JUICE: Del. McIntosh & Sen. Kittleman for Legal Pot, MD for Utah LGBT Marriages, Fracking, Luiz Simmons Mail & More!

Below Maryland Juice provides a round-up of news tidbits of interest to politicos:

JUICE #1: POT LEGALIZATION ENDORSED BY DEM LEADER DEL. MAGGIE MCINTOSH & GOP SEN. ALLAN KITTLEMAN // PLUS HUGE REVENUE & NO PROBLEMS IN COLOARDO - The calls for marijuana legalization in Maryland have earned important allies in the state legislature. Delegate Maggie McIntosh, a top Democratic House leader, has endorsed proposals to tax and regulate pot like alcohol and to remove jail-time as a penalty for possession. Meanwhile, GOP State Senator Allan Kittleman, who is running for Howard County Executive, has co-sponsored marijuana legalization legislation. Del. McIntosh announced her support in the following email blast (excerpt below):

MAGGIE MCINTOSH: Last session, my colleague Curt Anderson introduced legislation that would have legalized marijuana use for adults. I supported Delegate Anderson’s bill because I believe our current drug prohibition laws are wasteful and counterproductive, taking resources away from combating drug violence and promoting treatment options for those suffering with addiction. Our current laws also overburden our judicial and prison systems, forcing many non-violent offenders into jail. Last session, the Maryland Senate also passed a bill that would have made possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil – rather than criminal – offense. This year, I fully expect both bills to be introduced again and plan to support either should they come to the House floor. The early reports on legalization efforts in Colorado and Oregon show that this approach can work.

The Washington Post's John Wagner reported on the new bi-partisan push for rolling back the failed War on Drugs in Maryland with the following article announcing support from GOP State Senator Allan Kittleman (excerpt below):

WASHINGTON POST: Sen. Allan H. Kittleman (R-Howard) said Friday that he will co-sponsor legislation that would allow regulated marijuana sales in Maryland, adding a bipartisan wrinkle to this year’s push in Annapolis. Kittleman, a Republican who is running for Howard County executive this year, said that he has agreed to work with Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery) on a bill that will be unveiled next week....

Raskin’s legislation would allow sales under a similar framework that recently was set up in Colorado, with marijuana subject to state regulation and taxation. Sales would be limited to people age 21 and over, and there would be tough penalties for selling to minors.

While he has compiled a conservative record on fiscal issues in Annapolis, Kittleman supported two other high-profile liberal social policies in recent years: the legalization of same-sex marriage and the repeal of the death penalty.

“One thing most people know about me is I’m a civil libertarian,” Kittleman said. “This isn’t something I’m doing for politics. The current way we’re dealing with marijuana and the use of it by our citizens isn’t working....”

HUGE POT SALES IN COLORADO = MAJOR REVENUE BOOST: Indeed, all eyes have been on Washington and Colorado, where voters recently approved marijuana legalization at the ballot. The early reports from Colorado, where over-the-counter pot sales began last week are overwhelmingly encouraging. Denver's CBS affiliate reported on massive sales of recreational pot, indicating that the first state on the East Coast to end prohibition will face a revenue windfall (excerpt below):

CBS: The first week of legal pot salesin Colorado is over, and now some Colorado pot shops are already running out of product. In the past week, long lines of customers swamped the Colorado dispensaries that have been granted retail marijuana licenses and bought nearly $5 million worth of pot.... Many shops are limiting the amount of pot a customer can buy, and some have raised their rates....

“We are okay right now but if things go the way they are we might be also running very short,” [marijuana ship owner Moe Atieh] said. “We expected it to be very busy. Did we expect it to be this busy? No, I don’t think anybody did....”

POLICE IN COLORADO REPORT FEW PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION - The Huffington Post reported this week that local law enforcement officials in Colorado report no real problems since marijuana sales begun this year (excerpt below):

HUFFINGTON POST: A week after Colorado dispensaries started selling recreational marijuana to adults, local law enforcers are not reporting any significant problems. In the state's largest city, there have been only four marijuana citations issued, according to the Denver Police Department. "Everything has gone relatively smooth," Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson told The Huffington Post. "We've written four citations for public consumption since Jan. 1, and that's relatively small considering the number of people consuming right now." A similar lack of trouble swept over other Colorado towns....

Consumer interest was so high the first week that many shop owners capped the amount of marijuana an individual could buy or raised prices to mitigate a possible legal weed shortage.... "Colorado is demonstrating to the rest of the world that regulating marijuana works," said Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project and a key backer of Amendment 64. He added, "The implementation process and smooth rollout of the system in Colorado is surely going to pique the interest of lawmakers and voters in other states who are also ready to move beyond prohibition and adopt more sensible policies...." The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the Department of Justice is drafting legal guidance for how banks can work with marijuana businesses in states like Colorado and Washington, which also legalized recreational marijuana for adults....

VOTERS IN FOUR STATES PLUS WASHINGTON, DC MAY VOTE ON MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN 2014: While Maryland continues to piddle around on the wholly uncontroversial issue of medical marijuana, U.S. News & World Report writes that four other states (Alaska, Arizona, California & Oregon) plus neighboring Washington, DC may send the issue to voters on the 2014 ballot (excerpt below):

US NEWS: One week after the nation's first recreational marijuana stores opened in Colorado, Alaska activists submitted what appear to be enough signatures to put marijuana legalization before voters. The measure – which would go up for a vote Aug. 19 – is one of several 2014 efforts that could yield a good year for pot supporters, particularly in the West....

So far, voters have been at the vanguard of legalization, blowing past state legislatures. In November 2012, more than 55 percent of Colorado and Washington voters approved initiatives to legalize the drug and open state-licensed stores – and polls suggest those successes may be replicated elsewhere.

A CNN/Opinion Research poll released Monday found 55 percent of Americans believe marijuana should be legal, compared to 44 percent who do not. Support was highest in the West – where voter-driven initiatives often become law – and in the Northeast. An October poll released by Gallup put nationwide support for legalization at 58 percent....

Residents in the nation's capital also may get a chance to vote on legalization in November. D.C. Cannabis Campaign leaders plan to submit draft ballot language Friday with the city's elections board. The proposal would legalize possession of 2 ounces and six plants by adults over 21.... Although an April PPP survey put support for legalization at 63 percent in D.C., Eidinger says supporters "can't count out the opposition" and estimates a half-million dollar campaign is necessary to win..... In addition to voter-driven initiatives, legalization bills have been proposed in at least 13 state legislatures....

JUICE #2: ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUG GANSLER ISSUES OPINION ANNOUNCING MARYLAND WILL RESPECT UTAH'S SAME-SEX MARRIAGES - The Washington Blade reported yesterday that Maryland will recognize same-sex marriages issued in Utah, which are currently suspended as courts review their legality (excerpt below):

WASHINGTON BLADE: Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler on Friday said his state would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Utah.... Gansler told the Washington Blade his office on Thursday received a call from a gay Maryland couple who married in Utah about whether the state would recognize their union. Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin on the same day urged him and attorneys general in the 17 other states that have extended marriage rights to gays and lesbians to recognize the marriages of the more than 1,300 same-sex couples who exchanged vows after U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby struck down the Beehive State’s gay nuptials ban. The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 6 blocked any future same-sex marriages from taking place in Utah until the case is resolved....

Attorney General Doug Gansler also issued a press release announcing the release of his opinion (excerpt below):

PRESS RELEASE

AG Gansler: Utah Same-sex Marriages are Valid in Maryland

2010 opinion on recognition of legal same-sex marriages performed in other states underpins view that Maryland would recognize Utah unions

Baltimore, MD (January 10, 2014) – In response to a request from the Human Right Campaign, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has expressed his view that recent same-sex marriages legally performed in Utah should and would be recognized in Maryland. This week the United States Supreme Court issued a stay on performing such unions in Utah after a court ruling there struck down a same-sex marriage ban. As a result of that decision, Utah determined same-sex marriages to be legal and, for 17 days, more than 1300 such marriage licenses were issued until the stay by the Supreme Court ended the practice.

“Maryland will continue to recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages as we continue to strengthen the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law,” said Attorney General Gansler. “It is an affront to the idea of basic human rights that the battle for full marriage equality in this country remains in headlines and courtrooms.”

The Obama administration today also issued a statement saying that the federal government would recognize same-sex unions performed in Utah despite the fact that the state government of Utah is refusing to do....

To see the Attorney General’s 2010 Opinion on same-sex marriage visit:
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2010/95oag3.pdf 

# # #

JUICE #3: HEATHER MIZEUR SLAMS ANTHONY BROWN OVER FRACKING ISSUE - The Baltimore Sun reported this week that Delegate Heather Mizeur is criticizing Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's environmental platform, particularly calling out his position on fracking (excerpt below):

BALTIMORE SUN: Seeking to highlight her green credentials in the race for governor, Del. Heather Mizeur took issue Friday with the environmental platform posted this week by the front-running ticket of Lt. Anthony Brown and Howard County Executive Ken Ulman.

Mizeur's campaign issued a statement accusing Brown and Ulman of glossing over the dangers of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas and making "vague statements" about how to exploit the energy deposits in western Maryland without harming the environment or people's health.

Mizeur, D-Montgomery, has pushed unsuccessfully for years for a moratorium on "fracking" until its safety has been thoroughly studied and adequate safeguards are in place.  Though the legislation has not passed, Gov. Martin O'Malley has frozen drilling for past three years while an advisory commission on which Mizeur sits reviews the issues....

Heather Mizeur issued the following press release highlighting this difference of opinion:

PRESS RELEASE

Mizeur-Coates Campaign on Brown-Ulman’s “Environmental Values”

SILVER SPRING, Maryland — Yesterday, the Brown-Ulman campaign failed to address the significant dangers of shale gas hydraulic fracturing in their “Environmental Values.”

The Mizeur-Coates campaign released the following statement:

"In the same week the Brown-Ulman campaign released their 'environmental values,' which glossed over the dangers of fracking with vague statements about finding a path forward, the Associated Press published an investigation in which four states, including two of Maryland’s neighbors, confirmed the contamination of drinking water for families as a result of hydraulic fracturing.

Heather Mizeur is a vocal advocate for a more cautious approach. Under her leadership, the state has operated under a de facto drilling moratorium while we conduct independent analysis of the environmental and public health safety threats of this controversial practice. Delegate Mizeur is teaming up with Frederick Senator Ron Young to introduce a bill this session that provides for an 18-month legislative review period guaranteeing the General Assembly a chance to act on the policy recommendations from the safety study’s commission report.

This is our last chance to keep Maryland from unregulated shale gas drilling. The current state study—which so far lacks adequate funding and appropriate risk analysis—is due out later this year. We know the moment the study concludes there will be enormous pressure on the Administration to drill. The Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act will give us more confidence that science and the public interest—not special interest politics—will prevail in Maryland. If clean water is truly non-negotiable, then we must act on this now.”

###

JUICE #4: ATTEND A MARYLAND GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE IN MOCO ON THU, JAN 30 - Leisure World Democratic activist Paul Bessel sent Maryland Juice the following announcement of a gubernatorial candidates debate at MoCo's largest retirement community (details below):

EVENT FLYER: MD Gubernatorial Debate THU 1/30/14

JUICE #5: DISTRICT 17 SENATE RACE HEATS UP AS DEL. LUIZ SIMMONS SENDS DIRECT MAIL HIGHLIGHTING CHERYL KAGAN "MUDSLINGING" - Though many political observers believe it is very early in the election cycle to be spending resources on direct mail, Delegate Luiz Simmons has come out of the gates swinging with the following piece criticizing rival candidate Cheryl Kagan:

JUICE #6: CASEY ANDERSON DECIDES AGAINST RUNNING FOR MOCO COUNCIL DISTRICT 5  //  PLUS: MOCO PLANNING BOARD CHAIR FRANCOISE CARRIER RETIRING - Montgomery County Planning Board member Casey Anderson has indicated to Maryland Juice that he's decided not to run in the Democratic Primary for Valerie Ervin's District 5 Council seat. He will instead be seeking to Chair the Planning Board, given that the current Chair Francoise Carrier has announced she will not seek another four-year term. Patch.com reported on the development (excerpt below):

PATCH: Montgomery County Planning Board Chair Françoise Carrier announced Friday that she will not seek a second term as chair, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission reported in a news release.

In a Thursday evening email to Montgomery County Planning and Parks Department staff, Carrier wrote that: "It is with mixed feelings that I write to tell you I have decided not to seek a second term as Planning Board Chair. It has been wonderful working with such fine people, and I will always love this agency, but for me, one term feels right."

Carrier was appointed in 2010 by the Montgomery County Council, and her time as board chair "has been marked as one of the busiest and most productive terms during the [Planning] Board’s history, with the approval of Master Plans such as: Chevy Chase Lake, Takoma/Langley, Glenmont, Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan and Long Branch," the news release stated....

JUICE #7: TODAY IS THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF MY FRIEND AARON SWARTZ  //  TAKE A MOMENT TO UNDERSTAND HIS IMPACT - One year ago today, Aaron Swartz, my friend and colleague at Demand Progress committed suicide. He was a brilliant activist and technologist who co-founded reddit.com, Demand Progress, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC). He was also involved in development of open information technologies like RSS 1.0 and Creative Commons, and it should be noted that flunkeys in the Obama administration including DOJ Chief Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz brought trumped up felony criminal charges against him, threatening him with over 35 years in prison and erasing the money the 26-year-old had amassed through his entrepreneurial endeavors. I finally broke my silence about all of these horrifying incidents in a lengthy piece I wrote last July called "Hacking Politics."

But since then, those of us who knew and worked with Aaron have not given up on advancing his vision, which included challenging corporate power, tackling mass incarceration, and ensuring the Internet remains a place for dialogue free from censorship and undue surveillance. In fact, we're doubling down on fighting the excesses and overreach of the powered and money interests dominating society today. Wired magazine published an article about Aaron's legacy today (excerpt below):

WIRED: Internet activist Aaron Swartz took his own life one year ago today. He was 26 years old and facing federal hacking and fraud charges for downloading millions of academic articles using MIT’s network. Before his passing, he was on outspoken advocate for freedom of information and a founder of Demand Progress, the nonprofit that invigorated a successful grassroots effort to fight the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2012.

Swartz was, as WIRED’s Kevin Poulsen wrote a “coder with a conscience,” and in a clip premiering today on WIRED from director Brian Knappenberger’s forthcoming documentary The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz, more than a few web visionaries remember him for the important work he did and the legacy he created.

“I think Aaron was trying to make the world work – he was trying to fix it,” says World Wide Web founder Tim Berners-Lee. “So he was a bit ahead of his time....”

Swartz’s fight for rights online has only been brought more intensely into focus in the year since his death, largely due to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. To see him talk about government spying in this documentary at a time before the Snowden leaks is especially chilling now. But thanks to Knappenberger’s documentary – and other actions being taken to remember the internet activist – the conversation he started can continue....

Indeed, Maryland Juice will be heading to the Sundance Film Festival next week for the premiere of "The Internet's Own Boy," a documentary which promises to further embolden those of us involved in organizing for social justice and Internet Freedom. You can watch the trailer for the film, along with a special selection of interviews below:

Members of Congress have also not forgotten the unjust prosecution of Aaron Swartz (who incidentally faced more jail time than typically given to rapists and molesters). Techdirt reports that elected officials are calling on Eric Holder for real answers to their questions, instead of the same vague and defensive explanations they've provided for their overzealous prosecution (excerpt below):

TECHDIRT: Tomorrow is the anniversary of the unfortunate passing of Aaron Swartz. Senators John Cornyn and Al Franken, along with Rep. Darryl Issa, have now sent Attorney General Eric Holder yet another request for an explanation concerning the investigation and prosecution of Swartz. This follows on a similar request from last year, but these elected officials note both that the DOJ's response was inadequate, and that it was also contradicted by the eventual report on the prosecution that came out of MIT....
 

The MIT Report indicates that Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann considered other factors in advance of the return of the superseding indictment. He told MIT that "the straw that broke the camel's back" was an internet webpage soliciting signatures on Mr. Swartz's behalf by Demand Progress, an activist group founded by Mr. Swartz.

In other words, despite the claims from Holder that the charges against Aaron were not based on Swartz exercising his right to free speech, Stephen Heymann has since admitted that, in fact, Swartz's friends speaking out on his behalf were what made him decide to try to throw the book at Swartz....

Indeed, those of us at Demand Progress did attempt to fight the DOJ's ridiculous prosecution of Aaron Swartz, and Eric Holder's minions responded by adding more trumped up charges against my friend. This has been an unpleasant reminder that those of us fighting for the common good must prioritize justice over party politics. But in the meantime, please:
 

#OccupyLife

JON CARDIN INTERVIEW PART 3: Attorney General Candidate Talks About Marriage Equality, Lockheed Martin, Taxes & More

This is part 3 of 3 of Maryland Juice writer Dan Furmansky's exclusive interview with Delegate Jon Cardin (a candidate for Attorney General).

ARTICLE 3 OF 3: JON CARDIN ON THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY FIGHT, WELFARE FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN, AND CORPORATE INFLUENCE


SECTION 1: JON CARDIN ON THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY FIGHT
DAN FURMANSKY: On your website you call yourself a strong advocate of marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights, including transgender equality. You know I was the executive director of Equality Maryland from 2003-2008 and I lobbied in 2009 for them, so obviously I have an unique vantage point of who I see as a strong early supporter, and I probably wouldn’t place you in that category. I mean, I would not place you in that category.

JON CARDIN: Because I didn’t cosponsor the bill?

DAN FURMANSKY: You didn’t cosponsor the marriage equality bill in 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011 and you didn’t speak up publicly for the legislation either, and I do recall instances where you were on the radio talking about civil unions long after the marriage equality train had left the station.

And I don’t believe you cosponsored the legislation to ban discrimination transgender Marylanders. That doesn’t negate the fact that you voted the right way on these issues, and quietly committed your vote early on to your colleagues. But you weren’t out there and in front. So given that you’ve taken a backseat on issues like LGBT rights, where the current AG was very bold with his opinion about out-of-state marriages, why would Marylanders who deeply care about these issues trust you to fight for them in the future?

JON CARDIN: Okay, I would respectfully disagree. I would only say that I came out publicly, uh, in support of the legislation every year that it came up. I believed that the legislation, it could have been done better and I, in fact, what you didn’t hear but I was saying is that I believe that all marriages ought to be civil unions. And I still believe that we should not have religion be involved in marriage, period.

DAN FURMANSKY: We don’t really. All we do is allow for clergy to sign to marriage licenses and act as agents of the state in this regard. We certainly should allow anyone to sign a marriage license and act as an agent of the state.

JON CARDIN: Okay, fine. Let anybody, or let only agents of the state do it that are really agents of the state—judges, clerks of the court, captains of ships, whatever it is. That’s my own personal belief and look, if I’m going to tell you, that’s the way I think it ought to be. I think that solves everybody’s problems and it upsets all groups basically…it upsets all groups equally. That’s my own…

DAN FURMANSKY: …I don’t agree…if we didn’t have a system whereby civil marriage is the terminology in the case law, in how family courts dealt with it…

JON CARDIN: The year before, when I was on the Marc Steiner show, before he left WYPR, along with the two, the couple, the female couple…

DAN FURMANSKY: …Lisa Polyak and Gita Deane…

JON CARDIN: Yes. I was on there with them and they pushed me on this. I made it clear that…was my philosophy. It wasn’t that I was saying we should just have a civil unions bill. Of course, I would have supported whatever wound up coming out. It wasn’t in my committee so I didn’t have a chance to necessarily be an author and doing amendments. It wasn’t an area in which I had enough street credit to be able go out and start amending the bill. Now, the year it didn’t pass, the year when Jill Carter walked out on it, you hopefully would recall that I stood on the floor, after I talked to my constituents, my very emotional constituents, who demonized me, by the way, demonized me for not being a cosponsor, told me that they would do everything they could in their efforts to make sure that I would not get re-elected simply because I didn’t cosponsor it. I found that to be so incredibly insulting as someone who made it clear that I was a supporter of the legislation, just because I didn’t cosponsor it.

When I say co-sponsorship is meaningless, it is really meaningless in the broader scheme of legislation. There are bills that have one sponsor and they get passed. And then there are bills that get 85 sponsors and they don’t even see the light of day in committee.

DAN FURMANSKY: Sure. But co-sponsorships can be a barometer for the general public about how much support there is behind a piece of legislation.

JON CARDIN: I’m not disagreeing with you that there is an opportunity there but the fact is that as an organization of advocates, there needs to be more sophistication because you don’t want to alienate your proponents, your supporters. I made it clear that I was going to be a supporter, even if I didn’t agree with 100% of it. This happens not just with this bill but with any bill, it happens within the environmental community. There’s lots of bills where I get upset because I want to know the specific details, the specifics, and there are lots of bills that I don’t agree with but I want to support the concept and I’m going to sometimes have to close my nose or close my eyes and just vote…but I came out and I publicly supported the bill on the floor, not knowing that they didn’t have the votes. I didn’t realize at that moment when I got up there and I supported it that they didn’t have the votes. And they didn’t. And I was floored when it was withdrawn.

DAN FURMANSKY: You mean that we didn’t have the votes?

JON CARDIN: Yeah, we, they being the Whip and the Speaker. When I say “they,” I mean the Whip and the Speaker. So I was floored when that happened. I was amazed that I was still being demonized. But I supported it. And then the next year, the law, you being the advocates who came around, lost a dozen cosponsors, but you got two: me and the Speaker. And it passed that year, with a loss of a dozen cosponsors. Now, I think that’s a very telling story. And have always been, I mean, look at my voting record. You can call me out on the DREAM Act if you want to, that’s fine. But in terms of equal protection of the LGBTQ community, I would say I am as…

DAN FURMANSKY: Your record is solid, no doubt about that. I was just calling out your characterization of being a strong and early supporter.

JON CARDIN: Hmm, I mean…I could go into my own, constituency, where they come from and all of that. The fact is, that’s what I believe and I’m happy to stick by my record.

SECTION 2: JON CARDIN ON CORPORATE TAX CUTS & THE MINIMUM WAGE

DAN FURMANSKY: Many forces in the General Assembly support tying the lowering of the corporate tax rate to a raise in the minimum wage, despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Marylanders already support the long-overdue minimum wage increase. And I guess according to Gonzales polling I saw this morning, an overwhelming number of Democratic Party voters are opposed to the lowering of the corporate tax rate as well. What’s your take on this?

JON CARDIN: I think that this is probably one of the more contentious issues that’s going to be, if there’s any, this year, an election year, this is one of them. We all want to see people be able to afford to live in our communities working…on…low wages. And so we want to make sure that’s available. We also want to make sure that companies can survive so that we have an employment base here in the state, so you know, it’s going to be a good solid debate and I’m looking forward to figuring out how we can bring those two together.

DAN FURMANSKY: So, are you inclined to support the lowering the corporate tax rate?

JON CARDIN: I’m inclined to…see movement. Whether it be on one or the other, and if it means bringing them together...philosophically I don’t have a problem with that.

DAN FURMANSKY: I had a conversation with your colleague, Delegate Ariana Kelly, who has been a big proponent of paid parental leave, which every other country in the world has. I don’t even know if we have one state that has mandated this. And I said to her: don’t you wish we were tying a lowering of the corporate tax rate to something truly controversial that needs movement such as paid parental leave, as opposed to the minimum wage increase?

JON CARDIN: Uh, I could see that. I mean, I’m not sure how much traction a paid parental leave bill is going to have, but…

DAN FURMANSKY: Fair enough. It just seems like the minimum wage increase should be a foregone conclusion and shouldn’t be the stepsister or stepbrother of the corporate tax rate.

JON CARDIN: Yeah. Well look, the other thing, I know that progressives think that we all, we, and me, as a progressive, we know we’re right. But we also have to get things done. And how do you do that? We live in a democracy. In a democracy we have to get…seventy-one votes in order to pass a bill. How do we make sure that happens? So…you don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

SECTION 3: JON CARDIN ON CORPORATE WELFARE FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN

DAN FURMANSKY: You were the only candidate for Attorney General who supported a bill this year that provided tax break for Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s most profitable companies. In a year when we saw the gas tax raised on Marylanders, how do you justify giving away Montgomery County tax dollars against the wishes of the Montgomery County Council?

JON CARDIN: In my opinion, that is an issue of fairness. And if we’re interested in taxing Lockheed Martin, which provides over a $100 million to the state of Maryland in fees and taxes, then let’s tax them. But don’t use a law that…a policy that has been created that is not appropriate to that particular company. That’s my… there needs to be transparency on that. Let’s be perfectly honest. They are taxing them as a hotel, and the facility that is being taxed as a hotel isn’t a hotel. And that to me is disingenuous. And, there needs to be, just…look, if they need the half million dollars they are getting from them, then tax them. Put it in a bill that taxes them. But don’t try and suggest that it is something that it is not because you can’t get that bill passed.

DAN FURMANSKY: Lockheed Martin was aware of the tax when they built the facility and from what I understand they have housed people beyond just Lockheed employees. They house contractors there, vendors there, other people they welcome. And there have been occasions where they have required individuals to stay at that facility and not allowed them to stay at other hotels in Montgomery County, which of course all have to apply the lodging tax.

JON CARDIN: I have no comment on that because I have not heard any of that.

SECTION 4: JON CARDIN ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM & REDISTRICTING

DAN FURMANSKY: Ok…let’s move on and talk about good government bills. Good stuff, right? So we had a big year for campaign finance reform in Maryland and you’ve been a strong proponent of this for several years, including for public financing of legislative races. Thumbs up! What do you believe are the next steps for expanding transparency – particularly by special interests such as corporations and independent expenditures?

JON CARDIN: Well, let’s pass the public funding bill. That’s a great way to do it. We’ve just passed some amazing piece of legislation out of the campaign finance commission, to increase transparency on independent expenditures, as well as on special interest contributions, requiring addition reporting dates, and lowering the threshold of the reporting in terms of the amounts of money. I think those are really good changes and I would like to continue to see that. Everybody has… the First Amendment right to make contributions, but it’s just that we also have a right to have complete and total transparency. And that’s where I think we ought to go. And I think that once we have a public funding system that is functioning and working, you’re going to see people having to really justify why they’re using significant dollars from very small numbers of special interests.

DAN FURMANSKY: You voted to support the congressional redistricting map that some say was an exercise in political gerrymandering that spliced and diced communities and diluted minority neighborhoods. The map was upheld as constitutional by the federal courts and upheld by a majority of voters, some who cast their ballots as a badge of allegiance to the Democratic Party. All of that aside, do you believe we need a new process for redistricting in Maryland and, if so, what would that look like and how would we get there?

JON CARDIN: As chairman of the Election Law Committee, I am very open to looking at new ways of doing redistricting. There [are] obviously other practices out there across the country. As an unapologetic Democrat, I will say that I use caution when I think about these things because Maryland is one of two states where…there is a partisan nature to it and it is owned by the Democrats, which have the majority. And the other…15 states that do this are all Republican and then the rest of them are nonpartisan. So there are nonpartisan ways of doing it, there is setting up commissions that makes the recommendations…and I’m totally up for doing that.

The question is… gerrymandering is…has its good aspects and its bad aspects. But the fact is while we want to make things simpler and more representative, we also want to make sure that minorities are adequately represented, that communities are not somehow disenfranchised by being cut through…an artificial boundary that is done for political purposes. And so…I think there has got to be a balance that is struck.

SECTION 5: JON CARDIN ON 2014 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

DAN FURMANSKY: Any particular legislation that you are working on for in 2014 that you’re excited about and you think it has a chance of passing?

JON CARDIN: We have our, um, revenge porn legislation. We call it cyber sexual assault but you and the rest of the press will call it revenge porn.

DAN FURMANSKY: I didn’t….

JON CARDIN: Again, maybe not you but the rest…

DAN FURMANSKY: I will call it what you call it.

JON CARDIN: Cyber sexual assault, which would criminalize putting up pornographic images of another person without their consent. Simply put, it is…it is criminal to jeopardize somebody’s reputation, their job prospects, their family relationships and their psychological and emotional stability, simply because you click the mouse and put their picture up on a public website.

Number two: trying to…a bill that is geared towards reducing sexual assault on college campuses.

Campaign finance reform, obviously, with public funding of campaigns.

There is a gaping loophole in the gun legislation, which, as you know, there is a seven-day waiting period, and if you don’t have…if the background check is not done within seven days, a seller is allowed to give a purchaser the gun without having the background check completed, which I cannot believe, fathom, that that loophole is in there, but it’s permitting these guns to be put out. I think there has been examples of more than thirty individuals who have gotten guns that have been prohibited because of a background check reveal that they were not eligible for a certain reason having to do with their criminal records. And we’re going try to close that loophole.

The last thing is, I want to dedicate, I did put it in last year and I’ll put it in again. I want to dedicate 100% of the revenue of ammunition and firearms sales to screenings for the disabled and for the mentally impaired.

[Andy Carton, Cardin’s campaign manager: Sexual orientation conversion therapy].

JON CARDIN: Oh yeah, another one that we drafted, I don’t know if we pre-filed it, but I think we’re going to pre-file it, is to criminalize the use of sexual orientation diversion programs…otherwise known as...

…What do they call it? [asking Andy Carton]

[Carton: Gay therapy…]

Gay therapy…anti-gay therapy.

DAN FURMANSKY: Otherwise known as reparative therapy.

JON CARDIN: Reparative therapy…which I wanted to put in last year and I spoke to the Equality Maryland leadership and they did not want us…they did not want to focus on that issue last year.

DAN FURMANSKY: Are they now more enthusiastic about its prospects and putting support behind it?

JON CARDIN: They are much more enthusiastic.

DAN FURMANSKY: Is this your dream job—Attorney General of Maryland?

JON CARDIN: Yeah. I think that given my background, my legal background and legislative accomplishments, this is exactly where I can realize my potential. And I think that Marylanders want somebody who is both progressive and pragmatic, so I’d love to be that guy.

DAN FURMANSKY: Anything else you want to say to Maryland Juice readers?

JON CARDIN: My daughter is nearly two… Have you heard me tell this…?

DAN FURMANSKY: I have not.

JON CARDIN: My daughter is nearly two and…before she learned how to walk, she was already playing music on my wife’s iPhone and has maintained a complete relationship with her grandparents over Skype. So this is a new world that…our kids are wired to and they are wired to it, and growing up in it. And whether its cyber bullying, cyber security, online privacy, uh, environmental protection, getting trash out of the Bay: this is the next frontier that we’re going to have to contend with. As Attorney General, I think I can deal with the next generation issues, and focus on the old, persistent problems that you brought up…the agricultural certainty and point source and non point source pollution.

DAN FURMANSKY: Great. Thank you, thank you for the time!

POLL: Maryland Democrats & Republicans Divided on Pot Legalization, Gun Control, Immigration & Marriage Equality

Goucher College released a new poll last week highlighting Marylanders' opinions on a range of issues including marijuana, marriage equality, gun control and immigration reform. Below you can see the results of the poll, including breakdowns by political party affiliation and race. I've flagged a few of the more interesting results below.

STATEWIDE SUMMARY: The major items in Goucher's statewide poll reveal that:

• 72% of Marylanders think marriage equality either changed things for the better or had no effect, while only 23% think it changed things for the worse. 

• On gun control, 54.5% of voters think the new gun regulations were about right or not strict enough, while only 26.6% think they were too strict. 

• On immigration, 53.4% of Marylanders support allowing undocumented immigrants to keep their jobs and apply for citizenship, while only 25.9% think we should kick undocumented immigrants out of their jobs and the country. 

• On the War on Drugs, 50.9% of Marylanders support or strongly support marijuana legalization, whereas 40.3% of residents oppose or strongly oppose legalization. 

• But on the issue of whether jail time is an appropriate penalty for marijuana possession, only 5.8% of Marylanders support criminalizing marijuana. In contrast, 82.6% of residents support changing the penalty for possession to a ticket or rehab.

DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS DIVIDED ON MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION, GUN CONTROL, IMMIGRATION AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY - When you consider that Maryland is effectively a one-party state (where most high-profile races are won in the Democratic Primary), it becomes useful to take the statewide polling numbers above with a grain of salt. Indeed, when you restrict the survey results to only Democrats or Republicans, the results shift quite a bit and reveal partisan divides on these hot-button issues.

A strong majority of Democrats, Independents and third party residents support marijuana legalization, whereas Republicans were the only group where respondents were more likely to oppose than to support legalization. But even still, nearly 2 in 5 Republicans support legalization (aka almost half). On immigration, a super-majority of Democrats support allowing undocumented immigrants to stay and seek citizenship, but Republicans were divided with 39% seeking to kick them out, and 31% allowing them to stay and seek citizenship. You can see my table summarizing the survey results by party below:

Democrats

• 64% Support Allowing Undocumented Immigrants to Stay in Jobs & Seek Citizenship
• 57% Support Marijuana Legalization
• 44% Think Marriage Equality Had No Effect
• 35% Think Marriage Equality Changed Things for the Better
• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• 35% Oppose Marijuana Legalization
• 20% Support Kicking Undocumented Immigrants Out Of Their Jobs & the Country
• 18% Think Marriage Equality Changed Things for the Worse
• 13% Support a Temporary Guest-Worker Program for Undocumented Immigrants

Republicans

• 55% Oppose Marijuana Legalization
• 39% Want Undocumented Immigrants Out of their Jobs & the Country
• 39% Think Marriage Equality Had No Effect
• 38% Support Marijuana Legalization
• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• 34% Think Marriage Equality Changed Things for the Worse
• 31% Support Allowing Undocumented Immigrants to Stay in Jobs & Seek Citizenship
• 19% Think Marriage Equality Changed Things for the Better
• 18% Support a Temporary Guest-Worker Program for Undocumented Immigrants

RESULTS BY RACE FOR MARIJUANA AND IMMIGRATION - There are a few more interesting items in Goucher's polling crosstabs (which you can read below), but I would note a couple tidbits. A strong majority of black Marylanders support marijuana legalization, though a majority of white Marylanders also support legalization. The non-white/non-black category is the only race group where more respondents opposed than supported legalization, albeit by a slim margin of 3%. Black Marylanders were also the strongest supporters of immigrant rights, with 62% of black respondents supporting allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in their jobs and seek citizenship. You can read the polling memos below:

Goucher College November 2013 Poll Crosstabs on Marijuana, Marriage Equality & Immigration

Goucher College November 2013 Poll on Marijuana, Marriage Equality & Immigration

HOLY MOLY: Delegate Sam Arora Has Decided to Throw In the Towel // Anti-Marriage Equality Lawmaker Retiring After 2014

UPDATE: Sam Arora told The Washington Post's John Wagner last night that "electability did not factor heavily" into his retirement decision. Meanwhile, The Washington Blade reminded readers that "the Montgomery County Democrat’s subsequent vote against the measure that Gov. Martin O’Malley signed into law in 2012 sparked outrage among LGBT rights advocates–and prompted his then-legislative director to resign." America Blog also weighed in on the retirement decision, noting that "Arora never was able to explain the bizarre flip-flop, and later tried to deny that he’d flip-flopped at all.... Arora was expected to see some strong challengers, and strong opposition, in next June’s Democratic primary for his seat."

Maryland Juice just received a forwarded email blast from Delegate Sam Arora announcing he is retiring from office after he completes his term in 2014. Arora has been under sustained criticism for pledging to support marriage equality and then voting against it in the House of Delegates (without explanation). You can see an excerpt from his blast below:

SAM ARORA: My 2014 Plans - I have heard from so many supporters in recent months, and I am grateful for their overwhelming encouragement urging me to continue serving District 19. As I listened, I also weighed the caliber of effort I expect of myself when representing our community in the General Assembly, the demands of helping to lead a rapidly expanding family business in a challenging economy, and how to care for my family well during this season of life.

When my term of office concludes in January 2015, I plan to return full time to my work in the private sector. Fighting for you in the House of Delegates is an extraordinarily rewarding experience, and I am honored anew each day by the opportunity to serve you. After my term, I look forward to continuing to advocate for working families, job growth, and better government as a private citizen.

I am proud of what we have accomplished together so far, including streamlining the mortgage refinance process to protect thousands of homeowners from foreclosure; enacting a provision I authored to close a special interest tax loophole that was siphoning tens of millions of dollars from our state; safeguarding Marylanders from financial abuse; protecting our first responders; and cracking down on illegally trafficked guns. In addition, we brought millions of dollars back to District 19 in needed capital investments.

And I look forward to working for you in Annapolis during the 2014 session, when I plan to continue focusing on creating jobs, strengthening our small business climate, protecting vulnerable populations, and finding creative solutions to our community’s enduring challenges.As always, I continue to post frequent updates on Twitter and Facebook and invite you to connect with me online (or email or call me anytime).

A weakened Sam Arora was already drawing potential challengers into the June 2014 Democratic Primary in District 19. But now that there is a guaranteed open seat, I expect strong interest for Arora's seat. More on that soon!

Doug Gansler Disavows Surrogate's Anti-Immigrant Writings // Councilmember Nancy Navarro & Pundit Todd Eberly Weigh In

Yesterday Maryland Juice wrote about an unforced error from Attorney General Doug Gansler's gubernatorial campaign. During his campaign kickoff a few weeks ago, Gansler released a video highlighting testimonials from a few surrogates, including retired police offer Mike Mancuso. But we noted that Mancuso has written pieces in local newspapers scapegoating immigrants for budget problems during our recent recession. Below we provide a few updates to this story including a response from Gansler, as well as commentary from Montgomery County Councilmember Nancy Navarro and political pundit Todd Eberly:

JUICE #1: DOUG GANSLER DISAVOWS ANTI-IMMIGRANT VIEWS OF SURROGATE MIKE MANCUSO - Today, The Washington Post's John Wagner published a response from Attorney General Doug Gansler to news of his supporter's anti-immigrant writings (excerpt below):

WASHINGTON POST: The gubernatorial campaign of Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) on Thursday disavowed views on immigration expressed in 2010 by a retired Montgomery County police officer who appeared in a recent Gansler campaign video....

The blog Maryland Juice reported Thursday that in 2010 Mancuso wrote a couple of opinion pieces in local papers, including The Washington Post, in which he accused Montgomery officials of not doing enough to address the county’s No. 1 budget problem: “an ever-increasing population of illegal immigrants that is rapidly depleting our tax dollars and services....”

“Mr. Mancuso’s later views on immigration certainly do not reflect the views of the attorney general and his campaign for governor,” [Gansler spokesman Bob] Wheelock said. “Indeed, Doug has been a national leader on immigration reform and worked tirelessly to ensure passage of the Dream Act here in Maryland....”

JUICE #2: MOCO COUNCILMEMBER NANCY NAVARRO RESPONDS TO MANCUSCO'S WRITINGS - Maryland Juice received the following response to our story on the controversy from Montgomery County Councilmember Nancy Navarro:

NANCY NAVARRO: I was deeply disturbed to read your article about gubernatorial candidate Doug Gansler putting an anti-immigrant former Montgomery County police officer front and center in his campaign kick-off video. Even though I support Anthony Brown for governor, I continue To think highly of Doug Gansler. In many conversations I've had with Doug over the years, he has always spoken proudly of the "welcoming community" we have in Montgomery County. Unfortunately, this campaign video sends  a completely different message to our proud immigrant community. 

JUICE #3: POLITICAL PUNDIT TODD EBERLY WEIGHS IN ON GANSLER CONTROVERSY - Todd Eberly, a political pundit in Maryland, pushed back on the relevance of this story in a series of Tweets today (samples below):

NOW THERE ARE 2: Meet Our New Writer Dan Furmansky // HIS DEBUT: Fillmore Silver Spring Welcomes Anti-Gay Act

Meet Maryland Juice's new writer: Dan Furmansky

OUR NEW JUICER: MEET DAN FURMANSKY - Maryland Juice is proud to introduce a new writer to our upstart progressive blog!  Meet Dan Furmansky, a social justice advocate who formerly served as the head of Equality Maryland and Standing on the Side of Love. Below we provide a little bit of background on Dan, followed by his very first Maryland Juice post. Note that Dan is no stranger to Annapolis politics and has even been written about in the papers due to his work on various issue campaigns:

• "There's no doubt that Furmansky was sort of like a superhero working to protect the rights of GLBT Marylanders...." - Baltimore City Paper, June 2008

• "Throughout history, there have been few LGBT leaders the community could directly turn to when we needed political strength and influence. Yet, we have been fortunate that Dan Furmansky has been such a leader, as he provided passion, eloquence and dedication in the face of discrimination, virulent anti-gay rhetoric and weak-kneed politicians...." - Baltimore Out Loud, November 2008

Though we are still ironing out the details of his transition to Maryland Juice, Dan decided to jump right into his new writing duties by flagging an emerging controversy in Montgomery County. The Fillmore, a Silver Spring concert venue, decided to book a reportedly anti-gay band called "Molotov" to perform this August. The Fillmore is a LiveNation owned venue that generated some measure of controversy when it was built with $8 million in taxpayer incentives to bring the venue to downtown Silver Spring. In any case, you can read Dan's thoughts on the matter below, along with some information about his background and work history. In the meantime, if you've got juice for Dan or just want to reach out, you can contact him at dan@marylandjuice.com.

ABOUT DAN FURMANSKY - Dan Furmansky has worked for 15 years as a social justice advocate focused on addressing civil rights issues, economic and environmental justice, animal welfare, fair and impartial courts, and global hunger and poverty. Currently, he is an independent consultant offering communications, political strategy, and organizational management support to several non-profit organizations.

For two years, Dan was director of a national, interfaith public advocacy campaign, Standing on the Side of Love, helping individuals translate their faith into action on behalf of marginalized communities. He worked for five years as executive director of Equality Maryland, where he grew the organization ten-fold, launched a marriage equality campaign in the courts, the court of public opinion, and the legislature, and successfully led efforts to pass a hate crimes law, Montgomery County's transgender anti-discrimination law, and multiple bills to provide rights for domestic partners.

He has served as a spokesperson in numerous print, radio and television interviews and appearances, including CNN, “The Bill O’Reilly Show,” NPR, Washington Post, and the New York Times. Dan has been honored with the EPA EnergyStar Congregation Award; the DC Capital Pride Hero award; the Washington Peace Center Justice Award; the Gerald B. Roemer Community Service Award from the Dept. of Justice, and the Cornerstone Award from the Jewish Funds for Justice.

He has served on the boards of the Equality Federation, Progressive Maryland, and the Public Justice Center of Maryland. In addition to his political work, Dan proudly officiates weddings, helping couples create personalized, meaningful ceremonies: www.ameaningfulday.com. He lives in Silver Spring, Md. with his husband, Jonathan.

JUICE #1 BY DAN FURMANSKY: Montgomery County Subsidizes Hate? - Below Maryland Juice blogger David Moon publishes Dan Furmansky's first piece of juice, which highlights an emerging controversy regarding an anti-LGBT music act coming to Montgomery County. Dan targets the Fillmore Silver Spring concert venue for hosting a controversial Mexico City rock-rap band called Molotov. Note that Maryland Juice is no stranger to protests over inflammatory speech, as we previously zinged the fast-food chain Chik-Fil-A for supporting anti-gay sentiment, Fox News Baltimore for trying to steer viewers to an anti-marriage equality petition, and hardware store Lowe's for caving to Islamophobia. But the band Molotov is no stranger to protests over its anti-gay (and sexist) lyrics (excerpt from Wikipedia below):

WIKIPEDIA: Puto is a song by the Mexican band Molotov from their album ¿Dónde Jugarán las Niñas?. The word puto literally translates as "man-whore", which is often used as a derogatory term for gay males in Mexican Spanish, similar to the American slang word faggot. It is also used to mean "bastard". The term, as many other homophobic slur in Mexican Spanish is also used to describe an unmanly act such as cowardice. Although the song itself allegedly follows the latter connotation in which the group is mocking those who do not stand up for themselves, the lyrics do not only include "puto," but also "marica," and "joto," other homophobic slurs. The band faced criticism when the song was interpreted as a slur against homosexuals. As a result, the group's first tour in Germany was met with crowds of angry gay and lesbian protestors.

 A few years ago a New York blogger highlighted Molotov's inflammatory lyrics and translated the words to their song "Puto" (excerpt below):

So you are macho man, no? Ah, so macho, no?
Faggot, girly, you're rather a little male-whore, no?

Background chorus: Fag, Fag, Fag, Fag, Fag. Fag, Fag, Fag

FAG!! He who doesn't jump up and down
FAG!! He who doesn't shout and swear
FAG!! The guy who remained in conformity
FAG!! He who believed the official reports
FAG!! He who takes away our food
FAG!! Also he who covers it up
FAG!! He who doesn't do whatever he wants
FAG!! Born a fag, dies a fag

Love the killer
Kill the faggot
And what does that son of a bitch want?
He wants to cry, he wants to cry

 With that being said, check out Dan Furmansky's first piece below:


DAN FURMANSKY: Montgomery County and the State of Maryland spent $8 million of our taxpayer dollars subsidizing the establishment of the Fillmore in Silver Spring.  As a Silver Springer, I was thrilled when it opened. I love live music, and like to see our downtown become increasingly dynamic.

So I was particularly pissed off to read this morning that the Fillmore is hosting an anti-gay Mexico City-based band that has prompted radio bans and concert protests:

Reports the Blade (excerpt below):

WASHINGTON BLADE: The scheduled appearance next month in Silver Spring, Md., of a controversial hip-hop act from Mexico that uses the phrase “kill the faggot” in one of its songs has prompted LGBT activists to consider holding a protest outside the theater where the band is set to perform on Aug. 26.

LGBT Latino activists familiar with the popular Mexico City band Molotov say the Spanish language lyrics in several of its songs include the words “puto” and “maricon,” which sometimes are used in different ways but are widely interpreted as a slur against gay men.
Gay Latino activist and blogger Andres Duque of New York City, who’s a native Spanish speaker from Colombia, told the Blade that one of Molotov’s most controversial and popular songs is entitled “Puto” and repeats that word more than a dozen times.

Duque said that while the word is sometimes used to describe a male prostitute and a coward it is most often interpreted as “fag” or “faggot.”

A spokesperson for the Fillmore Silver Spring Theater, where Molotov is scheduled to appear for a one-time performance on Aug. 26, did not return calls from the Blade seeking comment as of late Tuesday.

“We are considering a protest at the theater,” said Alex McNeill, a spokesperson for the statewide LGBT group Equality Maryland. “We want people to know that most Latino people don’t agree with the lyrics that use ‘puto.’ We want to make sure people know the word is hurtful....”

Why in the world would the Fillmore court this controversy, here in Montgomery County, no less? Did they think we wouldn’t notice? This is unacceptable.

I’m all about free speech. The Fillmore has every right to put on whatever act they want. But we also have every right to protest and let the Fillmore know that they are officially on notice. Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to support a band who uses lyrics like “Born a fag, dies a fag, Love the killer,
Kill the faggot.”

And you know what? I don’t want to forfeit a perfectly good summer evening protesting in front of the Fillmore. This is one show that must not go on.

Montgomery County lawmakers need to lean on the Fillmore to cancel this act ASAP.

Please register your disgust as well. Call the Fillmore at 301.960.9999, Tweet at them, and send them an email: http://fillmoresilverspring.com/#

Dan Furmansky is a social justice activist and consultant to progressive non-profit organizations.

Sen. Roger Manno's Aide Maricé Morales Wants to Replace Sam Arora // PLUS ANOTHER MYSTERY: Is Sam Pro or Anti-Choice?

UPDATE: Maryland Juice received the following letter from folks at NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland taking issue with our anonymous sourcing on that story. Though I cannot divulge my sources, the article was not at all meant to imply anything about how Arora and NARAL might interact in the future. In fact, a few politicos who contacted me after publication suggested that the jury was still out on the freshman lawmaker's views on abortion and related issues. Blog articles notwithstanding, NARAL itself obviously plans an open and transparent survey process. We will be following this story (and the role of reproductive rights in 2014) in the future, but next time we'll be sure to check in directly with the NARAL staff!

Dear Maryland Juice: In your June 29, 2013 post about Delegate Sam Arora's position on women's reproductive rights, you incorrectly attributed your source as an insider at NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland. No NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland staff or officers, nor NARAL Pro-Choice PAC board members were interviewed for your article. NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and its PAC takes pride in our transparent and fair representation of our positions on all matters concerning the advancement of women's rights in Maryland. We would appreciate it if in the future you would check your sources with our organization before issuing anonymous statements. We encourage you, as well as you readers to contact us directly to answer questions about reproductive rights and where elected officials or candidates may stand on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Wendy Royalty, NARAL Pro-Choice MD PAC Chair
Jodi Finkelstein, NARAL Pro-Choice MD Executive Director

Sen. Roger Manno & Maricé Morales

Rumors are aswirl that an aide to District 19 State Senator Roger Manno is plotting a run against Sam Arora in 2014. Arora famously voted against marriage equality during an extremely close vote -- and after promising to support LGBT rights. But the 2010 runner-up to Arora (Jay Hutchins) recently announced he had decided not to run, leaving many wondering if Arora was still going to face a challenge.

But Maryland Juice recently met Manno's Special Assistant Maricé Morales at a political event in Montgomery County, where she confirmed she was plotting a 2014 bid for the House of Delegates.

In addition, at the urging of an anonymous source, I poked around on Sen. Manno's website and was intrigued to see hints that he may indeed be backing Morales, given that his press releases seem to be highlighting her work in the District (excerpt below):

SEN. ROGER MANNO PRESS RELEASE: This evening Senator Roger Manno and Delegate Ben Kramer each received the prestigeous “Shofar Award” for their advocacy on behalf of the Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy (MJBHA) in Aspen Hill.... 

Joining Senator Manno was his Senate Special Assistant, Ms. Marice' Morales, who worked tirelessly with lawmakers and the community throughout the 2013 legislative session to secure passage of the $100,000 capital bond.

Notably, District 19 Democrats are represented by one State Senator (Roger Manno) and three Delegates: Sam Arora, Bonnie Cullison and Ben Kramer.  But a visit to Del. Bonnie Cullison's Facebook page also revealed a photo of Maricé Morales at a recent Cullison fundraiser. Now obviously a photo does not necessarily equal an endorsement, but this is still pretty interesting to see:

And to round it all out, here's Maricé Morales with Sen. Victor Ramirez of Prince George's County:

IS DEL. SAM ARORA PRO-CHOICE OR ANTI-CHOICE? - Strangely, one anonymous source also noted that it is apparently unclear where Sam Arora stands on the issue of reproductive rights. Maryland and Montgomery County politics are weighted toward the pro-choice position, but notwithstanding potential exceptions for rape or incest, a few Maryland Juice sources struggled to figure out where Arora stands on the issue.

A national organization voter education organization called Project Vote Smart attempted to survey Arora on abortion and other issues, but their website only had the following information about Sam Arora's views:

PROJECT VOTE SMART: Sam Arora refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

Nevertheless, Maryland Juice tracked down a 2010 NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland legislative analysis, and Sam Arora is the lone Delegate from Montgomery County who is not listed as a pro-choice lawmaker. Arora is instead listed as "Untested" alongside conservative/moderate Democrats (eg: Steve DeBoy & John Olszewski, Jr.) and Republicans like Kathy Afzali.

At first I thought this could be because no votes on the issue had been taken during Arora's freshman term, but then I realized six additional freshmen from MoCo were rated as pro-choice: Delegates Craig Zucker, Eric Luedtke, Aruna Miller, Ariana Kelly, Bonnie Cullison and Shane Robinson.

AN ANSWER TO THE MYSTERY? - Maryland Juice contacted a knowledgeable source to figure out if there was a story behind Sam Arora being tagged as "Untested" in their analysis. Their response was that in 2010 (ie: his first election for office in liberal MoCo), Sam Arora never returned his candidate survey to NARAL. Hmm.

So does anyone know whether Sam Arora is pro-choice or pro-life? I'm honestly baffled that nobody seems to know the answer to this question. Perhaps one of you knows? If so, please drop a note in the comments section below.

RUMOR: Del. Emmett Burns Retiring? // Baltimore County Dem Fought w/ Ravens' Brendon Ayanbadeo Over Marriage Equality

Del. Emmett Burns

A Maryland Juice source reports that Delegate Emmett Burns of Baltimore County recently announced his retirement from the House of Delegates. Burns, a District 10 Democrat, reportedly gave notice of his plans at a fundraising event for Rainier Harvey -- a candidate for Delegate in District 44B. Note that we haven't yet confirmed this rumor!

Emmett Burns caused an uproar last year when he used the power of his office to chastise Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadeo after the NFL player endorsed marriage equality in Maryland. Yahoo! Sports previously published a copy of Del. Burns' letter to the Baltimore Ravens (excerpt below):

DELEGATE EMMETT BURNS JR: As a Delegate to the Maryland General Assembly and a Baltimore Raven Football fan, I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadeo, would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically, as a Raven Football player....

Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is stricly for pride, entertainment and excitement. I believe Mr. Ayanbadeo should concentrate on football....

I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee.... Please give me your immediate response....

Several Maryland Juice readers are breathing a sigh of relief and proclaiming good riddance to Delegate Burns.  Onward with 2014!

UPDATE: Sam Arora Clarifies Explanation of Marriage Equality Flip-Flop // BTW: Arora Has Less Than $3,000 Cash on Hand

BACKGROUND: Maryland Juice recently published televised comments from Democratic lawmaker Sam Arora where he attempted to explain why he betrayed a promise to support marriage equality legislation. His convoluted response implied that I personally had some sort of political agenda in asking about his flip-flop. Moreover, Arora strangely claimed that he was in fact a supporter of equal rights. This last claim baffled many marriage equality advocates and led an anonymous source to weigh in with harsh comments (excerpt below):

ANONYMOUS SOURCE #1: As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the formal legislative record of him ever exercising his tiny little brain to actually draft an amendment and submit it for his colleagues consideration.  Once again -- he is trying to rewrite history -- and avoid the legitimate scrutiny that his lies deserve....

ARORA CLARIFIES HIS FLIP-FLOP (KIND OF) - Today The Washington Blade followed up with additional coverage of Sam Arora's explanation of his marriage equality flip-flop. Sam responded to a media call from The Blade by revealing evidence of the amendment he was talking about. It turns out that Arora joined Delegates Tiffany Alston and Geraldine Valentino-Smith in trying to turn the marriage equality bill into a civil unions bill. But Arora declined to mention that Alston ultimately voted for the marriage equality bill, while he voted against it. Check out a quick excerpt from The Blade's coverage:

WASHINGTON BLADE:  Maryland Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery County) - who campaigned on a pledge to support a marriage equality bill then voted against it -  has offered his first public explanation for the vote.

"A lot of us wanted the goal of full legal equality for all couples," Arora said during a Jan. 8 segment of NewsTalk with Bruce DePuyt in response to a question from David Moon of Maryland Juice, a website that covers state politics....

Arora also referenced an amendment that he, Del. Geraldine Valentino-Smith (D-Prince George’s County) and former Del. Tiffany Alston introduced that would have replaced marriage with civil unions in the bill - he directed the Washington Blade to it in response to a request for comment on Moon’s question....

The Blade also published comments from Del. Mary Washington highlighting that civil unions were not a serious alternative to the marriage equality legislation being debated at the time:

DEL. MARY WASHINGTON: "We were pushing for full marriage equality and that civil unions has been found to be inadequate," she said. "In fact states that have civil unions are actually now looking to full marriage equality...."

WATCH: Sam Arora Finally Explains Why He Voted Against Marriage Equality // Maryland Juice Corners Him on Live TV

UPDATE: MORE LIES FROM SAM ARORA - AmericaBlog is now weighing in on Sam Arora's explanation for the marriage equality flip-flop, and it sounds like they aren't buying it: "Sam Arora claims didn’t do 180 on gay marriage." In addition, an anonymous reader calls Sam Arora a pathological liar and says his new videotaped response contains more lies. They challenge his assertion that he proposed an amendment to the marriage equality law:

ANONYMOUS READER: At about 1:56 into the first clip -- Sam states "I proposed an amendment" to the marriage bill, suggesting that he was somehow involved in trying to find a path to legal equality for same sex couples (?) other than civil marriage.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the formal legislative record of him ever exercising his tiny little brain to actually draft an amendment and submit it for his colleagues consideration.  Once again -- he is trying to rewrite history -- and avoid the legitimate scrutiny that his lies deserve.

All of the amendments submitted to the marriage bill, in both House & Senate Committees, as well as on the floor of both chambers are shown in the links below.  There is no amendment of any kind offered by Arora - not in Committee and not in the full House.  Note that in 2011 Delegate Cheryl Glenn tried to amend the bill  to civil unions and this failed.  Similarly in 2012, Don Dwyer tried to amend the marriage to civil unions, but this also failed.

In 2011, Sam voted to allow the marriage bill out of Judiciary Committee, and later stated that he did this so that it could be considered on the full floor of the House -- not because he supported the bill.  On the day that the bill was considered in the full House (when it was recommited to the Judiciary Committee without a vote), Sam spoke to the Speaker of the House and told him that if it came for a vote, he (Sam) would vote against the marriage bill. 

In 2012, the gutless weasel abstained from voting when it was considered in Judiciary Committee (because he was hoping it would fail again, and that he would be able to assert factually that he never "voted against" the marriage bill).  Ultimately, he had to vote on the marriage bill in the full House, and he voted against it.

Here are links to the legislative record for the Civil Marriage Protection Act for 2011 & 2012:

SB 116 - 2011: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?ys=2011rs/billfile/sb0116.htm

HB 438 - 2012: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?ys=2012RS/billfile/hb0438.htm

 
SAM ARORA EXPLAINS HIS BETRAYAL ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY (KIND OF) - Below Maryland Juice features Sam Arora's long-awaited explanation for why he voted against marriage equality legislation after claiming he would support it. Last week Sam appeared on News Channel 8's NewsTalk show with host Bruce Depuyt. The freshman member of the Maryland House was asked to preview issues that will be debated in this year's legislative session. But as in the past, News 8 took live calls for their studio guest. Maryland Juice couldn't resist the opportunity to call in and finally try and get an answer out of the secretive lawmaker. In his bizarre and convoluted response, Sam Arora now appears to claim that he was in support of equal rights for same-sex couples. Watch below:

BACKGROUND: Last year, Maryland lawmaker Sam Arora made himself the focal point of national civil rights organizing when he betrayed a campaign promise to support marriage equality (see eg: Sam Arora's Equality Maryland survey promising to co-sponsor marriage equality legislation). Indeed, with LGBT rights advocates struggling to find enough votes for passage in the Maryland House, Arora's turncoat behavior created an extremely tense and uncertain environment.

Ultimately, we know that marriage equality would come to be signed into law and approved by a majority of voters. But even still, Sam Arora's friends, colleagues and constituents have sought an explanation for his betrayal. To this date, they have not received a substantive response. Notably, Sam campaigned on the issue and sought donations from marriage equality supporters. Everyone from Bill Clinton to Kal Penn (aka Kumar from Harold & Kumar) tried to contact him and ask him to keep his promise. As a result of this failure, many have felt that there needs to be a deterrent effect for potential future backstabbers.  Based on Sam's interview below, it seems unlikely they will get what they are looking for without a direct electoral challenge for his seat in 2014.

In any case, below you can watch Sam Arora's explanation for why he voted against marriage equality. I isolated his comments on the issue for the YouTube video below, but I also included his full interview at the bottom of this post.

WATCH SAM ARORA'S FULL INTERVIEW ON NEWS CHANNEL 8

GUEST ANALYSIS: Maryland Lawmakers Who Are Out of Step With Their Voters // PLUS: Baltimore Election Results Mapped

UPDATE: Delegate Galen Clagett sent us a response to the post below, where he explains that though he voted against final passage of the Dream Act, his objection was to any bills that required money that year. See his message below:

DELEGATE GALEN CLAGETT: Dear Juice, I wanted to respond to your posting on December 12 regarding Md lawmakers being perceived as "out of step" with their voters. I saw my name listed as voting against the Dream Act and wanted to clarify something not contained within a simple accounting of votes, that is, a fiscal note.

To be sure, I supported this important legislation when it came before the House previously (and had no fiscal note), I also voted for it as a citizen in November. However, as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I was unwilling to vote for any legislation this year that contained a fiscal note given our current budget situation. As you probably know, sometimes it is not the issue itself but the collateral impact thereof (esp. when it concerns the state budget) that determines how we have to vote.

I am proud to be know as a moderate Democrat and I work very hard to make sure that I represent my constituency in 3A when in Annapolis. As anything, numbers have stories, and those stories provide a great deal more information and perspective than the numbers alone. I would hope that you and your readers keep that in mind when reviewing actions taken during Session.

Sincerely,

Delegate Galen R. Clagett, 3A

Two Maryland Juice sources forwarded us worthwhile items about our state's recent Presidential Election results. The first tidbit is about Maryland lawmakers who may be out of touch with their voters, while the second discussion item is a series of maps depicting how voters in various parts of Baltimore voted in the November elections. We highlight a few of the interesting results below.

JUICE #1: POLITICIANS WHO MAY BE MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THE VOTERS IN THEIR DISTRICT - An anonymous Maryland Juice source forwarded us a list of lawmakers who may be out of touch with their constituents. In particular, they sent us a spreadsheet of election results highlighting politicians who voted against the Dream Act and/or marriage equality, but who represent districts where a majority of voters supported either Question 4 or Question 6. In other words, these politicians may represent districts where the voters are more liberal than the elected officials. For at least some of these officials, these misfires might serve as warning signs that a challenge in a party primary could be more fruitful than they realize. Do elections have consequences?

POLITICIANS WHO OPPOSED THE DREAM ACT BUT WERE OVERRULED BY THEIR BOSSES (AKA THE VOTERS) - The two lists below show politicians who may be out-of-step with their districts. In particular, these politicians voted against the Dream Act but represent districts where a majority of voters voted "for" Question 4 at election day precincts. In short, these politicians misfired on one of the hottest issues in state and national politics this cycle. The Democratic Dream Act opponents below live in districts where voters supported in-state tuition for all Maryland students:

• Sen. James Brochin - [ Democrat ]
• Sen. Anthony Muse - [ Democrat ] - ( also voted against marriage equality )
• Sen. Bobby Zirkin - [ Democrat ]
• Del. John Bohanon - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Jon Cardin - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Galen Clagett - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Pete Hammen - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Sally Jameson - [ Democrat ] - ( also voted against marriage equality ) 
• Del. Steve Lafferty - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Brian McHale - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Dan Morhaim - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Dana Stein - [ Democrat ]

These Republicans live in districts where voters supported the Dream Act:

• Del. Sue Aumann - ( also voted against marriage equality )
• Del. Gail Bates - ( also voted against marriage equality )
• Del. Bill Frank - ( also voted against marriage equality )
• Del. Ron George - ( also voted against marriage equality )
• Del. Patrick Hogan - ( also voted against marriage equality )
• Del. Herb McMillan - ( also voted against marriage equality )
• Del. Warren Miller - ( also voted against marriage equality )

POLITICIANS WHO OPPOSED MARRIAGE EQUALITY BUT WERE OVERRULED BY THEIR BOSSES (AKA THE VOTERS) - The two lists below show politicians who may be out-of-step with their districts. In particular, these politicians voted against marriage equality but represent districts where a majority of voters voted "for" Question 6 at election day precincts. These politicians are not keeping up with their constituents on a major civil rights issue. The Democratic marriage equality opponents below live in districts where voters supported same-sex marriage rights:

• Sen. John Astle - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Sam Arora - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Talmadge Branch - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Steven Deboy - [ Democrat ] - ( also voted against Dream Act )
• Del. Cheryl Glenn - [ Democrat ]
• Del. Melvin Stukes - [ Democrat ]

These Republicans live in districts where voters supported marriage equality:

• Sen. Ed Reilly - ( also voted against Dream Act )
• Del. Gail Bates - ( also voted against Dream Act ) 
• Del. Ron George - ( also voted against Dream Act )
• Del. Michael Hough - ( also voted against Dream Act )
• Del. Tony McConkey - ( also voted against Dream Act ) 
• Del. Herb McMillan - ( also voted against Dream Act ) 
• Del. Warren Miller - ( also voted against Dream Act ) 
• Del. Kathy Vitale - ( also voted against Dream Act )

JUICE #2: SEN. BILL FERGUSON'S MAPS OF BALTIMORE ELECTION RESULTS  -  The second politico tidbit is that State Senator Bill Ferguson of Baltimore City has an interesting new series of maps on his website. Visitors can look at how different neighborhoods of voters in Baltimore weighed in on various ballot items, but we highlight a few interesting examples below:

Question 4 - Dream Act Results in Baltimore: (Green/Yellow = Support, Red/Orange = Oppose)

Question 6 - Marriage Equality Results in Baltimore: (Green/Yellow = Support, Red/Orange = Oppose)

You can check out more maps at Senator Ferguson's website.