2009 MGA
Errata 12-9-09: I inadvertently flipped the votes on HB 72 in the original version from July; this update corrects the error. The ratings are not affected.
Note 12-10-09: Delegate Serafini was kind enough to explain the reason for his and Delegate Myers’ absence during part of the session – Delegate Myers’ son tragically died in a motorcycle accident. I appreciate him passing that along to me.
On this page I detail the 2009 General Assembly voting record of the 188 members of the Maryland General Assembly from my point of view.
As a whole I was disappointed in the session as many Republicans had a rating which declined from 2008 to 2009. There was a worrisome softening in environmental voting; in particular from a certain Senator with higher aspirations. While his record is still excellent, this only will create trouble later.
You can check out the .pdf files of both the House of Delegates and Senate while reading along, they’ll come up in a new window for your convenience.
How this works
To begin here’s a legend of what each of the letters and numbers mean on the actual grid. Keep in mind that a “perfect” score would be 100. Spoiler alert: no one got 100 – but far too many had a zero or negative (!) rating.
Y or N in bold means that I agreed with the particular vote. Conversely if the letter’s not bold I disagreed. For the House of Delegates each correct vote out of the 33 I selected is worth 3.03 points, Senators receive 3.13 points for correctly voting on each of the 32 selected votes.
A dash ( – ) means that the Delegate or Senator did not cast a vote but was present to do so. Because I believe that one should vote when they have the opportunity and not be ducking the vote for political reasons, I deduct points for not voting. House members who shirk their responsibility are docked 1.52 points while Senators lose 1.56 from their score.
A designates a Delegate or Senator being absent. While I’d love to see perfect attendance, people get sick or have situations come up where absence is unavoidable. Because of that, I only docked House of Delegates absentees 0.76 points and Senators 0.78 points.
For the House of Delegates only, a star (*) after the vote signifies that the Delegate changed his or her vote. I treat this in two ways: if a Delegate changed his or her vote to agree with me, they receive half-credit (or 1.52 points). If they flip the opposite way after being correct, I hammer them with an extra deduction – in this case the deduction is a severe 4.55 points.
The bills in question
HB72 - The Delegate John Arnick Electronic Communications Traffic Safety Act
Why I’d vote no: Needless to say, texting while driving is a distraction. However, this is a bill where the realm of common sense is supplanted by the need to enact the nanny state. Originally, this bill also prohibited the reading of text messages but that was stricken from the final product – look for it to return in 2010.
Disposition: HB72 passed the House of Delegates 133-2 (Vote #762) and the Senate 43-4 (Vote #1169). It was signed into law by Governor O’Malley on May 7, 2009.
HB100/SB165 – Budget Bill (Fiscal Year 2010)
Why I’d vote no: The Republicans put up a solid alternative to this budget, particularly in a number of amendments discussed below. Instead of making hard choices, Governor O’Malley chose to depend on Uncle Sam to bail the state out. While revenues are declining, the budget increased.
Disposition: HB100 was the only bill voted on. After original passage, the bill went to a conference committee and this version passed the House of Delegates 106-30 (Vote #1174) and the Senate 38-9 (Vote #1147). Per the Maryland Constitution the bill did not need to be signed by Governor O’Malley to automatically take effect July 1. There were three House amendments and six Senate amendments I also tallied as part of this year’s Project.
O’Donnell Amendment: A mandate for Governor O’Malley to cut the budget by $608.9 million.
Why I’d vote yes: It’s a start. The only issue I’d have is giving him that power but the majority in the General Assembly seems to lack that will.
Disposition: Failed 27-99 (Vote #470).
Shank Amendment: Shifted a portion of the money devoted to the Geographic Cost of Education Index to address future educational needs.
Why I’d vote yes: Since I believe that money should follow the child and the educational choices in this state are too limited, I see no need for any adjustment based on where a child lives.
Disposition: Failed 28-100 (Vote #468).
Shewell Amendment: 25 percent of funding for stem cell research is mandated to go toward adult stem-cell research.
Why I’d vote yes: I’ll grant that devoting any government money to research may not be a legitimate role of government; however, thus far research into adult stem cells has been proven more fruitful and doesn’t involve killing babies.
Disposition: Failed 39-93 (Vote #464).
Brinkley Amendment: Provided that no funds are to be expended by the Motor Vehicle Administration unless a valid form of identification is presented.
Why I’d vote yes: This is such a no-brainer to me that I can’t believe 20 Senators voted against it. I can understand a civil libertarian’s argument against this but it’s also established principle that driving is a priviledge, not a right.
Disposition: Passed 27-20 (Vote #714). However, this language is not reflected in the final bill so it may have been axed by the conference committee.
Greenip Amendment: Zeroed out stem-cell research funding entirely.
Why I’d vote yes: See the first sentence of my synopsis of the Shewell Amendment above.
Disposition: Failed 18-28 (Vote #713).
Harris Amendment: Zeroed out funding to CASA de Maryland.
Why I’d vote yes: This is a perennial Harris amendment based on the principle that CASA de Maryland flouts the law by aiding and abetting illegal immigration, which indeed they do.
Disposition: Failed 16-29 (Vote #720).
Jacobs Amendment: Provided that any federal funds expended for this budget have a record made available on the Department of Budget and Management website.
Why I’d vote yes: It’s the accountability, stupid. Even President Obama claims to want to put a record of stimulus expenditures on the internet. Yet all but two Democrats voted no on this amendment.
Disposition: Failed 16-31 (Vote #715).
Mooney Amendment: Established that recipients of certain government payments submit to and pass a drug test.
Why I’d vote yes: I would like to know that taxpayer money handed out to people isn’t as likely to be going toward a drug habit. The only thing I would have changed is to make this a temporary program and change it over to random testing in the future. Overall, the amendment is merited. It turned out to be a strictly party-line vote.
Disposition: Failed 14-33 (Vote #716).
Raskin Amendment: The original budget zeroed out funding for the Maryland Disability Law Center unless they reported on who received their grants – Senator Raskin’s amendment eliminated the request for that portion of the auditing.
Why I’d vote no: Without having all of the background information on the happenings at the MDLC my instinct would be to err on the side of caution and accountability. Again, this was a straight party-line vote.
Disposition: Passed 33-14 (Vote #717); happily the language was restored in the final version.
HB101/SB166 – Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2009
Why I’d vote no: If the state would learn to live within its means by cutting the size and scope of government there would be no need for “reconciliation and financing”.
Disposition: After a conference committee ironed out differences between the original House and Senate versions of HB101, it passed the House of Delegates 107-29 (Vote #1175) and passed the Senate 36-11 (Vote #1150). No votes were taken on SB166. Governor O’Malley signed the legislation on May 19, 2009. Again, there were a number of amendments (two in the House, three in the Senate) I deemed important enough for the Project.
Bates Amendment: Mandated that any federal stimulus funds received by the state undergo the normal budget review process.
Why I’d vote yes: To me, this would be a good way to reveal what strings are attached to the funding and whether the funding is worth the cost in freedom from federal mandates.
Disposition: Failed 29-97 (Vote #471).
Shank Amendment: Dictated that Governor O’Malley report out where federal stimulus funds are spent.
Why I’d vote yes: I know O’Malley would make up something anyway, but the thought of him sweating out “how can I fool them today?” is worth a vote.
Disposition: Failed 33-93 (Vote #474).
Kittleman Amendment: Similar to the Bates Amendment in the House of Delegates.
Why I’d vote yes: See Bates Amendment above.
Disposition: Failed 16-30 (Vote #729).
Pinsky Amendment: Changes Maryland tax law to modify income earned by an officer or director of a corporation if it’s more than 25 times the income earned by the lowest-paid full-time employee.
Why I’d vote no: One of two overt class-envy amendments proposed by far-left Democrats. Leaving aside the accounting nightmare this could create, there’s already a “millionaire” tax in Maryland that’s driving achievers out of the state so this would be another business-unfriendly provision had it passed.
Disposition: Failed 11-35 (Vote #726).
Raskin Amendment: Similar to Pinsky’s amendment, except with a straight $400,000 income limit and an exemption if a majority of stockholders approve the salary.
Why I’d vote no: Again this would entail the state sticking its nose further into the private affairs of a corporation. It’s none of their damn business what an executive earns (except for one line on an income tax form) whether the shareholders approve or not.
Disposition: Failed 14-31 (Vote #732).
HB102/SB167 – Creation of a State Debt – Maryland Consolidated Capital Bond Loan of 2009, the Maryland Consolidated Capital Bond Loans of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008
Why I’d vote no: If the state is so short of money, I would hope they would think twice before putting itself another billion-plus dollars into debt. I doubt that only the absolute highest-priority items for the safety and well-being of Marylanders are the only capital expenditures in the bill.
Just in Wicomico County we’re getting $5.7 million for an addition to the Salisbury Armory, $608,000 to renovate the kidney dialysis unit at Deer’s Head, $42 million for the Perdue School of Business at Salisbury University, up to $250,000 for the Parsonsburg VFD Community Center, and up to $150,000 for the Blind Industries facility in Salisbury. Perhaps they’re all worthwhile in good times but are they all priority items? Smells like pork…
Disposition: HB102 passed House of Delegates 123-13 (Vote #1176), passed the Senate 40-7 (Vote #1148) and was approved by Governor O’Malley on May 19, 2009. SB167 did not receive a vote.
HB268/SB992 – Welfare to Work – Job Skills Enhancement Program – Green Jobs
Why I’d vote no: This fosters additional government dependence on those who have already been on the public dole and may be on the verge of getting off by expanding local governmental hiring preferences to the children of current and former welfare recipients, as well as targeting their job training toward a list of so-called “green” jobs that may not reflect the job marketplace.
Disposition: HB268 passed the House of Delegates 122-13 (Vote #1369), the Senate 44-1 (Vote #1285), and was signed by Governor O’Malley on May 7, 2009. SB992 passed with a slightly smaller margin in the House and unanimous vote in the Senate but wasn’t signed by Governor O’Malley.
HB296/SB267 – Family Law – Protective Orders – Surrender of Firearms
Why I’d vote no: Personally I’m not that familiar with domestic violence as either a victim or a perpetrator. However, having a final protective order placed against you should not deprive you of your Second Amendment rights.
Disposition: Both of these bills passed the House and Senate with similar margins; thus I used the vote which occurred later chronologically. In the House SB267 passed 98-40 (Vote #890) and in the Senate HB296 passed 32-15 (Vote #795). Both were signed by Governor O’Malley on May 19, 2009. There were also two amendments to HB296 I felt were worth rating.
Shank Amendment: Makes the confiscation contingent on a lethality assessment approved by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence and conducted by law enforcement authorities.
Why I’d vote yes: I think, if we’re going to be stuck with a bad bill we may as well water it down with this protection for the accused.
Disposition: Failed 38-98 (Vote #226).
Smigiel Amendment: This illustrates the direction gun control needs to go in Maryland. Instead of taking away someone’s right to carry, allow the person who sought the protective order easier access to firearms to defend him or herself.
Why I’d vote yes: Because it makes absolutely perfect sense to me.
Disposition: Failed 48-89 (Vote #227).
HB302/SB268 – Family Law – Temporary Protective Orders – Surrender of Firearms
Why I’d vote no: Gun grabber proposal number two. I oppose it for the same reasons as HB296/SB267 above.
Disposition: Both of these bills passed the House and Senate with similar margins; thus I used the vote which occurred later chronologically. In the House SB268 passed 93-45 (Vote #891) and in the Senate HB302 passed 31-15 (Vote #796). Both were signed by Governor O’Malley on May 19, 2009. Like HB296, there were also three amendments to HB302 I felt were worth rating.
Dwyer Amendment: Allows the person whose firearm is being taken away to keep their ammunition.
Why I’d vote yes: I don’t think either should be taken away, so I suppose voting for this makes a point.
Disposition: Failed 39-92 (Vote #233).
Frank Amendment: Mandates those who have their weapons taken away receive a receipt for same.
Why I’d vote yes: It makes sense that one has a record of what property has been confiscated by the nanny state, particularly when this is only a TPO.
Disposition: Failed 46-86 (Vote #231).
O’Donnell Amendment: Requires the Maryland State Police to establish regulations for the return of one’s firearm after the expiration of a temporary protective order.
Why I’d vote yes: Again, we are talking about an instance where the state has confiscated one’s private property without compensation – thus, once the TPO expires it should be the burden of the state to return the weapon.
Disposition: Failed 44-87 (Vote #230).
HB310/SB270 – Unemployment Insurance – Eligibility – Part-Time Work
Why I’d vote no: It’s bad enough that Maryland tries to drive producers out with horrible tax policy, but this bill just insured that unemployment insurance premiums for employers will go through the roof! Workers working as little as 20 hours per week will now be eligible for unemployment.
Disposition: HB310 passed the House of Delegates 94-43 (Vote #489) and passed the Senate 38-9 (Vote #977). SB270 passed the House of Delegates 93-40 (Vote #805) and Senate 36-11 (Vote #333). Both measures were signed into law by Governor O’Malley on April 14, 2009 and went into effect immediately as they were deemed emergency legislation. I used the later HB310 vote to grade the Senate and the later SB270 vote to grade the House of Delegates.
HB387 – Vehicle Laws – Lawful Status in the United States – Material Compliance with Federal Requirements
Why I’d vote no: The largest objection I have to the bill is the fact that it was watered down to allow for a two-tier drivers’ license system until 2015. So Maryland will continue to be a magnet state for illegal aliens who likely wouldn’t care that their drivers’ license wouldn’t be acceptable for federal purposes. Originally this was a GOP bill but it was hijacked midstream and many Republicans removed their names as co-sponsors.
Disposition: HB387 passed the House of Delegates 76-60 (Vote #1340), passed the Senate 30-16 (Vote #1299), and was signed by Governor O’Malley on May 7, 2009.
George Amendment: Allowed the license to be for an 8-year term but no longer than one could prove they were in the country legally.
Why I’d vote yes: If a person can prove they belong here then I have no problem with their having a drivers’ license. The time limit would discourage scofflaws from overstaying their visas.
Disposition: Failed 57-75 (Vote #565).
Impallaria Amendment: Prohibited the use of second-tier licenses as Maryland identification for the purpose of registering to vote.
Why I’d vote yes: It’s enough to have that invitation to fraud known as the Motor Voter Act, but when Maryland gives out drivers’ licenses to anyone with a pulse that’s a surefire way to give those who may not legally be entitled to vote a chance to stuff the ballot box. This would have prevented the practice by codifying it into law; naturally it was shot down by the liberal majority.
Disposition: Failed 46-82 (Vote #569).
HB792 – Education – Collective Bargaining – Topics of Negotiation
Why I’d vote no: This measures gives way too much say to the teachers’ unions and stripped the power of local school boards in establishing disciplinary methods for wayward employees covered under collective bargaining. Originally it was to cover transfers as well, but that was deleted in committee.
Disposition: HB792 passed the House of Delegates 106-29 (Vote #729), the Senate 34-13 (Vote #1016), and was signed by Governor O’Malley May 7, 2009.
HB1567 – Clean Energy Loan Programs
Why I’d vote no: I’m skittish about allowing counties and other political subdivisions to get into the area of lending money for “clean energy” projects, particularly as they’re allowed to make bonds available for doing so. Counties should be encouraged to create less debt, not more. I can see this easily becoming a “slush fund” in the wrong hands.
Disposition: Passed House of Delegates 135-0 (Vote #1355), passed the Senate 45-2 (Vote #1199), and was signed by Governor O’Malley on May 19, 2009. Obviously only the Senate was graded since no one in the House stood in opposition.
SB173/HB41 – Health Insurance – Mandated Benefits – Hospitalization and Home Visits Following a Mastectomy
Why I’d vote no: See those two middle words “mandated benefits”? I wholeheartedly agree that a good health insurance plan should cover such an item; however, let the market dictate its availability. I don’t think I need that coverage myself but I’d have to pay for it.
Disposition: SB173 passed the House of Delegates 135-0 (Vote #815) and the Senate 46-1 (Vote #486). HB41 also passed similarly and the same person voted against it (a woman, by the way) so it really didn’t matter which Senate vote I chose. Governor O’Malley signed this on May 19, 2009.
SB261/HB299 – Criminal Law – Alcoholic Beverages – Underage Individuals – Prohibitions and Penalties
This is a somewhat unique case in that I’m not registering the vote for the bill but on a particular amendment.
Zirkin Amendment: Mandated that a charge against an underage consumer of alcohol could only be brought if the law enforcement officer observed the youth in possession of the beverage.
Why I’d vote yes: I think this would make the law easier to enforce if the charge is brought into court. No LEO could just use the statute to harass a group of teens who he may have assumed were drinking because they smelled of alcohol.
Disposition: Passed 34-13 (Vote #529) and was enacted into law upon the bill’s eventual passage.
SB273/HB294 – Smart, Green, and Growing – Local Government Planning – Planning Visions
Why I’d vote no: As I said in a previous post, “this is wrong on so many levels it’s not even funny.” But this bill codifies the 12 Visions into law.
Disposition: SB273 was the vote I used for grading the House, that vote was 126-7 (Vote #1101). The spineless Senate passed it 47-0 (Vote #399). HB294 passed in a similar fashion; both were signed by Governor O’Malley May 7, 2009.
SB276/HB295 – Smart, Green, and Growing – Annual Report – Smart Growth Goals, Measures, and Indicators and Implementation of Planning Visions
Why I’d vote no: It’s an attempt to shift growth to areas the state considers “priority funding areas” and places additional mandates on local government to provide particular information to the state. The mandates are very anti-growth, including trying to figure out “the impact of growth on the environment.”
Disposition: SB276 passed the House of Delegates 123-14 (Vote #1207) and passed the Senate 45-2 (Vote #860). HB295 passed in earlier votes with similar margins; both were signed by Governor O’Malley May 7, 2009.
SB277/HB313 – Vehicle Laws – Speed Monitoring Systems – Statewide Authorization and Use in Highway Work Zones
Why I’d vote no: Because it’s not about safety, it’s simply about the Benjamins – although as written the fine is actually two Jacksons. Fortunately, this legislation is only enabling where each county has to approve it to start enforcement. So look for these hearings to begin in October.
Disposition: SB277 passed the House of Delegates 94-41 (Vote #1079), passed the Senate 27-20 (Vote #758), and was signed by Governor O’Malley May 19, 2009. Ironically, SB277 originally lost its third reading 24-23 but four Democrats switched votes upon reconsideration. HB313 did not receive a vote in either chamber.
SB278/HB315 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act of 2009
Why I’d vote no: Someday I’m confident that future generations will look back and wonder about the folly of such a bill thinking it would actually impact the climate. In the meantime we have to reduce our emissions to 75% of 2006 levels in eleven years. I know – let’s throw out all of the industry and job creation!
Disposition: SB278 passed the House of Delegates 107-30 (Vote #1232), passed the Senate 36-9 (Vote #1267). HB315 passed in earlier votes with similar margins so I used the SB278 votes. Both were approved by Governor O’Malley on May 7, 2009 – a day that will live in infamy for state businesses.
SB279 – Criminal Law – Death Penalty – Evidence
Why I’d vote no: This bill was a bad compromise where none was needed. SB279 was actually crossfiled with HB316 but did not contain the same content – HB 316 called for a death penalty repeal, which was the goal of Governor O’Malley. I’m sure he’ll try again in a couple years to “fix” this bill if he’s re-elected.
Disposition: SB279 passed the House of Delegates 87-52 (Vote #505) and passed the Senate 34-13 (Vote #318). It was signed by Governor O’Malley on May 7, 2009.
Gladden Amendment (SB279): This allowed the bill that observers thought was dead to live on; it was a motion to substitute a newly-written bill for the original one that didn’t survive committee.
Why I’d vote no: See above.
Disposition: Passed 25-22 (Vote #277). Obviously the bill went on to be signed by Governor O’Malley.
SB280/HB297 – Smart, Green, and Growing – Smart and Sustainable Growth Act of 2009
Why I’d vote no: It takes the choice away from counties – now they “shall” comply with an overall state plan regardless of local desires. It also mandates planning and zoning officials take a educational course to get their minds right.
Disposition: SB280 passed the House of Delegates 120-12 (Vote #1102) and Senate 46-0 (Vote #600). An earlier vote on HB297 proved to have similar results in the House and a unanimous (and spineless) Senate vote. Governor O’Malley signed both into law on May 7, 2009.
SB554 – Chesapeake Bay Nitrogen Reduction Act of 2009
Why I’d vote no: If you put the words “Chesapeake Bay” on a bill in Maryland you’ll probably pass it. Maybe next year we should try the Chesapeake Bay Murder Legalization Act of 2010 just to see who’d vote for it. Seriously, this mandated an expensive nitrogen reduction apparatus on new and rebuilt septic systems in critical areas – a law that would adversely affect Eastern Shore residents moreso than those across the bay in question. The state was supposed to have funding to defray the cost but it was only estimated that 1/3 of the applicants could be funded under present rates. HB176 was a slightly different but crossfiled version of the bill, only the SB554 vote was considered.
Disposition: Passed the House of Delegates 90-46 (Vote #1165), passed the Senate 24-23 (Vote #623), and was signed by Governor O’Malley May 7, 2009.
SB555/HB1379 – Biomass and Biofuels – In-State Production Incentives
Why I’d vote no: It’s actually not a bad bill except for two mandates. One deals with how much biodiesel needs to be produced instate. For example, in this area it may be cheaper to get it from Delaware rather than across the bay, yet we’d have to bow to mandate rather than market. It also creates a mandate that once a certain threshold is met that gasoline sold in Maryland contain 5% cellulosic biofuel by volume.
Disposition: SB555 passed the Senate 35-7 (Vote #1246) but did not get a House vote. HB1379 only got one hearing in the House.
SB666/HB1291 – Natural Resources – No Net Loss of Forest Policy – Forest Conservation Act
Why I’d vote no: This bill reduces the FCA threshold from 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet and triples the assessment a landowner has to pay if these regulations cannot be met. So growth and job creation is made more difficult again.
Disposition: SB666 passed House of Delegates 108-23 (Vote #1311), then the House-approved version passed the Senate 44-0 (Vote #1272). I only used the later SB666 vote in the House since the Senate didn’t vote on HB1291. SB666 was signed by Governor O’Malley May 7, 2009.
SB909/HB819 – Workplace Fraud Act of 2009
Why I’d vote no: Since it’s directed at the construction industry and aimed essentially at illegal aliens who aren’t classified as employees, I could almost support this bill. But instead it’s another costly recordkeeping mandate on small businesses.
Disposition: SB909 passed House of Delegates 105-32 (Vote #1239) and the House-passed version of SB909 passed the Senate 33-13 (Vote #1228). SB909 was signed by Governor O’Malley May 7, 2009. HB819 did have a House vote with a similar margin but failed to get a vote in the Senate.
SB1072/HB1578 – Pimlico and Laurel Park Racetracks, Bowie Race Course Training Center, and Preakness Stakes – State Purchase or Condemnation
Why I’d vote no: The state does not need to purchase or take over any racetracks. I thought adopting slots was going to save the horse racing industry in Maryland – apparently that doesn’t come soon enough. I understand the state’s love for the Preakness but this bill doesn’t reflect a legitimate function of government in my eyes.
Disposition: SB1072 passed House of Delegates 93-43 (Vote #1228) and passed the Senate 32-14 (Vote #1076). It was signed by Governor O’Malley April 14, 2009 as an emergency bill. HB1578 did not get a House vote.
Now what you’ve all been waiting for – Awards and Dubious Distinctions
I’ll start with the dubious distinctions, or what I call the Reasons To Adopt Recall. These legislators were the worst at taxing, spending, and generally taking away what little freedom we still have to do with our money and property as we wish. In the House of Delegates this group all had a zero or negative rating; in the Senate they rated less than 10. It’s my belief that each and every one of these folks needs to be thrown out in 2010, and I don’t care what the voter registration numbers in their district are!
What’s really sad is the sheer number of legislators on this list. There’s so many that, in order to save space I’ll just do last names. You’ll see why they deserve scorn after reading the voting records. If you look at the 2007 and 2008 lists you may see two-time (*) and even three-time (**) offenders.
Delegates: Anderson*, Barnes, Barve, Benson*, Bobo, Branch*, Bronrott*, Burns, Busch, Cane*, Cardin, Carr, Carter*, V. Claggett*, Conaway, Davis, Doory, Dumais, Feldman*, Frick, Frush, Gaines, Gilchrist, Glenn*, Griffith, Guzzone, Harrison, Haynes, Healey*, Heller, Holmes, Howard*, Hubbard*, Hucker**, Ivey, Jones, Kaiser, Kirk, Kramer, Krysiak, Love, MacIntosh*, Manno*, Mizeur*, Montgomery*, Morhaim, Murphy, Niemann, Nathan-Pulliam**, Pendergrass, Proctor, Ramirez*, Rice, Robinson, Rosenberg*, Ross, Simmons, Stukes, F. Turner, V. Turner, Vallario*, Vaughn, and Waldstreicher.
Senators: Conway**, Currie**, Della, Exum**, Forehand, Frosh*, Gladden**, Harrington*, Jones, Lenett*, Madaleno*, Pinsky**, Pugh**, Raskin*, and Rosapepe**.
Yes, that list has 63 Delegates. This hall of scorn now comprises a record 44.7% of the House of Delegates (smashing the old record of 12.8% in 2007) while the share of Senators on the list dropped slightly from a record 34.0% last year to 31.9 percent.
And then we have the RINO Huntee, the legislator who’s best at selling out to the Democrats and voting with them as they raise taxes and increase spending – all to suck up and maybe get a few crumbs for his or her district. In 2009, once again the person with that target on his back was:
Delegate D. Page Elmore, District 38A. Page is now a three-time “winner” of this award – this year his rating was a pathetic 31.79. Unfortunately, this year Elmore was challenged by Delegates Wendel Beitzel and Susan Aumann for this dubious distinction. Two other Delegates, Leroy Myers and Andrew Serafini, had lower overall ratings but missed a large number of votes, which reduced their rating. When present, their records were rather good so hopefully in 2010 they can be present more often.
Turning to awards, next up is what I call the Top (Blue) Dog Award, given to the Democrat who best reaches across the aisle and votes with those of us who believe in limiting government while maximizing freedom – unfortunately, most of the time here in Maryland that vote is in vain. Nevertheless, my Top (Blue) Dog for 2009 is a new winner this year:
Delegate John F. Wood Jr. (District 29A) upended two-time winner Delegate Kevin Kelly to win the award with a 42.41 rating.
I also have a group who I’ve dubbed the Legislative All-Stars. In most cases they score over 90% but also include at least the top scorer in a body who doesn’t make that threshold. They are the cream of the Maryland crop and those of us who desire a more sensible, limited state government would do well to have one like each of these men and women in every General Assembly seat.
After having seven Legislative All-Stars last year, their numbers dropped to six this year. Five of these honorees are:
- Delegate Pat McDonough (District 7), his first time so honored.
- Delegate Warren E. Miller (District 9A) is now a two-time Legislative All-Star.
- Delegate Anthony J. O’Donnell (District 29A), my 2008 Legislator of the Year and three-time Legislative All-Star.
- Delegate Don H. Dwyer, Jr. (District 31) is also a first-time Legislative All-Star.
- Senator Janet Greenip (District 33) had the highest rating in the Maryland Senate and sadly concludes her Senate career as its only three-time Legislative All-Star.
So who is the winner of the coveted monoblogue award for the 2009 Legislator of the Year?
Along with Delegate Miller, this man managed to achieve the highest rating for the 2009 General Assembly session. Both he and Miller have the exact same overall rating, which is now the highest in the General Assembly, so I couldn’t use that as the basis for selection.
Miller and my winner differed on one vote, and I chose a man who took a stand with just one other Delegate against the nanny state incursion of banning texting while driving. Without further ado, my 2009 monoblogue award for Legislator of the Year goes to:
Delegate Joseph C. Boteler III (District 8). After being a Legislative All-Star last year and in the final running for the award won by Delegate O’Donnell, this year Boteler improved his effort and earned the award, the second time it’s been held by a Delegate.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
News from the loony left:
