Candidates and Racial Justice — A Guide to the Maryland Primary

George Shivers • June 21, 2022

The United States has experienced a deadly growth in the White supremacy movement, as well as an increase in police violence against people of color. No candidate of either party running for governor or U.S. representative in 1st District raised the issue of White supremacy; however, all the Democratic candidates for both offices had statements on racial equity on their websites. Based on the statements on the websites of Republican candidates, it is clear that they do not consider racial equity a matter of concern.

The positions below were taken from candidates’ websites and VOTE411, a voter information website of the League of Women Voters. While the questions that the LWV asked the candidates did not address the topic of racial justice directly, it was possible find references in the candidates’ responses to other questions.

The primary election is scheduled for Tuesday, July 19. Only residents who have registered their political party preference are eligible to vote, and they may only vote for their party’s candidates. Thus Democrats may only vote for Democratic candidates, and Republicans only for Republican candidates.

Governor/Lieutenant Governor

Dan Cox + Gordana Schifanelli — Republican

www.dancoxforgovernor.com

There is no statement on racial justice on his website. All his positions are extreme right-wing and Trumpist.

Robin Ficker + LeRoy F. Yegge, Jr. — Republican

www.cutmdsalestax2cents.com

Ficker is a disbarred attorney. There is no statement on racial justice on the website. Most of the photos portray him in the company of conservative governors of other states.

Kelly Schulz + Jeff Woolford — Republican

www.kellyschulzforgovernor.com

Schulz’s program is typical of her party: less and lower taxes, support for police, parental control of the public education system. There is no statement on racial justice at all.

Joe Werner + Minh Thanh Luong — Republican

www.wernerformaryland.com

No statement on racial justice. He is also the only candidate for governor who has not submitted answers to the League of Women Voters website, Vote411.org

Rushern Baker III + Nancy Navarro — Democrat

www.rushernbaker.com

Rushern Baker III suspended his race for governor on June 10.

Jon Baron + Natalie Williams — Democrat

www.jonbaron.com

A statement on his website states that “My career over the past 20 years has focused on underserved communities across the United States, with the goals of closing social and racial gaps in education, economic opportunity, healthcare, and other areas. In our own state, such gaps between Black and White Marylanders have persisted for decades and are unacceptably large. Currently, for example, the poverty rate of Black Marylanders is nearly 50% higher than that of the overall Maryland population, and Maryland has had consistently larger achievement gaps between Black and White students than the U.S. average.” Baron worked in both the Bush and the Obama administrations to expand programs for underserved population.

Peter Franchot + Monique Anderson-Walker — Democrat

www.franchot.com

Franchot promises to create a new cabinet-level position focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion to promote diversity in government, to identify biases in existing or proposed policies, and to develop policies to promote economic relief for underserved communities. He indicates that his administration will prioritize addressing the effects of redlining and will seek to provide state-backed mortgages to communities of color. On the issue of public safety, Franchot supports policies such as “ending no knock warrants, prioritizing community policing, evaluating police training standards, treating addiction as a health issue, and focusing on violent repeat offenders.”

Douglas F. Gansler + Candace Hollingsworth — Democrat

www.ganslerformaryland.com

Gansler’s website has no specific statement on race, however, his running mate, Candace Bacchus Hollingsworth has a strong history of working for racial justice. After stepping down as mayor of Hyattsville, she worked to grow Our Black Party, a national organization that she co-founded to strengthen a relationship that promotes change between the Black community and the political system.

Ralph W. Jaffe + Mark Greben — Democrat

www.fedupwithcrookedpolitics.com

No statement on racial justice.

Ashwani Jain + LaTrece Hawkins Lytes — Democrat

www.jainforgovernor.com

No statement on racial justice.

John King + Michelle Daugherty Siri — Democrat

www.johnkingforGovernor.com

King will view every part of his platform through the lens of the “Black Agenda,” according to his website. As governor, he will require a Racial Equity Impact Statement to be submitted with every bill that comes to his desk.

Wes Moore + Aruna Miller — Democrat

www.wesmoore.com

According to his website, Moore believes that Maryland will never achieve its potential until equity is achieved. He applauded the Maryland legislature last year “for passing some of the nation’s most comprehensive police accountability legislation,” and believes that we have to build on that progress and see that it is carried out effectively. He supports policies in the criminal justice system that promote redemption and second chances. He also supports prison reform. He wants to promote equity in housing and access to education and healthcare. He stands for eliminating the racial wealth gap.

Tom Perez + Shannon Sneed — Democrat

www.tomperez.com

Perez has undoubtedly the most extensive statement on racial justice issues of all the candidates.

He pledges to combat and develop solutions to the climate crisis, which, he states, disproportionately harms Black citizens.
Further, he would reinvest cannabis tax revenue back into the minority communities that have been disproportionately and systematically criminalized for marijuana.
He will seek to make Maryland a leader in providing economic opportunities for Black business owners by reforming the State’s antiquated MBE (Minority Business Enterprise) program.
He will work towards increasing opportunities for Black business start-ups by expanding the Maryland Small Business Development Financing Authority, Neighborhood Business Works and EARN (Employment Advancement Right Now).
As governor, he will work to close the health care enrollment gap to ensure that 100% of Black citizens can access insurance.
He would support capital investments in Historic Black Colleges and Universities.
He would expand apprenticeship opportunities in the Black community and connect Black citizens with jobs in manufacturing through programs like the Jane Addams Resource Corp. in Baltimore, which provides free manufacturing job training.

Jerome M. Segal + Justinian M. Dispenza — Democrat

www.segalforgovernor.org

The heading on Segal’s webpage states “Bread and Roses Socialism: Decency and Renaissance.” While he doesn’t address racial justice, his statements promoting education and climate justice and economic equality clearly indicate that his administration would confront that issue in a positive way: “Most ambitiously, we seek a new culture, one in which personal identity and social status will have little to do with how one earns one’s money and the amount of it. We seek a culture in which identity and status will revolve around one’s passion — work, one’s values, character, and excellences.”

Congress 1st District

Andrew P. Harris — Republican — incumbent

www.andyharris.com

Harris has no position on racial justice issues on his website. It should be noted, however, that he was one of 186 Republicans in Congress who voted against the bill to designate a federal building in Tallahassee, Fla. to honor Black Judge Joseph W. Hatchett. He also voted against a resolution to honor Capitol Police for their bravery on January 6, 2021.

R. David Harden — Democrat

www.hardenforcongress.com

The following statement on equality and inclusion can be found on Harden’s website: “Every person must be treated with dignity and have equal rights under the law. No person in a free and fair society should make less money, be denied government services, pay more for healthcare, lose a job or housing opportunities, or face discrimination in the community or workplace because of their gender, race, color, national origin, age, religion, creed, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran's status.” He doesn’t propose any particular policies to solve those problems.

Heather R. Mizeur — Democrat

www.heathermizeur.com

Mizeur strongly supports the For the People Act on voting rights, which would expand access to early voting and voting by mail. She believes that the federal government must be the guarantor of the right to vote. She has no firm statement on racial justice on her website; however, she responds to a questionnaire on social issues on the ISideWith... website. She indicates support for NFL players who kneel during the national anthem to protest police brutality. She also supports the federal government policy requiring racial sensitivity training for employees.

A native of Wicomico County, George Shivers holds a doctorate from the University of Maryland and taught in the Foreign Language Dept. of Washington College for 38 years before retiring in 2007. He is also very interested in the history and culture of the Eastern Shore, African American history in particular.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Speak up for Eastern Neck and NWR System

By Friends of Eastern Neck Board of Directors • April 16, 2025

Let your elected representatives and business and cultural leaders know that our Refuge and others like it all over the country deserve to be protected. They deserve our stewardship for the natural wonders they shelter, and because they provide refuge for people, too.

Letter: These Republicans Are Right — Hogan is Responsible for Maryland’s Budget Deficit

By Elaine McNeil • April 9, 2025

The Budget Deficit In a recent debate on closing Maryland’s budget deficit, Minority Leader Jason Buckel, a Republican delegate from Allegany County, made an important point: “The man upstairs has only been there for two, three years. I don’t blame him for our economic failures of the last 10,” referring to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who was elected in 2022. Ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial elections, Buckel’s comments highlight a key reality that many of his Republican colleagues seldom admit: It isn’t right to blame Gov. Moore for a budget deficit that has been brewing for years. Now projected at $3.3 billion, Maryland’s structural deficit is a problem that started long before Moore took office. In fact, it was first projected in 2017, during the tenure of former GOP Gov. Larry Hogan. This isn’t an opinion — it’s a fact that Buckel and other lawmakers, including Republican Del. Jefferson Ghrist, have bravely acknowledged. During that same debate, Ghrist remarked that the Department of Legislative Services had warned about this deficit throughout Hogan’s administration, yet he did little to address it. Ghrist pointed out that during Maryland’s “good years,” when the state received a flood of federal covid-19 relief dollars, spending spiraled without regard for long-term fiscal health. Hogan used these one-time federal funds to support ongoing programs, which masked the true state of Maryland’s finances and created an illusion of fiscal stability. Hogan continues to take credit for the “surplus” Maryland had in 2022 — even though experts repeatedly note it was caused by the influx of federal dollars during the pandemic. As Ghrist correctly observed, the lack of fiscal restraint and slow growth during the Hogan years laid the groundwork for the $3.3 billion structural deficit the state faces today. Indeed, Maryland’s economy has been stagnant since 2017, especially in comparison to its neighboring states, well before Moore took office. Compounding these challenges are President Donald Trump’s reckless layoffs and trade wars with our allies. Thousands of federal workers who live in Maryland are losing their jobs, which will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Trump’s tariffs will also put an enormous strain on local businesses, including Eastern Shore farmers, who are now subject to up to 15% retaliatory tariffs on chicken, wheat, soybeans, corn, fruits, and vegetables. FY2026 Budget Considering this grim reality, Maryland’s lawmakers are making difficult, but necessary, decisions to shore up the state’s finances. Gov. Moore and state legislative leaders recently agreed to a budget that prioritizes expanding Maryland’s economy without raising taxes on most residents. In fact, 94% of Marylanders should see either a tax cut or no change at all to their income tax bill under the proposed agreement. Lawmakers also plan to cut government spending by the largest amount in 16 years, while at the same time making targeted investments in emerging industries, such as quantum computing and aerospace defense, so the state is less dependent on federal jobs. While the richest Marylanders might see their income taxes go up, it’s reasonable to ask someone making over $750,000 a year to pay $1,800 more to support law enforcement, strengthen our schools, and grow our economy. As for the proposed tax on data and IT services, these products aren’t subject to Maryland’s sales tax under current law. Maryland leaders want to modernize our tax code by levying a 3% sales tax on these products. Because they don’t raise income taxes on the majority of Marylanders and because state leaders are also cutting spending by billions, these ideas are fair. They’re also necessary after Gov. Hogan chose to kick the can down the road instead of addressing Maryland’s long-predicted deficit and now that Trump’s policies will lay off thousands of Marylanders and his tariffs will hurt our state. By making responsible choices now, Maryland leaders are putting the state on a path to long-term economic stability. Their decisions will help Maryland thrive, create jobs, and invest in the vital services that every resident relies on — without burdening hardworking families. I’m confident Maryland will emerge stronger, more resilient, and ready to lead in the industries of tomorrow. Elaine McNeil is chair of the Queen Anne’s Democratic Central Committee.

Fighting the President’s Executive Orders

By John Christie • April 2, 2025

Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

Remembering Tom Timberman

By Bill Flook & CSES Staff • April 2, 2025

Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!

The Truth About the FY2026 Md. Budget HB350

By Jared Schablein • April 2, 2025

After over 12 hours of debate over two days (and a whole circus from the other side), the Maryland House of Delegates has passed HB 350, this year's state budget, and sent it to the State Senate. This budget is a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Governor Wes Moore. It faces our state's $3 billion deficit head-on not with fantasy math, but with real choices: smart cuts and fair new revenue. This is what grown-up governing looks like. How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. Leaders began warning about a shortfall in 2017 when Governor Larry Hogan was in office. Hogan made our state budget bigger every year, but the legislature wasn’t allowed to move money around or make common-sense changes. By law, they could only make cuts. In 2020, Maryland voters changed that. Starting in 2023, lawmakers finally got full power to shape the budget, not just cut from it. Instead of fixing the problem, Governor Hogan used federal COVID relief to hide our fiscal instability. Then, before leaving office, he drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image. Today, we are facing a new fiscal arsonist. Donald Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal programs hit Maryland hard. We have more federal jobs and agencies than any other state, so we felt it worse than most. A University of Maryland study says Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. Trump/Musk's policies caused over 30,000 people in Maryland to lose their jobs, offices to shut down, and promised investments to disappear. These federal cuts added another $300 million to our budget deficit. COVID relief gave us a short break and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone now. Meanwhile, housing, healthcare, and college prices have gone way up. The Trump–Musk White House is making it worse by cutting even more funding, eliminating research, and gutting the services we rely on. That’s why Maryland had to act. We needed a real plan to protect working people, fund our schools and hospitals, and keep our state strong. Why Cuts Were Needed Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal agencies hit Maryland harder than any other state. A University of Maryland study says those tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. That hurts real people: A chicken farmer on the Eastern Shore is paying 25% more for fertilizer. A dock worker in Baltimore has fewer ships to unload. A restaurant owner in Western Maryland can’t afford eggs and tomatoes. We’ve lost over 30,000 jobs. Offices have shut down. Promised investments disappeared. The decisions of the Trump/Musk administration added $300 million to our state deficit.

No, Mr. Trump, You Have No “Mandate”

By Jan Plotczyk • November 19, 2024

The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.