In a memo to Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Superintendent Jack Smith, County Executive Marc Elrich is asking MCPS to make operating budget cuts along with the rest of county government. Elrich also makes clear that the capital budget will have to be reduced. Elrich is not asking for a specific cut number yet but indicates that the county will have a clearer picture of its tax base by late August.
What is unclear is how any spending cuts to MCPS conform with state law. The county council recently funded MCPS at maintenance of effort, which is the minimum amount of local dollars allowed by the state. If the county wants to reduce MCPS below maintenance of effort, relevant state law will need to be addressed.
In a June 4 op-ed in the Washington Post and comments reported by WTOP, County Executive Marc Elrich has promised to reform the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD). According to WTOP, Elrich said MCPD has “an institutional problem” that “starts top down.” He said that he will be submitting a contract to the county council “for reevaluating everything” about MCPD.
If Elrich does intend any serious reforms, he will have to deal with a powerful document that can be invoked in response to them: his own contract with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Lodge 35. The FOP’s contract, which Elrich personally signed, gives the union and individual officers substantial authority to restrict the ability of the chief to run the department, keep employee information confidential, block access to personnel records and mandate the destruction of certain personnel and video records. The contract even obligates the county to help the FOP block answers to public information act requests for videos and data. Many of these kinds of provisions are not unique to Montgomery County. But as the executive who signs union contracts as well as a 12-year member and former chair of the county council’s Public Safety Committee, which oversees the police, Elrich is directly responsible for their implementation here.
Here are some of the provisions of Elrich’s 2019-20 contract with the FOP.
Under certain circumstances, the FOP can force the police chief to bargain over new or changed rules or directives.
Article 61 (Directives and Administrative Procedures) contains a set of procedures that constrain the police chief’s ability to implement new or changed rules or directives. When the chief seeks to implement a new rule or directive or change an existing one, he must notify the FOP. “The primary subject of any new, changed, or amended directives or rules covered by the article shall not include matters currently addressed in the collective bargaining agreement, or matters proposed by the County and rejected by the FOP at the most recent term negotiations, or matters, the primary subject of which, were taken to mediation by the FOP at the most recent term negotiations.”
The FOP may then demand to bargain the proposed rule or directive. If the chief does not agree, the matter goes to the county’s Permanent Umpire who decides if the rule or directive must be bargained. This provision limits the ability of the chief to run his department without the consent of an arbitrator. It could certainly be activated to counter any reform proposals opposed by the union.
If employees are arrested, they must disclose it to their supervisor. However, the disclosure “shall be considered confidential and shall only be shared on a need to know basis.”
Article 15 (Hours and Working Conditions) Section Y contains this language on what happens when an employee is arrested.
Employees shall immediately report, or as soon as practical, to their commander/director or bureau chief, any circumstance where the employee is arrested or becomes a defendant in any criminal proceeding that may result in incarceration, receives an incarcerable traffic citation as defined in the Maryland Transportation Article, has their driver’s license/privilege suspended, revoked, refused or canceled that affects their ability to operate a county vehicle, or is notified that they are the subject of a criminal investigation by any law enforcement agency. If the employee is served with a temporary protective order, temporary ex parte order, or other similar temporary order that impacts the employee’s ability to carry a weapon or to perform their assigned police duties or any permanent protective order, permanent ex parte order or other similar permanent order that impacts the employee’s ability to carry a weapon or to perform their assigned police duties, they shall report the matter (as outlined above) directly to their commander/director or bureau chief to be reviewed to determine if the matter impacts the employee’s ability to perform their assigned police duties. The employee shall provide the commander/director or bureau chief with the information (i.e. date/time/location of the alleged offense, case/docket/tracking number) required for the employer to obtain additional information. All information shall be considered confidential and shall only be shared on a need to know basis. It is recognized that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In Maryland, criminal records are public documents accessible through the state’s judiciary website. This language prevents police supervisors from disclosing at least some information that is public record.
Management does not have an unfettered right to access personnel records.
Article 51 (Personnel Files) Section B gives an employee and their authorized representative access to the employee’s personnel file. Additionally, the following individuals can access the file only on a “need to know” basis: the employee’s supervisor, an appointing authority or designee, the county’s Human Resources Director or designee, the county attorney or designee, the Chief Administrative Officer or an Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, and members of a Recommendations Committee when an employee has applied for a position vacancy announcement.
“Need to know” is not further defined in the section other than for the county attorney, when it is defined as “when an employee is in litigation against the County, e.g., Merit System Protection Board, Worker’s Compensation, Disability, Retirement, etc.)” and members of a recommendations committee, when it is defined as “limited to performance evaluations, letters of commendation, awards and training documents for bargaining unit members assigned to Recommendations Committee.” Release of personnel records to anyone else is prohibited without the employee’s signed authorization.
Personnel files are destroyed five years after an employee leaves county employment.
Article 51 (Personnel Files) Section E states the following.
Except as provided below, all records including medical and internal affairs files, pertaining to separated employees shall be destroyed five (5) years after separation, unless the files are the subject of pending litigation. In which case, these files will be destroyed at the conclusion of the litigation.
The County may maintain records necessary to administer employee benefits programs, including health and retirement, a file containing the employee’s name, address, date of birth, social security number, dates of employment, job titles, union and merit status, salary and like information.
Except as required by law, no information may be released from any file without the express written permission of the separated employee.
Section H adds these restrictions.
To the extent not specifically preempted by State law, adverse information concerning an officer’s past performance shall not be admissible in any proceeding unless maintained in strict accordance with this article.
Except as provided in paragraph 1 of this section, only information properly maintained in personnel files as established by this Article may be used in any other process, proceeding, or action.
Elrich’s signature on the FOP’s 2019-20 contract.
Mobile Vehicle System (MVS) recordings may not be used for performance evaluations.
Article 66 (Mobile Vehicle Systems) Section C.7 states, “No recording may be used for the purpose of performance evaluations.” Section C.6 states, “All recordings will be destroyed after 210 days, unless the recording is, or may reasonably become, evidence in any proceeding. A recording will be retained if the FOP provides notice to the Department within 210 days of its potential use in a hearing.”
Management may use MVS recordings for disciplinary purposes under certain circumstances including external complaints, pursuit, collision, uses of force, injury or when management has “reasonable basis to suspect that a recording would show an officer engaged in criminal wrongdoing or serious allegations of misconduct in violation of Department rules and regulations applicable to bargaining unit members.”
Body camera recordings “shall not be routinely reviewed for the express purpose of discovering acts of misconduct or instances of poor performance without cause.”
Article 72 (Body Worn Camera System) Section D.2 states:
BWCS recordings shall not be routinely reviewed for the express purpose of discovering acts of misconduct or instances of poor performance without cause. An employee’s supervisor may use BWCS recordings to address performance when cause exists. Any recording used must be reviewed with the subject employee prior to any documentation of performance. Any documented review will be included in the employee’s supervisory file. The employee shall have the opportunity to respond in writing to the document. The response shall be attached to the supervisor’s document. The employee and the employee’s representative shall be provided access to the referenced recording if requested. Performance evaluation shall not be the sole reason for the employer retaining a recording beyond the agreed upon term.
Section F.1 states, “All BWCS recordings will be destroyed after 210 days, unless the Department deems it necessary to retain the recording for a longer period of time.” Section F.2 states, “An employee may elect to save BWCS recordings for longer than 210 days if the recording was used to support a performance evaluation which resulted in a single category being rated as below requirements.”
Police instructors are prohibited from having sex with trainees. However, they cannot be disciplined for it.
Article 15 (Hours and Working Conditions) Section L prohibits instructors and field training officers (FTOs) from having sex with trainees whom they are instructing. If that happens, the instructors and FTOs are separated from the trainee’s class. However, if the instructor or FTO discloses the relationship to management, “managers and supervisors must maintain the disclosure in confidence” and “no disciplinary action or retaliation must occur as a result of the disclosure.” If the relationship is not disclosed but is otherwise discovered, the more senior officer is involuntarily transferred but “violation of this rule will not result in discipline.” Nothing in the contract prohibits the instructor or FTO from proceeding to train other trainees.
The contract obligates the county to help the FOP block answers to certain public information act requests.
The Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) is mentioned in three different articles of the contract.
Article 65 pertains to Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVLs) and Portable Radio Locators (PRLs), which are described as “systems that allow the Department to identify the location of police vehicles and portable radios that are equipped with GPS tracking capabilities.” Sections D and E address what happens when MPIA requests are made for AVL and PRL records.
Section D. MPIA. The County agrees that it will deny all Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) requests for stored AVL/PRL data on the movements and location of vehicles assigned to unit members until and unless a point is reached where court decisions establish that AVL/PRL data is public information subject to release under the MPIA. The County will defend its denials of MPIA requests for stored AVL/PRL data in the trial courts, and will continue to defend these denials in trial courts until and unless court decisions establish that AVL/PRL data is not confidential information. The County may, where appropriate, seek appellate review of court decisions ordering the release of AVL/PRL data, but is not required to do so. If the county chooses not to appeal, the employee shall have the right, as allowed by the Court, to continue the appeal at the employee’s own expense.
Section E. Summonses. The County agrees that it will seek court protection from any subpoena or summons seeking stored AVL/PRL data on the movements and location of vehicles assigned to unit members, except for subpoenas issued by a grand jury, or a State or federal prosecutor. The County will seek protection from subpoenas and summonses in the trial courts, until and unless a point is reached where court decisions establish that AVL/PRL data is not confidential information. The County may, where appropriate, seek appellate review of court decisions ordering the release of AVL/PRL data, but the county is not required to do so. If the county chooses not to appeal, the employee shall have the right, as allowed by the court, to continue the appeal at the employee’s own expense.
And so the contract directs the county to block the public’s access to these records in court.
The second article mentioning the MPIA is Article 66, which pertains to Mobile Vehicle Systems (MVS). Section 3.13 states:
All external requests for copies of recordings, including subpoenas and summonses, will be reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office. The County will notify the FOP of all such requests for MVS recordings/data involving unit members and solicit its opinion before determining whether the request will be granted or denied. If the County determines that a request cannot be denied under the MPIA, it will give the FOP an opportunity to file a reverse MPIA action and will not grant the original request until and unless a court orders that the recording/data be disclosed.
The third article mentioning the MPIA is Article 72, which pertains to Body Worn Camera Systems (BWCS). Section E states:
Release of BWCS video in absence of a specific request: The County will provide written notice to the FOP prior to the release of any BWCS recording to the public. In the event of an emergency or a bona fide public safety need the County may provide written notice after the release. This does not include release of recordings in connection with litigation, In events where there is no exigency, an employee captured in the recording may object to the use of the recording, in writing, to the Chief of Police (or designee) within two calendar days of receiving the notice of intent to release the recording as to any reason(s) why he or she does not wish the recording to be released. The Chief of Police (or designee) will consider any reason submitted by the employee before proceeding with the release.
The release of recordings of an employee’s death or injury shall not occur absent compelling law enforcement related reasons to release the recording or in situations where the release of those recordings are required by law.
The County shall ensure that all external requests for copies of recordings, including subpoenas and summonses, will be reviewed for compliance with applicable standards, including those imposed by law or by provisions of this Agreement. The County will maintain a log of all MPIA requests for BWCS video that it receives. The County will make this log, the underlying MPIA request, and the requested recording, available to the FOP for inspection. If the FOP objects to the release of any portion of the recording, it must promptly notify the County of its objection(s) and its intent to file a “reverse MPIA” action if the County decides to release the requested recording. The County will promptly notify the FOP of any decision to release the requested recording and the date and time of that release, unless the FOP first serves the County with a “reverse MPIA” action it has filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The parties will make all reasonable efforts to provide each other with expeditious notice under this section given the relatively short time limits in the MPIA and its overall policy of providing the public with prompt access to public records without unnecessary delay.
In summary, the FOP’s contract requires the county to block public access to automatic vehicle locator and portable radio locator data in court and also requires it to facilitate the FOP’s opposing release of motor vehicle and body camera video in court.
If Elrich is serious about reform, he needs to review his own police union contract to see if its provisions are compatible with change. If he doesn’t, the county council will have to step in.
For the most part, the leaders reflected the two big stories of the month: MoCo’s mud-splattered school board contest and the county’s low turnout in the primary. (It turns out that despite early data from the State Board of Elections, MoCo probably won’t be last in the state.) Also, the county deserves credit for posting a COVID-19 dashboard just two days after we called for one.
June promises to be another busy month. Thank you for reading Seventh State!
In the days leading up to the primary election, turnout reports from the State Board of Elections consistently showed MoCo as last in the state. Updated numbers released this morning now show MoCo is one of the lower turnout jurisdictions in Maryland but no longer last.
The chart below shows the combined return rate of vote by mail ballots and absentee ballots. (Vote by mail ballots dominate this statistic as 3,485,891 of those were sent to voters while 99,718 absentee ballots were sent to voters statewide.) The state has so far not released turnout counts for election day votes.
MoCo now ranks 21 of 24 jurisdictions in turnout in these two categories. Baltimore City, despite huge problems with late ballots and counting in City Council District 1, ranks first. That’s a testament to city voters who decided Baltimore’s future in this election.
In terms of party splits, MoCo ranked 13th of 24 in Democratic turnout, 23rd of 24 in Republican turnout and 5th in unaffiliated/third party turnout among the 13 jurisdictions that received ballots from those voters.
MoCo was also one of the lower turnout jurisdictions in the 2016 primary as shown in the chart below.
In addition to turnout, another issue is how long it is taking to count ballots. At the moment, the county has received 227,383 in combined vote by mail and absentee ballots along with an indeterminate number of election day ballots. At the moment, 137,060 ballots for president have been counted and 124,764 ballots for at-large school board have been counted. That means the county board of elections has a ways to go before all ballots are counted. The board has scheduled canvasses through June 20.
Moments ago, the State Board of Elections updated its vote count of MoCo’s at-large school board race. Lynne Harris and Sunil Dasgupta have been in first and second place since the first counts were released and that has not changed.
At this point, 113,429 votes have been recorded in this race and 123,568 votes have been cast for president. Bethesda Beat reported last week that the county board of elections had received “more than 271,450 ballots” as of Thursday. That number has no doubt gone up since then. That probably means at most half the ballots in MoCo have been counted as of a week after the primary election.
In the District 4 race, incumbent Shebra Evans and Steve Solomon look like they will advance to the general election.
State elections administrator Linda Lamone is one of the great survivors in Maryland political history. Ensconced in her perch since 1997, she has weathered crisis after crisis over the years. Think about the folks holding power when Lamone was first appointed: Governor Parris Glendening, Attorney General Joe Curran, Comptroller Louis Goldstein, Senate President Mike Miller and Speaker of the House Cas Taylor. All are long gone except for Miller, who is still in the Senate but has relinquished his post as president. And yet Lamone remains.
It is time for state Democrats to bring that to an end.
In light of everything that just happened in the primary, consider this. For Democrats, voting rights are a core issue. In Maryland, Democrats passed early voting, same-day voter registration and automatic voter registration. They were outraged when MoCo’s Republican-majority county board of elections resisted opening early voting centers in heavily minority communities in 2015 and 2019. Democrats all over the country accuse Republicans of trying to suppress voting, especially in predominantly black and Latino precincts.
What went on in the recent primary is far worse than any squabbling over early voting centers. I bet there are not many adults in this state who don’t know someone who got a late ballot, got no ballot at all or got ballots for people who no longer lived at their address. The botched count in Baltimore City’s Council District 1 is disgraceful and may be beyond redemption. The city’s elections director admitted to Baltimore Brew that he was asleep when city results were pulled overnight and added, “I have no idea why it happened.” Observing the wreckage, Lamone herself told the Sun, “As I said before, I’m really proud of the way everybody pitched in and helped and tried to make everything work as best it could.”
Donald Trump could not have asked for a better example for his case against voting by mail than what happened in Maryland. The fact that the epicenter of our electoral meltdown was majority-black Baltimore City enables Trump and his allies to argue that voting by mail disenfranchises black voters.
Think about that for a minute.
Ballot problems were probably inevitable given the long history of audits finding issues with the state’s custody of voter registration records. Here is a sample of what legislative audits on the State Board of Elections (SBE) conducted over the last decade have said.
June 2010: “Our audit disclosed several deficiencies with respect to oversight of the local election boards. Procedures were not sufficient to ensure the propriety of the Statewide voter registration database. For example, processes put in place to ensure the propriety of critical database changes (such as to add or delete voter registrations) processed by the local boards were not comprehensive and SBE did not ensure that local boards removed convicted felons from the voter registration database.”
March 2014: “Known security concerns over the Online Voter Registration System, which allows citizens to register to vote and update voter registration records online, were not being properly addressed until recently. In addition, adequate procedures were not in place to ensure convicted felons serving court-ordered sentences were removed from the voter registration database.”
April 2017: “SBE did not establish certain controls to maintain the integrity of the Statewide voter registration records and to protect certain voter data. For example, user access to the voter registration system was not effectively controlled; consequently, numerous system users had unnecessary access to the voter registration database, which was removed after our inquiries. We also noted that SBE did not ensure that personally identifiable information from the database was either properly safeguarded when transmitted to a third party contractor or removed from its own records. In this regard, the full social security numbers from over 590,000 voters were retained by SBE in the database even though only the last four digits are needed.”
December 2019: “SBE’s oversight processes were not adequate to ensure that local boards of election appropriately corrected voter registration data based on the results of internal reviews of voter registration activity and the reports of possible ineligible voters that it received from external sources.”
Did anyone in authority actually read these audits?
Other than Lamone herself, the key figure in all of this is State Senate President Bill Ferguson. Under the structure of the Linda Lamone for Life law, the state elections administrator serves until her successor is confirmed by the Senate. In the old days, then-President Mike Miller, Lamone’s great protector, was in charge so Lamone was safe. But Miller is now out of power and Ferguson sits on the throne. Ferguson, who was elected to the Senate in 2010, was not in office when the Lamone for Life law was passed. (That probably applies to a majority of the current General Assembly.) Ferguson is a young, thoughtful consensus seeker who wants to show that government can make a positive difference in people’s lives. Lamone’s continued tenure is a threat to that perspective. Let’s remember that Baltimore City Council District 1, where the worst mistakes were committed, overlaps with Ferguson’s own legislative district. How many constituent complaints has Ferguson received? Because he now runs the Senate schedule, if Ferguson were to call for Lamone’s resignation, that would be a game changer. So far he has not.
The big winner from the blow-up is Governor Larry Hogan, who can point out that the Lamone for Life law prevents him from removing her. Whenever anything goes wrong, now or in the future, Hogan can simply blame the Democrats. What happens if Hogan activates his massive social media machine around the issue? The potential public shaming capacity is almost beyond comprehension.
Then there is Comptroller Peter Franchot, who is running for governor on a “disrupt the machine” platform. Franchot has openly called for Lamone’s resignation. The Democratic leadership detests Franchot even more than Hogan and would rather gargle transmission fluid than see him become governor. One of them acidly reminded me that Franchot voted for the Lamone for Life bill when he was a Delegate minutes after getting his anti-Lamone email. Regardless, the last thing that the Democratic leaders want to do is gift-wrap a campaign issue for Franchot. And as long as Lamone remains in her job, Franchot will cite her as Exhibit A of “the machine.”
All of the above said, here is the bottom line. Long ago, the Democrats created Lamone. They passed a law to protect her. They kept her at the state board of elections despite two decades of problems. Whether they like it or not, they own what she does. The rampant issues in our latest primary are now calling the question, which is this: the Democrats cannot be the party of voting rights and also the party of Linda Lamone. It’s time to make a choice.
With voters all over the state looking on, what will they choose?
In case you missed it, I wanted to share with you this piece by The Seventh State’s Adam Pagnucco regarding the fiasco that unfolded earlier this week in our primary elections as well as the historical context of Linda Lamone’s leadership of the State Board of Elections.
Like you, I was deeply disappointed and remain very frustrated by the manner in which the June 2 elections were administered by the State Board of Elections, specifically in Baltimore City. The City of Baltimore, the State of Maryland, and our country are already facing far too many existential challenges without corroded public confidence in the integrity of our democratic process and in the legitimacy of the outcomes.
As you may know, during Wednesday’s Board of Public Works meeting, Lt. Governor Rutherford and I joined together in a bipartisan fashion to call for Administrator Lamone’s resignation. The failure to properly execute the June 2 election, along with the challenges that we are all aware of in previous elections, warrant Administrator Lamone’s resignation or removal from office.
However, as you know, thanks to a 2005 bill enacted by the General Assembly, widely referred to as the “Linda Lamone for Life” law, her termination by the State Board of Elections is made all the more challenging thanks to the passage of this legislation. The law now requires that the Administrator – even if terminated by the State Board of Elections – can remain in office until the Senate advises and consents to a replacement. No other employee of state government enjoys this level of statutory job protection.
The choice that the Senate makes on the future of Linda Lamone is one between efficient stewardship of our elections and gross administrative incompetence. It is a choice between voter empowerment and voter disenfranchisement. It is a choice between a system in which people can have confidence in the integrity of their institutions of government and one in that makes them question the legitimacy of our elections and outcomes. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will come to the same conclusion that I and the vast majority of Marylanders have made: it is time for new, competent leadership at the State Board of Elections.
Imagine a senior state employee appointed by the governor to a politically sensitive position. Now imagine the following hypothetical situation: the employee commits a heinous crime covered by every TV station in the state. Imagine this employee is then convicted and imprisoned. One would think that such an employee – any state employee, really – would be terminated from employment by the state in such a hypothetical circumstance.
You would be right – EXCEPT for one key position in state government: the State Administrator of Elections. Under current state law, that position would continue to be occupied by its current holder for a potentially indefinite period.
That law is commonly known as the “Linda Lamone for Life” law.
It must be repealed.
To understand how this law came to be, let’s go back in time. Linda Lamone, who is the State Administrator of Elections today, was appointed by Governor Parris Glendening to the position in 1997 but Republican Bob Ehrlich was elected governor in 2002. By 2005, Ehrlich had decided to get rid of her. But Lamone had an ace-in-the-hole – Mike Miller, who was then in his prime as Senate President and was determined to protect her. To thwart Ehrlich, Miller pushed through Senate Bill 444 to protect Lamone’s job. Ehrlich vetoed it but General Assembly Democrats overrode the veto, thereby winning one of Maryland’s uglier partisan battles of the last couple decades.
The bill’s fiscal note concisely states its purpose.
The State board may remove the State Administrator provided that the board is fully constituted with five duly confirmed members. Removal requires the affirmative vote of four duly confirmed members. The State Administrator is authorized to continue to serve subsequent to a valid vote of removal until a successor is confirmed by the Senate of Maryland.
And so it did not matter if Ehrlich’s appointees to the State Board of Elections (SBE) voted to remove Lamone. It did not matter if they got a super-majority for removal. Lamone would continue to serve regardless until the Senate voted for a successor. That meant Lamone was accountable to just one person – the person who scheduled Senate business. You guessed it – that person was Mike Miller.
The bill is so restrictive that the elections administrator could not be removed from office even if all five members of the State Board of Elections vote to fire her, even if she were convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death row and stripped of her voting rights. Only when the state Senate approves a replacement could she be removed. Now that’s job security.
Lamone has been a controversial administrator over the years. Her tenure has seen problems with campaign finance reporting software, a 2010 state audit finding “seriously deficient” financial practices (some of which had been previously found in 2006), a 2016 election in Baltimore City in which 800 votes were improperly counted, a 2017 state audit alleging that SBE had put 600,000 social security numbers at risk of hacking and the 2018 revelation from the FBI that an SBE vendor hosting election data was owned by a Russian oligarch with ties to Vladimir Putin. In 2018, a fed-up former member of the Montgomery County Board of Elections penned a Washington Post op-ed titled “Maryland Can’t Protect its Elections.“
Last year, Governor Larry Hogan and Comptroller Peter Franchot complained to Lamone about long lines in the previous general election. Franchot said, “This was a black eye for Maryland around the country.” Hogan added, “They were making fun of us on the national television about how bad the Maryland election was being administered… You are the Maryland state election administrator.” Lamone blamed the local election boards, responding, “I have no control.”
Our audit disclosed that improvements were needed to SBE’s existing processes and controls to ensure the integrity of the Statewide voter registration records. Specifically, SBE did not perform periodic documented reviews of the voter registration system to ensure that access capabilities were properly restricted. Furthermore, SBE’s oversight processes were not adequate to ensure that local boards of election appropriately corrected voter registration data based on the results of internal reviews of voter registration activity and the reports of possible ineligible voters that it received from external sources.
In addition, SBE systems, including the online voter registration website and the electronic pollbook system used for voter check-in, were at risk since controls were inadequate to ensure that only properly authorized program changes were placed into production for these systems.
Lamone concedes nothing to her critics. Why should she? They are powerless to hold her accountable. None of their jobs are protected by state law! Here is video of Lamone arguing with press over the doomed Diebold machines, eventually walking out of an interview.
Not all election problems are Lamone’s fault. The state and county boards of elections work together to hold elections in every cycle. Some mistakes are made by county boards. There are also occasional problems with vendors that even well-run boards have to confront.
But there is a national context to SBE’s recent problems that is inescapable. Because of the COVID-19 crisis, many states around the country – probably including Maryland – will be using mostly vote-by-mail elections in November. President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, fearing massive turnout from hostile voters, are doing everything possible to discredit vote-by-mail elections. The huge number of issues in Maryland’s primary with late ballots, ballots not received, ballots sent to departed voters and of course Baltimore’s Council District 1 race will be exploited by Republicans – and maybe even hostile foreign powers – to erode faith in the voting process. That’s why it’s absolutely crucial to hold top election officials accountable when things go wrong.
And in order to do that, the Linda Lamone for Life law must be repealed.
Yes, we do have a problem with the Baltimore City elections. A very big problem, in fact. Namely, voter disenfranchisement through gross administrative incompetence and widespread, citywide irregularities.
Inexcusable delays in the disbursement of ballots.
Inaccurate, misleading information on those same ballots.
Firsthand accounts, of which there are far too many to reference here, of Marylanders enduring unacceptable barriers to their constitutional right to vote.
Such as ballots that were never received in the mail.
Unacceptably long lines at the limited number of polling stations that were actually open. And people being told at the polls that they had already voted when, in fact, that wasn’t the case.
Bizarre and obviously mistaken vote totals being posted to the our state’s official board of elections website that caused undue public confusion.
And this morning, more than 12 hours after the polls were supposed to have closed in Baltimore City, the residents and business owners of this city in crisis had no timely updates on the outcome of the races for mayor, council president, city comptroller and various city council seats.
All we can be sure of today is that people who had the right to vote didn’t receive a ballot. People who didn’t have the right to vote DID. And that, regardless of whatever outcomes are eventually posted by our state and city elections boards, they will be subjected to widespread skepticism if not credible legal challenges.
Our city, state and country are already facing far too many existential challenges without corroded public confidence in the integrity of our democratic process and in the legitimacy of the outcomes. Yet that’s what is happening today, yet again, in our state.
It’s time for an end to the endless excuses. It’s time for a new culture of accountability and competence. It’s time for our longtime state elections administrator, Linda Lamone, and our city’s election director, Armstead Jones, to resign from their respective positions.
Simultaneously, Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford called on State Board of Elections administrator Linda Lamone to resign. He said the following at this morning’s meeting of the Board of Public Works.
Yesterday was primary day in Maryland. There were reports of several challenges associated with it. There is some information that’s coming out today with regard to some challenges in Baltimore City. I have not had a chance to review it but with regard to the ballots in the first councilmanic district, that is just another example of the challenges that have been occurring with the State Board of Elections. And I did say earlier in a radio interview that I really think it’s time for the administrator at the Board of Elections to step down. I think it’s time for new leadership there and to be done early, before we – with enough time to correct all of these issues before we get to November’s general election. And so I call on the Senate to work with us to find new leadership and I encourage the administrator to step down.
Getting rid of Lamone is easier said than done and the Governor has no power to do it. As I wrote eleven years ago, when former Governor Bob Ehrlich tried to oust Lamone, the General Assembly changed state law to make it virtually impossible to fire her without the consent of the Senate. The Gazette wrote at the time, “The bill is so restrictive that the elections administrator could not be removed from office even if all five members of the State Board of Elections vote to fire her, even if she were convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death row and stripped of her voting rights. Only when the state Senate approves a replacement could she be removed. Now that’s job security.”
Only one thing is certain: the fallout from Baltimore’s botched Council District 1 election is just beginning. What will happen next?
