Tag: Roscoe Bartlett

Rule 11 survives…barely

I plan on more complete coverage of the events of this weekend tomorrow, but this evening I wanted to update you on the status of the resolution Heather Olsen and I presented to the Maryland GOP Fall Convention.

Just as a review, and also to make things a little less confusing, this is the text of what we originally submitted. It would have been a new section of the Bylaws that’s currently reserved because of proposed changes last spring which weren’t completely adopted:

ARTICLE VII – POLITICAL ACTIVITY

7.1 Political Activity of Members.

No member of the State Central Committee shall sponsor or endorse any candidate of a political party other than the Republican Party in connection with any partisan election or primary in which there is a Republican candidate. Failure of a member of the State Central Committee to comply with the foregoing standard shall subject such person to such sanctions as may be imposed by the State Central Committee, which may include a vote of censure and/or a request for the resignation of that member.

7.2 Neutrality in Primary Elections

a. Neutrality Policy. It shall be the policy of the Maryland Republican Party to remain neutral in all contested primary elections, unless waived as outlined below. This shall be construed to extend to asking the national Republican Party for a waiver of its neutrality rule to assist specific candidates, known as Rule 11.

b. Waivers to Neutrality. Waivers to this policy can be granted through one of two methods, either of which may be utilized at the discretion of the Chair:

1. At a state Party Convention, an affirmative Convention Vote of 2/3 of members present. This vote would be exempt from the procedures outlined in Section 8.4 of the Bylaws and conducted as a “one man, one vote” ballot.

2. Outside of a state Party Convention, an affirmative vote from 3/4 of the total number of Central Committee members. Affirmative votes confirming permission to waive this section must be received from at least 16 of the state’s 24 jurisdictions and represent 3/4 of the total number of Central Committee members, excluding vacancies.

c. Individual Members. Except for the restrictions made in Section 7.1, individual members of the State Central Committee are free to endorse any candidate in an individual capacity, but cannot do so in an official capacity to imply the endorsement of either their county Central Committee or the state party.

So that’s the basis in which we began the day.

Well, the first item out of the chute was an amendment to strike the second sentence of Section 7.2b (1) to eliminate the “one man, one vote” portion of the original. In truth, I had no issue with that although I would have preferred “one man, one vote” because I had two separate paths to adoption and presumably a vote at a county level would be conducted differently. But it wasn’t a deal-breaker to me to lose it.

There was some confusion over a second part of the amendment to strike the “excluding vacancies” clause in 7.2b (2) so that was eventually withdrawn by the sponsor. This change passed by voice vote, almost unanimously.

The second item was much more convoluted and controversial. Introduced by Prince George’s County Central Committee member Michael Gorman, it would have stripped the power to decide on a waiver from the Central Committee at large and given it to the Executive Committee. His amendment would have also weakened the mandate of 7.2a to become a non-binding advisement. Needless to say, Heather and I weren’t in favor of this amendment.

But a funny thing happened on the way to cutting off debate – Nick Panuzio of Talbot County shocked everyone by making a motion to adjourn. Since that had to take precedence over other business, we voted on that motion and it failed by a 313-178 margin in our voting system. (In actual votes, the margin I tallied was 100 for, 124 against.)

Then another motion was made to divide the question into two parts: one dealing with the advisement portion and the other with the transfer to the Executive Committee. This also took precedence to the amending vote, but it failed by the slimmest of margins in our voting system: 249.46 votes for to 249.62 against. (In “real” people terms, though, this would have passed 124 to 106.)

Yet it didn’t matter in the end, as we finally got to the question we were tallying when the surprise motion to adjourn took place – the Gorman amendment failed handily 307-194.

So it finally came down to our proposal, as amended to strike the “one man, one vote” system.

I can tell you that fourteen counties voted in favor, with nine against and one a tie.

In actual votes (by my tally) we had 119 yes votes and 109 no votes. So we had a majority in both actual people and the convention vote, which finished 287-208. But thanks to a rule change at our Spring Convention, we needed a 3/5 majority to pass this change and we fell a heartbreaking ten votes short. Based on 495 votes, we would have required 297 to win.

In the postmortem, I found out that the sole reason Howard County voted all nine votes against was because they wanted to introduce an amendment to make another change, one I could have lived with. But the question was called too soon for them to get to the microphone and those 25 convention votes cost us the ballgame. Now perhaps I could blame them for throwing the baby out with the bathwater but I can understand this wasn’t a perfectly written bylaw change – Heather and I just did the best we could.

So we will go back to the drawing board, although I’ve been told by at least one national committee member (who actually supported the measure) that he really didn’t think it would be necessary now. But I have two words for that member: Roscoe Bartlett. Hopefully with the early primary they won’t feel it necessary to place a thumb on the scale, but we need to watch them like a hawk to make sure. I spoke briefly with Dave Wallace at the convention and he seems like one credible alternative for those who think Roscoe has gotten too accustomed to life inside the Beltway.

As I said at the top, tomorrow I will have more complete coverage of the GOP confab. But I felt like I owed my readers the update on an issue I’m passionate about.

By the way, this will mark my return to Red Maryland – I’ve been away from that sandbox for far too long.

Where the action was

I’d love to have said I was there, but family has to come first and my parents came from many miles away.

But I was cheered to see the lineup for the Turning the Tides Conference presented by the Maryland Conservative Action Network, as it included a number of luminaries as well as breakout discussions on a number of subjects near and dear to the hearts of conservatives in Maryland and everywhere else, for that matter. Not only that, the event drew over 200 activists from across Maryland and received coverage from both the old and new media outlets. They even had their very own counterprotest from a liberal former member of the House of Delegates.

So it sounds like we had a nice event. But now the question is ‘where do we go from here?’

Continue reading “Where the action was”

A thumb on the scale?

Last week before I took my little vacation I came across an article by Meg Tully and Bethany Rodgers in the Frederick News-Post regarding Roscoe Bartlett’s Congressional seat. We already know that, thanks to some serious gerrymandering by Annapolis Democrats, that the seat is no longer a fairly safe Republican one as it had been for the last ten years.

But I bring up the news item because of its last lines:

Voters in the proposed 6th District supported President Barack Obama in the 2008 election by 56.6 percent, according to a Maryland Democratic Party analysis. The Maryland Republican Party found that 57.45 percent voted for Obama in the proposed district.

But Alex Mooney, chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, said his group supports Bartlett.

“We’re definitely 100 percent behind his re-election efforts,” Mooney said.

I am too – if Bartlett wins the primary, of course. However, there are at least three Republicans who have announced they are running against Congressman Bartlett in the 2012 primary: Robert Coblentz, Joseph Krysztoforski, and Dave Wallace. It’s possible one of those gentlemen could garner enough support to oust the incumbent as Andy Harris did here in the First District back in 2008.

Perhaps Mooney was being a little inartistic in his remarks, but when conservatives have seen the party establishment throw their support behind the candidate they perceive as being most electable before the primary, well, that rubs us the wrong way.

Continue reading “A thumb on the scale?”

Let the gerrymander begin

Why am I not surprised that the three members of the state’s redistricting panel who could be bothered to show up for a meeting on the lower Eastern Shore looked so disinterested? Maybe it’s because they knew there was already something in the can?

According to Len Lazarick and the Maryland Reporter, the Congressional map could look like that described in this article today. Certainly the Democrats who managed to pack GOP voters into two Congressional districts last time around have outdone themselves this time by making the First Congressional District roughly an R+20 district, give or take. That’s great news for Andy Harris, whose district actually remains relatively similar except for losing the small portion of Anne Arundel County he represents but gaining the northern parts of Baltimore and Harford counties now in the Sixth Congressional District. Maybe the Democrats figure that, by running Frank Kratovil again and lying some more about Andy’s record, they can still pull the upset like they did in 2008 in an R+15 district.

On the other hand, Roscoe Bartlett’s Sixth District would be nearly sliced off at the western line of Frederick County, instead taking the predicted southern turn through extreme southern Frederick County to encompass a large portion of what is now the Eighth Congressional District in Montgomery County. Other current Sixth District voters in Frederick County would flip over to the Eighth District; meanwhile, much of Carroll County would be added to an L-shaped Seventh Congressional District which ends up in the heart of Baltimore City. Yep, those voters have SO much in common. The eastern edge of the Sixth District switches over to the First.

And poor Anne Arundel County would again be divided between four Congressional Districts: the Second Congressional District which hopscotches around the Baltimore suburbs, the Third Congressional District which veers around in a convoluted sort of “Z” shape around much of the rest of Baltimore, the Fourth Congressional District shared with Prince George’s County, and the Fifth Congressional District which stretches southward to the Potomac River. Nope, no effort to gain political advantage and protect incumbents there.

Once again, should this map or something similar be adopted, Maryland will be the laughingstock of good government advocates and further enshrine themselves into a Gerrymandering Hall of Shame. Simply put, the three districts which involve Baltimore City are a complete joke when it seems to me their interests would be better served by having one Congressman to call their own rather than sharing with the rural expanses of Carroll County or various points in the suburbs.

And the sad thing is that this committee obviously didn’t listen to legitimate concerns expressed by members of both parties who said they should better respect geographic lines. Local Democrats will obviously be crushed to see their wishes of a “balanced” First District tossed out the window – of course they’d get over it if the changes meant the Democrats had a 7-1 Congressional edge in a state they should rightfully (by voter registration numbers) enjoy only a 5-3 margin.

Nope, it’s all about power, particularly in the jigsaw puzzle they create in the middle of the state. So how do we get standing in court to fight this?

Maryland’s two ‘no’ votes

It wasn’t unexpected, but Maryland’s House delegation split 6-2 on the issue of health care reform legislation dubbed by some as “Obamacare.” Roscoe Bartlett of the Sixth District joined all of his GOP counterparts in voting against the bill, and Frank Kratovil voted with 33 other Democrats in his opposition. In neither case was this a complete surprise.

But in looking ahead to the November election we find an interesting variation of reaction on the issue from the respective districts. In Bartlett’s case, only one of the two leading Democrats vying for the Sixth District nomination even mentions health care as an issue on his site. Andrew Duck favors “universal access to healthcare” but Casey Clark doesn’t even bring health care up as an issue. Perhaps that’s a nod to the unpopularity of the reform package in Bartlett’s district.

The more intriguing case is Kratovil’s. In 2008 Frank ran for office on a platform which noted, “Universal health care…means universal.” His statement said in part, “Universal coverage cannot be achieved until we accept the premise that every adult and child must be insured. If elected to Congress, I will support and advocate for true universal coverage and will provide leadership in forging consensus on a policy that provides such coverage without harming employers.”

(More on my Examiner.com page…)