Cartel Democrats
take page out of
WI, MI GOP
playbook to
favor incumbents
The citizens of Montgomery County haven't asked Delegate Eric Luedtke (D - District 14) to make it harder for Republicans and progressive Democrats to run for the County Council. But cartel Democrats who swept the Council elections in November - and want to hold those seats for the next twelve years - have. As have their developer sugar daddies, who are still stinging from the only race they lost out of dozens, County Executive. Luedtke has quietly filed Bill MC 6-19 in Annapolis, which would require everyone seeking to run for the Council to collect 1000 signatures if running At-Large, or 250 signatures if running for the less-contested district seats.
Such a change would strongly favor incumbent cartel Democrats, who don't want to have to compete in a large field with progressive Democrats not beholden to developers in 2022. And the cartel doesn't want truly progressive County Executive Marc Elrich to gain any allies on the Council in 2022, either. The change would also impact Republican candidates as well. Both progressive Democrat and GOP candidates would be discouraged from running for office, the clear intent of the legislation.
The Luedtke bill goes strongly against the tide of his own party's stance on voting rights. While the trend outside of red states has been to make it easier to participate in the electoral process, Luedtke and the bill's backers actually want to make it tremendously more difficult for the average citizen to participate.
In fact, Bill MC 6-19 would implement a throwback barrier to candidacy that has been used in other states to discourage African-Americans from running for office - a fake requirement of the free time and financial resources needed to collect 1000 signatures. Is this the Democratic Party in Montgomery County in 2018?
Nancy Floreen is the prime example of why Luedtke and the cartel are trying to ram this bill through. Floreen, enjoying nearly $1 million in developer cash donations, was able to obtain thousands of signatures to qualify as an unaffiliated candidate for County Executive in 2018. She did not collect them herself; she hired signature collectors to storm the County.
So, too, would the Council incumbents - and cartel-funded newcomers - be able to quickly get their 1000 signatures, without ever breaking a sweat themselves. Republicans and progressive Democrats? Not so much.
This is an outrageous attempt to limit the ability to run for public office to only the well-funded and well-connected, and to the sugar daddies who pull their puppet strings. It must be stopped.
Contact your delegate by email or phone today, and tell them to vote against Bill MC 6-19 .
The exact wording:
ReplyDeleteMC 6-19- Montgomery County - County Executive and County Council Candidates -
Petitions (Requested by Delegate Luedtke)
Under current law, an individual may become a candidate for public office by filing a certificate of candidacy, along with a form establishing a campaign finance entity and evidence that the individual has complied with financial disclosure laws and paying a filing fee.
This bill adds the following requirements:
(1) a candidate for County Executive must file a petition signed by at least 1,000 registered voters in the County;
(2) a candidate for an at-large County Council seat must file a petition signed by at least 500 registered voters in the County; and
(3) a candidate for a district County Council seat must file a petition signed by at least 250 registered voters in that district.
"Floreen hired signature collectors to storm the County."
ReplyDeleteReally? LOL
5:38: I have linked to the actual bill in the article.
ReplyDelete5:38: Yes, she did, and it was documented by her de facto PR firm, The Washington Post.
"As have their developer sugar daddies, who are still stinging from the only race they lost out of dozens, County Executive."
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that Marc Elrich would have had the slightest bit of difficulty collecting 1,000 signatures?
"GOP candidates would be discouraged from running for office"
In the County elections in 2018, none of the GOP primaries were contested, and they didn't even bother to run candidates for 3 of the 5 district-based Council seats.
Looks like Sam Eig just got a stay of execution. LOL
ReplyDelete5:46: Marc Elrich himself is not the target of this bill. Allies of his who might run for the Council in the future are. As are potential GOP challengers.
ReplyDeletePlenty of GOP candidates ran this year, and will again in 2022 - please don't dodge the issue of ballot access and move the goalposts. Your GOP points only bolster my argument for having fewer obstacles to filing as a candidate.
5:53: Unlike Bethesda Now.
ReplyDeleteIt would be useful for this post to describe the current requirements, so that readers may compare them to the proposed.
ReplyDelete“would require everyone seeking to run for the Council to collect 1000 signatures if running At-Large”
The bill says 500 for at large, not 1,000.
Saith Dyer: "MC 6-19 in Annapolis would require everyone seeking to run for the Council to collect 1000 signatures if running At-Large"
ReplyDeleteAs Anna points out, you are wrong. That number would be required only for candidates for County Executive. The number required for candidates for the Council At-Large seats would be 500 signatures.
Surely, someone who claims that his blogs are read by "thousands every day" would have no trouble collecting 500 signatures.
5:57: There currently is no petition signature requirement for Democrats or Republicans filing for office.
ReplyDelete5:57: Why should there be signatures required to run for office? We don't require it now. Are you comfortable using a racist tactic from the past to restrict ballot access in Montgomery County?
Virginia has that too. I think it's #250 for VA State Senate and #125 for VA State Reps.
ReplyDeleteDyer wrote: "Bill MC 6-19 in Annapolis, which would require everyone seeking to run for the Council to collect 1000 signatures if running At-Large"
ReplyDeleteThe Bill specifies only 500 signatures, NOT 1,000.
There appears to be no limits to your innumeracy.
"Are you comfortable using a racist tactic from the past to restrict ballot access in Montgomery County?"
ReplyDeleteWhen did Robert Dyer become black?
And does he think that this petition requirement would have kept Will Jawando or Gabe Albornoz off the ballot?
6:00: No, it wouldn't have because both received thousands of dollars from the developers.
ReplyDeleteTry to improve your reading skills - I said the tactic the bill is proposing has a racist history in other states, where petition requirements were just one way African-Americans were discouraged from running for office.
Crack open a history book sometime - it will do you some good.
6:03: Speaking of which...Same state where one official displayed a noose in his office, if I remember correctly. Hell of model for Montgomery County. I would hope our delegation would disavow the racist tactics of Bill MC 6-19.
6:58: Robert Byrd was a Democratic senator during the modern era, as I recall. Now back to Bill MC 6-19. Surely you don't support an old racist tactic to block ballot access such as MC 6-19 is proposing? Do you disavow?
ReplyDeleteDistractions, distortions and irrelevancies.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned Virginia as another state that requires signatures.
YOU were the one bringing up nooses and racism.
YOU were the one mentioning Byrd.
YOU are the one attaching racism to this bill.
Yes, your story included a link.
MY comment detailed the information succinctly.
7:56: You can't deny the racial baggage of Bill MC 6-19 unless you are also going to laud the various GOP voting laws around the country, as well. Byrd just happens to be a contemporary racist who was embraced by the establishment of his party even after his death. His resume just happens to match that of David Duke, starting with "KKK leader," had Duke been the recipient of such love from the press and Congress when he ran.
ReplyDelete