Tag: news

Hey, Maryland! Is Question 3 an Ill-Advised Reaction to a Flawed National GOP Gerrymandering Strategy?

MAGA is the ruptured appendix of American politics. Its hold on Congress is a constitutional emergency that leaves only one way out: voting out as many as possible, pronto, in the November midterms. 

The redistricting question on Maryland’s statewide ballot – Question 3 – comes too late to help. It would allow gerrymandering the GOP out of its only seat in Maryland’s seven-member Congressional delegation, but only in time for the 2028 election, and then on into the future.

By law, districts must be drawn compactly, respecting boundaries set by nature and political leanings. Question 3 would remove these restrictions in order to allow blatantly partisan gerrymandering in Maryland’s Congressional districts. 

Andy Harris holds the the sole GOP Congressional seat in Maryland, representing First District voters on the Eastern Shore and the eastern exurbs of Baltimore County. Despite his angry, combative, borderline-delusional public demeanor as the lock-step Trumpster in charge of the way-right Freedom Caucus, he keeps getting re-elected – eight terms, and counting.

It’s entirely possible that by 2028, with MAGA already in free-fall, most First District voters will have had enough of Trump – and therefore, Harris.

The reason Question 3 is on the ballot is because Maryland Democrats joined the nationwide cause of fighting a gerrymandering war started by MAGA and blessed by the U.S. Supreme Court. District maps have been redrawn to favor the GOP in some states, to favor Democrats in others – and the math shows the GOP won these battles leading up to the midterms. So Maryland, the thinking goes, needs to do it’s part going forward, removing its one GOP seat and putting it on the books for the Democrats. 

The GOP’s gerrymanders do not guarantee electoral victories in all the targeted districts, by any means. The MAGA brand is tanking so badly that, as the election nears, it appears that important targeted districts will end up as wins for Democrats, nonetheless.

Meanwhile, reputable recent polling by UMBC found only a quarter of Marylanders support of Question 3, with 53 percent opposing.

Given the viscerally negative reaction most Marylanders have to anything the GOP likes, the fact that Maryland Republicans are loudly throwing fits to urge rejection of Question 3 may actually work in the measure’s favor. 

That would be a shame. SCOTUS may have allowed the gloves to come off, but the blatant gerrymander has never been a good look, and Maryland’s current by-the-books approach to setting district boundaries is. As the country awakes from the MAGA fever dream, it’ll be nice to say Maryland stayed above the fray – and doing so will likely have the desired effect on Andy Harris’ future, to boot. 

Is Question F a “Power Grab”by the Mayor?

My “Specimen Ballot” for the 2026 General Election was delivered by the U.S.P.S. to me recently, from the Baltimore City Board of Elections. Homework time for the scheduled Nov. 3 elections. Open the ballot and see it is going to take some effort. Procrastinate.

Suddenly today my friend, who usually is Mr. Right on most stuff, texts to me out of the blue, saying Question F on the ballot might be “part of what appears to be a continuing power grab by the mayor.”

So I pick up the ballot again.

“Question F: Charter Amendment,” the ballot says. And then, on the subsequent line: “Legislation, Budget, and Board of Estimates,” with no further explanation. 

That’s pretty broad: changes to the City Charter in areas affecting the City Council, executive agencies, and the Board of Estimates, the mayor-controlled five-member spending board. A trifecta of the city’s levers of city power! 

If approved, it will:

Give the mayor more power by eliminating steps in the budgetary process and transferring to the mayor what has been the Board of Estimates’ responsibility to prepare the proposed annual budget. 

Give the mayor more power by shortening the timetables for resolving legislative disagreements over the mayor’s proposed annual budget, including vetos and overrides.

Give the mayor more power by removing the $1 million cap on money “used as a contingent fund” to help manage unexpected problems that may come up in the course of governance.

Give the mayor more power over the budget process by transferring to the Finance Director and the mayor-controlled Planning Commission advisory roles in budget discussions.

Give the mayor more power over spending by relieving the Board of Estimates – already controlled by the mayor, but with a two-member independent minority – of a whole host of responsibilities over the city’s fiscal practices, and transferring them to executive departments.

To answer Mr. Right’s question, having consulted the convoluted clauses that comprise Question F: Yes, it’s a crystal-clear “power grab” by the mayor.  

Hope that helps!