I love the "I Hate Politics" Podcast: Thoughts on Ranked Choice Voting and the Road Forward if Elrich Wins the Primary

 

I think the best source for finding intelligent discussions about local politics in Montgomery County is the I Hate Politics podcast, run by Sunil Dasgupta.  His recent conversation with long-time local and state journalist Lou Peck is a case in point.  

In an in-depth analysis of the Montgomery County Executive Democratic Primary, Peck and Dasgupta note the huge disparity in expenditures favoring businessman David Blair and attacking incumbent Marc Elrich as compared to the much smaller amount available to Elrich, who took the public funding option (and was opposed by deep-pocket developers).  They also discuss the possible impact of the Washington Post endorsement of Blair and its particularly virulent attack on Elrich, upon which Blair heavily relied in his advertising campaign. 

What was particularly useful was the analysis of Elrich's position on housing -- which was really the substantive flash point in the campaign -- and was at odds with those of Blair and the third-place finisher Hans Riemer, although for different reasons.  Indeed, I suspect that the principal reason that Elrich did not run away with the primary was because of differences on "the left" about the best way to deal with housing costs.  In a nutshell, Blair's position was to go back to the days when the County essentially relied on developers to make policy on housing, letting the free market take its course; Riemer's was to loosen zoning rules to allow for more housing density, still relying heavily on the market, and Elrich's was to be suspicious of developers and press for more government involvement. See here for the I Hate Politics interview with Marc Elrich.  Reasonable people can differ. 

My own decision, at the end of the day, was to go with Elrich's perspective and hope that, with new membership on the County Council, he would make more progress in implementing his approach.  I was not convinced by Blair's return to the Doug Duncan approach, which I saw as a "leap of faith" with respect to getting the kind of results we need.  And I was leery of Riemer's backbone and skills after I saw him get snookered by Gov. Hogan on the I-270/495 toll lanes scam -- a Hogan plan that Elrich opposed and Blair said he had no power to influence. 

Peck, however, suggests that Ranked Choice Voting -- an option which the General Assembly declined to provide to Montgomery County -- would not have made a difference.  On this point, I disagree.  Whatever the results of the recount, it is already clear that Blair and Elrich will each have received about 40% of the vote, with Riemer getting about 20% of the vote.  That means that the first choice of 60% of the voters was neither Elrich nor Blair, nor anyone else.  So whoever emerges victorious in the recount cannot fully claim to be the consensus choice of the Democratic electorate.  Indeed, this is one of the very real problems discussed by Peck and Dasgupta -- that low turnout combined with plurality victories means that a small percentage of the electorate effective makes big decisions for everyone.

Ranked Choice Voting would have solved -- or at least significantly addressed -- this dilemma.  If the second choice of a majority of Riemer voters would have gone for Elrich, that would indicate that Elrich would have been the clearer consensus choice of  those who voted.  But if Blair was the second choice of a majority of Riemer voters, then Blair would be that consensus choice.  And this would have been better than a run-off, in which voter participation typically drops significantly.

NOTES ON GOING FORWARD IF ELRICH WINS THE PRIMARY

At this writing, Elrich leads Blair by about 30 votes in the recount.  There are still more votes to review, but odds are that Elrich will hold his lead.

Republican candidate Reardon Sullivan relies on analyses of public policy from an arm of the right-wing Family Research Council, so his assertions that if Elrich emerges victorious, he (Sullivan) has a path to victory could bear fruit only if the voters do not pay attention.  The days of Republican candidates like James Gleason, Gilbert Gude, and Connie Morella are over for the foreseeable future.

Blair seems like a sensible, albeit ambitious, person, who campaigned as a corporate liberal with the support of a number of present and past elected Democratic officials like Nancy Navarro, Cheryl Kagan, Valerie Ervin, Lily Qi, Brian Feldman, and John Delaney, as well as other people I respect and agree with on big issues.  I do not believe he would abandon the principles he has espoused since coming on the political scene and endorse a 21st Century Trump Republican candidate or support an independent candidacy which could open the door to such a Republican.  2022 is not 2018, when Robin Ficker's  nomination for County Executive made it easier to avoid a split leading to his election See here  In 2018, the final results were Elrich 65%, Floreen 19%, and Ficker 16%.  But Reardon Sullivan's lack of a past political footprint could change the dynamic.

  

Protecting Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students: Major Court Victory

 

On Thursday, August 18, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a 39-page decision dismissing a lawsuit against the Montgomery County Board of Education by right-wing attorneys in Virginia on behalf of anonymous parents.  The Memorandum Opinion may be found here. (See, also, here.)  The suit challenged a provision of the MCPS Gender Identity Guidelines, providing that MCPS will not disclose a student's gender identity to parents or guardians unless the student wishes to so disclose.

 

Yesterday, on behalf of the Metro Chapter of PFLAG, I sent this note of congratulations to the Board of Education:

 

 

TO:   Brenda Wolff, President, Montgomery County Board of Education

 

I just wanted to drop a quick note congratulating you and your colleagues on yesterday's victory in Parents v. Montgomery County Board of Education.

 

The WilmerHale attorneys hired by the Board did an excellent job, resulting in a compelling, thoughtful, and thorough decision by Judge Grimm.  Metro DC PFLAG and other groups filed an amicus brief, which we hope helped the argument.  

 

MCPS has made enormous progress in the last two decades in providing safe spaces and support for LGBTQ+ students.  The steadfastness shown particularly in the last eight years has been unparalleled.  

 

I have every confidence that the Board and MCPS will continue, even in the face of new attacks, like the one posed in the Parents lawsuit.

 

As a PFLAG dad and a member of the Montgomery County Community, I thank you all.

 

On behalf of Metro DC PFLAG, I want to thank our partners who were also on the amicus brief (Freestate Justice, The Center for LGBTQ Health Equity – Chase Brexton Health Care, MoCo Pride Center, Rainbow Youth Alliance, SMYAL, and Whitman-Walker, Inc. / DBA Whitman-Walker Health); our dedicated and skillful pro bono attorneys from Cooley LLP (Reese Trevor, Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Ryan O’Hollaren, and David E. Mills), Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (Paul D. Castillo), and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (Asaf Orr), who developed and wrote the amicus brief; and PFLAG Director of Advocacy, Policy & Partnerships Diego Sanchez, who brought in our attorneys and contacted others who assisted.   

 

The Court puts to rest (at p. 21 of its Opinion) the assertion that individual parents have the right to veto efforts to protect transgender and gender nonconforming students, pointing out that “it is clear in the case law that parents do not have a constitutional right to dictate a public school’s curriculum or its approach to student counseling.”   

 

And the following language from pp. 23-25 of the Court’s Opinion demonstrates why the Montgomery County Board of Education is doing the right thing:  

 

[The Board of Education’s] concerns about the safety and well-being of transgender and gender nonconforming students in particular are neither theoretical nor fanciful. Research demonstrates that transgender and gender nonconforming students are substantially more likely to be bullied or harassed than their cisgender peers. See, e.g., Amicus Brief at 6 and sources cited therein. 12 The Plaintiff Parents themselves acknowledge that transgender and gender nonconforming students are at a heightened risk of suicide. Compl. ¶ 15; Motion at 26. The Maryland Department of Education noted in its 2015 “Guidelines for Gender Identity Non-discrimination,” that “research indicates that 80 percent of transgender students feel unsafe a school because of who they are,” leaving students unable to focus on their education, and leading some students to miss classes or leave school entirely. And all of these concerns are compounded when a student also lacks support at home. See Amicus Brief at 9–13. For those reasons, I agree with MCBE that the Guidelines further a compelling state interest.

I also agree that the Guidelines are narrowly tailored in furtherance of that interest. The Guidelines do not aim to exclude parents, but rather anticipate and encourage family involvement in establishing a gender support plan. Guidelines at 4. Even where family support is lacking, the inclusion of family is identified as an eventual goal. Id. The Guidelines, on their face, are noncoercive, and serve primarily as a means of creating a support system and providing counseling to ensure that transgender children feel safe and well at school. And, importantly, they apply to each student on a case by case basis. By advising that school personnel keep a transgender or gender nonconforming student’s gender identity confidential unless and until that student consents to disclosure, they both protect the student’s privacy and create, as MCBE puts it “a zone of protection . . . in the hopefully rare circumstance when disclosure of [the student’s] gender expression while at school could lead to serious conflict within the family, and even harm.” Motion at 28. If the Guidelines mandated parental disclosure as the Plaintiff Parents urge, their primary purpose of providing transgender and gender nonconforming students with a safe and supportive school environment would be defeated. A transgender child could hardly feel safe in an environment where expressing their gender identity resulted in the automatic disclosure to their parents, regardless of their own wishes or the consequences of the disclosure. Accordingly, I find that, although they are subject only to rational basis review, the Guidelines also satisfy both prongs of the strict scrutiny analysis.

 

[See also pp. 9-11 of the Court’s Opinion]

 

Sadly, there are forces in Maryland, starting with the Republican Gubernatorial nominee (who brought a similar suit against the Frederick County MD Board of Education in 2017, but voluntarily dismissed it rather than respond to the Board’s motion to dismiss), who advocate policies that would seriously interfere with the efforts of local school systems to protect LGBTQ+ students.  This victory should help us inform the public about why such efforts are needed if we are to serve all of our students. 

POSTSCRIPT:  ON AUGUST 14, 2023, A VERY CONSERVATIVE PANEL OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, IN A 2-1 DECISION, DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS' APPEAL ON STANDING GROUNDS.  THE DISSENTING JUDGE WOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS AND REVERSED JUDGE GRIMM'S DECISION. 

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/222034.P.pdf

MoCo Residents: Please urge the County Council to adopt a wise resolution opposing antisemitism

 

Last month I wrote to the Montgomery County MD Council urging delay in consideration of the proposed Resolution to define and address antisemitism (see here), as did many other residents of the County.  

Wisely, the Council decided to put the Resolution on hold until its September session.  Today I wrote again to the Council (see below).  I urge those who agree with the warning of the Union for Reform Judaism regarding the codification of the "working definition" of antisemitism developed for non-legislative purposes by the IHRA to write or call members of the County Council.  The contact information is pasted below, after the text of my letter.   

August 18, 2022

 

Gabe Albornoz, President

Montgomery County Council

Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov

 

RE:  Resolution to define and address antisemitism:  Please do not codify the IHRA “working definition” with its “contemporary examples.”

 

Dear President Albornoz:

 

On July 23, I wrote to you and your colleagues requesting that you delay the then-scheduled July 26 consideration of the Resolution “to define and address antisemitism” by codifying into County law the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism” (the IHRA’s words).  I want to thank you all of you for stepping back so that the matter could be more deeply considered.

 

At the outset, it is essential to note that last year the Union for Reform Judaism – the umbrella organization of the largest segment of American Jewry  -- warned that the IHRA “working definition,” while having positive uses, should never be codified into law (see here for the 2021 URJ Statement: https://urj.org/press-room/reform-jewish-institutions-affirm-ihra-working-definition-antisemitism).  As a member of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism (CSA), I checked with Barbara Weinstein, the Commission’s Director, and confirmed that this continues to be the position of the URJ. (I am writing for myself here, and not as a member of the CSA.)

 

Your decision to delay consideration of the Resolution was a wise course to take, and is vital to all of us who wish to resist antisemitism, to protect freedom of speech, and to block attempts in some quarters to suppress, chill, or censor certain views on how to protect those who live in Israel and Palestine from the unfairness and brutality which has made it so difficult to find a peaceful and just resolution in that troubled part of the world.   

 

The Resolution as drafted, while well-intended, would be divisive within the Jewish Community, as well as among other groups who sincerely seek a just peace in the Middle East.  

 

It is certainly useful to reaffirm of the County’s commitment to counter antisemitism, discrimination, and hate.  But the proposed use of the definition set forth by reference in the proposed Resolution would create unanticipated consequences.

 

Here is why: The Resolution states that “Montgomery County adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, including the eleven contemporary examples, and endorses the use of the working definition as a framework to identify discrimination rooted in antisemitism and for discussions to address such discrimination.”  The Resolution does not actually set forth those “eleven contemporary examples.” But those examples are specifically incorporated by reference.  Some of the examples are subject to misuse, as the URJ warned in its 2021 statement on the IHRA formulation.  The URJ explained that the IHRA “working definition,” while having positive uses, should never be codified into law:  

 

Our commitment to principles of free speech and concerns about the potential abuse of the [IHRA] definition compel us to urge its use only as intended: as a guide and an awareness raising tool.  The definition should not be codified into policy that would trigger potentially problematic punitive action to circumscribe speech [emphasis added], efforts which have been particularly aimed at college students and human rights activists. If the effect of application of the IHRA definition is to limit free speech, it threatens to divide the broad coalition needed to combat antisemitism.

 

IHRA’s opening words introducing the “working definition” clarify the intent that it serves as a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism” with examples as a “guide.”

 

While most of the “contemporary examples” in the IHRA “working definition” are uncontroversial, some can easily (and improperly) be used to label people of good faith – including Jews – as antisemites.  That is why the IHRA calls its entire document a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.”  It is noteworthy that one of developers of the “working definition” has shown how the Trump Administration used it to seek to stamp out legitimate discussion of hard questions. See, I Drafted the Definition of Antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are Weaponizing It, by Kenneth Stern (2019), responding to former President Trump’s efforts to stamp out dissent through use of the IHRA definition examples.  

 

For instance, the 8^th example is “[a]pplying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”  Many American Jews vigorously oppose actions of the Israeli Government regarding Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem, and, according to a poll taken by the American Jewish Committee, an overwhelming majority want Israel to be willing to dismantle some or all of the settlements as part of a two-state solution. They expect Israel to act better because, to use the famous Hebrew National advertising phrase, “we answer to a higher authority.”  They oppose certain Israeli government actions not in spite of being Jews, but because they are Jews.  They expect more of their Israeli cousins. That, surely, does not make them antisemites. And it certainly should not be a basis to bring legal actions for discrimination.

 

The 7^th example is “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a ‘racist endeavor.’”  In our own country, we are now engaged in painful, but needed, discussions as to the degree to which the United States, through European Americans’ extermination of indigenous peoples and the building of an economy on the backs of enslaved Africans, was (and continues to be) a “racist endeavor.”  Recognizing such embarrassing elements in our history and present-day circumstances does not make people anti-American.  As the American statesman Carl Schurz proclaimed a century and a half ago, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Those who point out a nation’s flaws – whether that nation is the United States, or Israel, or any other nation – in order to help it get on the right track are not enemies of that nation.  And pointing out such problems certainly should not be a basis to bring legal actions for discrimination.  Certainly no one on the Council would criminalize statements about observations concerning racism in America.  The same should certainly apply with respect to Israel.  

 

While the draft Resolution is well-intentioned, any adoption of the IHRA’s working definition, including its “eleven contemporary examples” (as the draft Resolution specifically does) should not be part of our County’s reassertion of its unalterable opposition to antisemitism. Codifying that definition into law would open the door to abuses for which it was never intended.  

 

A Resolution to reaffirm the County’s opposition to antisemitism is very appropriate at this time.  But no such Resolution should include the IHRA “working definition” examples, particularly Examples 7 and 8, as currently written.  We can, and must, do better.

 

Sincerely,

 

David S. Fishback

Olney, MD 

 

CC:  County Councilmembers Friedson, Glass, Hucker, Jawando, Katz, Navarro, Rice, Riemer

        County Executive Elrich (via County Executive portal)

**********************************************************************

Here is the contact information for members of the County Council and for the County Executive:

Councilmember Gabe Albernoz - Office: (240) 777-7959,

email: Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Andrew Friedson - Office: (240) 777-7828,

email Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Evan Glass - Office: (240) 777-7966, 

email: Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Tom Hucker - Office: (240) 777-7960,

email: Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Will Jawando - Office: (240) 777-7811,

email: Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Sydney Katz - Office: (240) 777-7906,

email: Councilmember.Katz@Montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Nancy Navarro - Office: (240) 777-7968,

email: Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Craig Rice - Office: (240) 777-7955,

email: Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Hans Riemer - Office: (240) 777-7964,

email: Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov

County Executive Marc Elrich - Office: ​​(240) 777-0311

Republican nominee for County Executive using a Family Research Council propaganda website to advance his campaign.

Yesterday I saw this Facebook post from Reardon Sullivan, the Republican Candidate for County Executive in Montgomery County:

Reardon Sullivan for MoCo

  · 

I am disheartened that Montgomery Country Public Schools will prohibit school staff from disclosing students’ transgender identity to their parents. Parents MUST have the right to know about anything regarding their children’s possible gender transition.

Montgomery County used to have the best schools in the nation. Our schools are not preparing our students for the future.

Currently we don’t have any schools in the top 100 nationwide. We have high schools like Watkins Mill that are graduating 81% percent of their students, but only 3% are proficient in math, per U.S. News and World Report. This is unacceptable.

We must tone down social justice and ramp up STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and math). We need to focus on the basics of education by challenging each child to ensure he/she is college- or career-ready upon graduation.

The post links this "report" from an outfit calling itself The Washington Stand. 

https://www.washingtonstand.com/news/uproar-as-school-districts-hide-students-gender-transition-from-parents-?fbclid=IwAR1BfuRHuzH8FuCgvQd7D91KgROEWWEdthl6TYkG2Xb5Ubw4qa95UkoUdlM

If you click on The Washington Stand, you will see categories of reports on Abortion, Biblical Worldview, Marriage, Gender Identify.  And if you scroll down,  you will see that it is an arm of the Family Research Council:  

ABOUT

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

In the early years of this Century, the Family Research Council and related groups, like PFOX (Parents and Families of Ex-Gays), and Liberty Counsel, targeted the Montgomery County Public Schools for taking the then-rare step of actually addressing LGBTQ+ matters. These efforts included the 2010 fielding of a stealth anti-gay Board of Education candidate who appeared headed to election until her deep involvement with anti-gay groups was exposed. See Curriculum Victory Montgomery County (pp. 8, 18, 24 and 15-16). 

Now, it appears that allies of the FRC are targeting Montgomery County once again.  

We do not yet know for certain who the Democratic nominee for County Executive will be. But whichever candidate is your favorite, we must unify to expose and resist the candidate from the other Party.