Process marred by partisan politics

by David Grand
June 23, 2005

Until recently, I hadn't paid much attention to the progress that seven-member committee were making in breaking down the county into five districts demographically, believing it'd be a simple, uncomplicated undertaking, which even school kids (smart ones) could do.  And I also believed that partisan politics would play no role in the process, and that they'd have little trouble in reaching a consensus as to what the district lines should be.

Boy, was I naive. For even before their first meeting, political intrigue raised its ugly head, when Joe Getty accused the three Democrats of foul play, by having held a clandestine meeting in order to, in his words, "design a district plan that would make it easier to elect Democrats to the Board of Commissioners in 2006." As Democrat Tom McCarron said, that couldn't be further from the truth.

(Gosh, I hope my friend of many year isn't getting paranoid on me, or believes that all Democrats are as sneaky as those he has to deal with in Annapolis as the governor's policy advisor.)

Thinking back, I had raised a quizzical eyebrow when I saw the Republican Central Committee (RCC) had called upon him to serve on the committee. And was also puzzled as to why he accepted the appointment, since the committee's task was strictly a local matter, without any statewide implications whatsoever. I could only surmise that they wanted someone with his political savvy to be their watchdog, to guard against any shenanigans on the part of the Democrats.

The second instance that confirmed my fears that the committee had become a political slugfest was when, at its first meeting, Republican Maurice Wheately whipped out a map he'd already drawn up.

Not so fast, said the Democrats, who weren't about to accept his rendition at face-value, and who questioned his objectivity in drawing the lines as he did. And rightly so, for he's always been on the pro-growth side of the fence; and to my recollection, he never saw a proposed development he didn't like while serving on the county's planning commission.

Michelle Jefferson, former chairman of the (RCC), put it more bluntly in a newspaper article, accusing him of "designing the map so as to unseat the current commissioners, by putting them in districts where they'd be separated from their strongest supporters." Roger that.     

But the bout being fought over the districting is, in reality, only a warm-up for the bigger fight to be fought in next year's election. And not between the two parties but within the Republican party itself, pitting once again the pro-growth side (led by developers and their backers) against the controlled growth side of the equation.

As I understand, that committee is expected to make its decision on June 30, as to which of the two maps-Wheately's or the one prepared in 1998 in conjunction with the charter proposal-that'll be sent to the legislative delegation for its approval.

And there's little doubt in my mind, it'll be Wheately's, based on the assumption, first, that it's the only one the delegation would approve; and, second, that the seventh member Janet Jump, president of the Board of Election and a Republican-who'll be casting the tie-breaking vote-isn't likely to jump over the line and vote for the other version.

But who knows, she might have a "vision," like many present and past county officeholders claim to have had in getting off the donkey's back onto an elephant's.