-Clark faction in Howard County was about civil rights. However conservative Clark was on financial issues, he was quite liberal on civil rights and played a big role (with his school board appointments) in accelerating the pace of school desegregation in the county. Some of the anti-Clark people were reportedly supporters of George P. Mahoney (and his “Your Home is your Castle slogan) for governor. There was also a vote in 1966 in the House of Delegates on rescission of the state’s anti-miscegenation law and you may find interesting how the county’s two delegates (Billy Hanna and Ted Warfield) voted on it that year (when rescission failed). Warfield was a leader of the anti-Clark faction. (You’ll have to look it up via the General Assembly’s library.) That law was not repealed until 1967. (4) The Howard County Times did, indeed, exist prior to the Flier. It eventually became part of the same enterprise, but not right away. Doris Thompson, who once ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat for County Commissioner, was the prime operator of the independent Times. The Central Maryland News operated for a few years as what amounted to the “Republican” opposition to the Times.

Ken Stevens (kstevens8@verizon.net) - 2010-12-11 12:24

I’ve got to add that I consider Bob Kittleman’s biggest role in the county NAACP was his pushing, as chair of the Education Committee, for acceleration of school desegregation. The county school board at that time actually referred (in an official document) to desegregation as amalgamation. Senator Clark soon added a couple of school board members (one of whom was Ed Cochran) and the board changed its tune. This was a time before we had an elected school board and the county’s sole State Senator then effectively named the members (although technically the governor did it).

hecker - 2010-12-11 16:26

Ken: Thank you *very* much for stopping by and adding your comments. This is exactly the sort of inside knowledge that is very difficult to discover by doing cursory searches of newspaper archives. (Speaking of which, I’ll have to check into whether the Howard County library or anyone else has archives of local papers prior to the late 1960s.)

Brian Hooks - 2010-12-15 19:23

Good stuff, Frank. Let me know if I got anything wrong: http://patch.com/A-c9lD

hecker - 2010-12-15 20:59

Thanks for the story! Note that “Hecker recently published a four-part series” would be more accurate phrased as “Hecker has been publishing a multi-part series”. Part 5 will go up tonight, and part 6 tomorrow night. I’m pretty sure it will take at least ten posts to tell the whole story up to the present day. Also, I’m sorry for causing you extra work to append “[ed]” to all my verbs. I’m telling the whole series in present tense in order to get that breathless “you are there” effect.