Vacancy Replacement Process Opens Up

All eyes were on Marie Wallace.

The assistant secretary of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee, a hushed crowd packed inside their Kensington headquarters to listen as she read aloud the names of each committee member, followed by his or her vote.

Last night, Montgomery’s Democratic leadership overwhelmingly recommended Al Carr to replace the late Del. Jane Lawton in District 18, the fourth time they have voted to fill a vacant legislative seat this term.

But unlike the prior three selections, this time committee members were required to attach their names to their ballots in accordance with new rules meant to impose more transparency and accountability.

Since 2001, the Central Committee’s bylaws allowed for members to cast a secret ballot to fill vacancies in the legislature and other elected offices. In fact, Maryland is one of the few states that does not require a special election for vacant seats.

But as the appointments became more frequent in Montgomery County, some began to question the process. Party activists felt that since these new members were not under the scrutiny of a regular primary and election, they had the right to know more about who was putting them in positions of power. The committee came under increasing pressure as more and more Democrats came to share that view.

The nail in the coffin came in October with the introduction of “Transparency in Appointments Act” in the House of Delegates. The bill, led by District 39 Del. Saqib Ali, would have prohibited county Democratic and Republican central committees throughout the state from using a secret ballot in filling vacancies.

In November, Montgomery’s Democratic Central Committee headed the bill off by voluntarily ending its secret balloting. Pending legislation was dropped and last night, the committee voted out in the open for the first time.

Central committee member Milton Minneman of District 15, who was one of the few committee members to vote against the rule change, talked about the new process in an interview with PolitickerMD.com.

“The committee voted for the changes because we felt there were a lot of people who wanted us to do so,” Minneman said.
He also said that the rule changes likely “did not make a difference in how committee members voted.”

For this reason, Minneman said he did not think the new system changed the outcome of the vote, and didn’t think committee members felt pressure to vote a certain way.

Minneman said he was against the rule change because he didn’t think candidates should know who a committee member voted for. He said it could cause a candidate to feel bitter if he or she was not elected to a specific office.

According to Minneman, such an instance could cause particular problems if a candidate who was defeated was already serving in elective office. For example, if Carr had been defeated last night, he would have returned to his position as a councilman knowing which committee members had voted against him.

“After an election happens, we are all once again on the same team,” Minneman said. “Nobody should feel angry with the way someone voted.”

Minneman also said that his personal opposition to the rule change would not affect the manner in which is conducted himself as a committee member, and said he would honor the new system.

Telephone calls and e-mails left with additional central committee members were not returned.

Ali had spoken out strongly against the previous system. In October, he wrote on his blog that a secret ballot process meant “crucially important elections are decided by a small group of well-connected party-insiders in complete secrecy without any transparency or accountability to the hundreds of thousands of Montgomery County residents that elected them.”

Ali demanded that the rule be changed.

Last night, he saw his wish come true.