More than five hundred years ago, political observer and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a timeless and thought-provoking message on resistance to change.

He wrote, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than introducing new ways of doing things. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old ways of doing things and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.”

This observation is being tested by ongoing efforts in Maryland to change the rules relative to participation in and state funding of partisan primary elections. 

This issue is driven in large part by the increasing number of individuals in Maryland who have chosen to register to vote as unaffiliated, often referred to as independents.

In April of this year, more than 22% of registered voters in Maryland were registered as unaffiliated. That number was less than 21% in 2023. 

Another 2% of individuals in Maryland have chosen to register with a third party.

The bottom line is almost a quarter of the registered voters in Maryland are not registered as a Republican or Democratic voter and as a consequence, they cannot vote in primary elections.

One can assume this trend will not only continue, but also accelerate. 

In April of this year, more than 36% of new voter registrations, not changes to existing registrations, were unaffiliated.

In May of this year, five unaffiliated Maryland voters filed a lawsuit in Anne Arundel County District Court. They are working with an advocacy group — Open Primaries Education Fund (not to be confused with the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros).

The plaintiffs in the suit acknowledge political parties may have the right to exclude citizens from their primary elections, but it is unconstitutional for the state of Maryland to organize and pay for those elections.

They claim the only way the state can be in compliance with the state constitution is if the state Democratic and Republican parties fund their respective primary elections or if both parties allow all qualified citizens, regardless of their party affiliation, to vote in primaries.

The defendant in the lawsuit is the Maryland State Board of Elections, the state agency that manages primary elections.

An assistant state attorney general representing the Board of Elections has requested the Anne Arundel County District Court dismiss the lawsuit based on four claims.

One claim is that a lawsuit filed by only five taxpayers is insufficient to establish standing for such a challenge. 

Another claim is that the merits of the unaffiliated voters’ challenge have already been considered and rejected in two previous court decisions–one handed down by a state court and one by a federal court. 

The Supreme Court of Maryland issued a decision that “voters have no right under the state constitution to vote in the primary elections of a party to which they do not belong.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld closed primaries and a political party’s First Amendment right “not to associate” and therefore cannot be required to allow unaffiliated voters to participate in their primary elections. 

Complicating matters further on a judicial resolution on this matter is the opinion of a former senior voting rights attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 

He has said the courts are often reluctant to depart from regular procedures on changing election laws and prefer to seek legislative consideration and action. 

While pursuing changes in the Maryland General Assembly is always an option, recent history is that pursuing open primary legislation in that arena has failed to get traction. 

In the 2023 General Assembly session, one bill was introduced in the Maryland Senate, and one was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates, both on open primaries. 

Each bill only had one sponsor, which is a clear indication that neither bill had even minimal support in the General Assembly. 

As a result, neither bill was voted from committee, an essential step on the always challenging process to enact a new law or revise an existing law in Maryland. 

Also, no open primary legislation has been introduced in the General Assembly since then.

Going forward, I predict two outcomes on some form of open primaries in Maryland. 

I predict that in every court case, including any appeals to higher courts, the definitive decision will ultimately be that any changes to the election laws must be approved by the general assembly and signed by the governor.

I also predict that, without widespread public demand for any election law changes in Maryland, they will never be approved in the General Assembly and by the governor.

If my predictions occur, it will affirm that Machiavelli’s observation –“There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than introducing new ways of doing things” is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it in 1513. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In the nonstop media coverage of discussions, deliberations, debates, and decisions in Congress, there are very few updates that include the words bipartisan cooperation.

Since Donald Trump was sworn into his second term, Congress has been deeply divided, with countless committee and floor votes decided along party lines.

The latest divide in the Senate is not on legislation, but on consideration of President Trump’s most recent slate of nominees for executive and judicial positions that require Senate approval.

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insisted that consideration of these nominees is contingent on President Trump reversing certain federal spending cuts.

Despite this ongoing division, two recent proceedings in the Senate prove that bipartisan cooperation, while relatively rare, can occur.

It happened with the Senate’s Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, which has thirteen Republican senators and eleven Democratic senators.

There are striking differences between all the committee members, but especially so with regard to the chair and ranking minority member.

The committee’s chair is Rick Scott, a conservative Republican Senator from Florida  who is a staunch supporter of President Trump.

The committee’s ranking member is Elizabeth Warren, a progressive Democratic Senator from Massachusetts who is a frequent critic of President Trump.

Despite their differences, Scott, Warren, and their committee colleagues unanimously approved the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream Housing Act of 2025, aka the ROAD Act.

The goals of the legislation include expanding and preserving e America’s housing supply, improving housing affordability, and increasing e oversight and efficiency of federal regulators, and federal housing programs. It is the first bipartisan federal housing bill in over ten years (a period that spans President Trump’s first term and President Biden’s first and only term.)

Following the committee’s unanimous vote on the ROAD Act legislation, Senator Scott said, “[Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren] and I don’t agree on almost anything, but here’s where a place where all Americans agree…Housing prices are too high, the supply too low, and regulations too much. So, we went to work a couple of years ago to get this done. Working together as a committee proves to the American people that we can get things done, and it requires, frankly, bipartisanship.”

Maryland Democratic U.S. Senator Angela Alsobrooks, a member of the committee, recently reinforced that message by telling a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, “It’s important for people to know that these kinds of efforts are happening …in a unified Republican government, that there are still ways that we have been able to try to work together.”

Senator Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican member of the committee, has said, “…we have to work together collaboratively to figure out how to make that dream (more housing) more accessible.”

There has also been bipartisan cooperation on other Senate housing legislation.

Maryland Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen has collaborated with Republican U.S. Senators John Boozman of Arkansas and Tim Scott of South Carolina on legislation to provide more information for military veterans on their home loan options.

Given the current environment in our society and in Congress, it is highly likely that bipartisan cooperation will be the exception, rather than the rule in the near future.

Going forward, bipartisan cooperation in Congress requires at least three key elements.

First, citizens need to relay their concerns and opinions to their members of Congress early and often.

Senator Alsobrooks has said it well. “Housing, I have to tell you, is one of the issues I have heard, and it resonates from every single corner of our state. Work on this particular piece of legislation … is informed by the many, many meetings that I have had with people across the state involving this issue about housing.”

Secondly, citizens need to remember that despite how strongly held their own opinions may be on any given issue, those opinions may not be widely shared by others.

When decisions are made in any legislative body, including Congress, an unwritten rule is that the minority will always have their say, and the majority will always have their way.

Accordingly, citizen positions should be based what is possible and not all that is wanted.

Again, Senator Alsobrooks said it well. “There are many, many things [from the Trump administration] that we are pushing back against. But we’ve also understood that, in order to get things done for our constituents, we’re going to have to find partnerships on the places where we can agree on things to get things done.”

Thirdly, citizens, members of congress, and presidents need to keep in mind that every two-years congressional election are held, and the results determine which political party will have congressional majorities for the following two years.

After those majorities are determined, every member of Congress should be held accountable for their commitment to and results on advancing partisan cooperation to get things done that will help bridge the current deep divides in our society.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Winston Churchill once said, “In times of great uncertainty, look for great opportunities.”

The Maryland state government has been and is operating in times of great uncertainty.

That is especially true when the general assembly and governor have a constitutional mandate to approve a balanced annual state budget and a new administration in Washington.

One great opportunity is the focus of a recent thought-provoking and impossible-to-ignore article in the Baltimore Sun.

The article headline was: “Maryland officials don’t know how much the state spends on nonprofits.”

The opening paragraph of the article says it all. “As Maryland funnels taxpayer dollars to nonprofits each year, neither state budget officials nor individual agencies can say exactly how much money is flowing, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.”

These concerns were affirmed by the chief of staff at the Maryland Department of Budget and Management when he told a Sun reporter, “Many nonprofits receive funds directly from agency grant programs, and we don’t track that centrally.”

Based on that reply, the Sun asked individual Maryland departments and agencies to provide details on the state money they send to nonprofits. The replies were varied and disturbing.

Some departments and agencies responded with specific dollar amounts, some responded that they needed time to determine the amounts and some large state departments responded that they could not provide the information. Those include the Departments of Health, Department of Labor, Department of Human Services and Department of Juvenile Services.

In January of this year, the governor’s director of communications told a Sun reporter that the state money allotted to nonprofits is “a miniscule amount of the budget every year.”

Is it really a minuscule amount?

David Brinkley was director of the Maryland Department of Budget and Management for eight years. Before that while serving in the state Senate, Brinkley was a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.

Brinkley suggested to a Sun reporter that he wouldn’t be surprised if around $1 or $2 billion of the state’s annual budget goes directly to nonprofits.

That begs the question — Is there a way for the state government to be more transparent and accountable with greater details on the matter of providing state funds to nonprofits?

The answer is yes.

In fact, it is already being done at the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy.

That office has a system in place to identify the nonprofit recipients and the amounts of state funding they receive from that office.

The system was launched by Dorothy Lennig, the office’s executive director, who previously served at the House of Ruth, a nonprofit organization that provides domestic violence programs.

About her experience at the House of Ruth, Lennig told a Sun reporter said, “There was always interest in the nonprofit community about who else was getting money. And so, I thought, you know, this is the public’s money, and it should not be a secret where the money goes.”

Indeed. The public has a right to know that information, and the government has an obligation to share it.

Earlier this year, a majority in the general assembly and Governor Moore agreed on new taxes, tax increases, fee increases, budget cuts, and rainy-day fund drawdowns to address a projected state budget deficit.

How many of these changes could have been mitigated or revised with a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonprofits that receive state funds?

Going forward, I am NOT suggesting cuts in state funds sent to nonprofits.

After serving as a nonprofit President and CEO in four state,s including Maryland, I fully understand and greatly appreciate their role and value in our society.

I do suggest there are ways to help ensure state funding for nonprofits is done in such a way that results in a maximum return on investment from that state funding.

To accomplish this, we need a commitment from the governor and every member of the General Assembly to take timely action on implementing the following policies and procedures.

• Use the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy’s transparency and openness program as a model for every state department and agency that provides state funds (and perhaps passes through federal funds) to Maryland nonprofits.
• Regular evaluations of all nonprofits receiving state funds to affirm that their staff and volunteer leadership embrace and follow Peter F. Drucker’s observation: “Not-for-profit organizations need management even more than business. Good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results.”

We need these policies and procedures well before debates, deliberations, and decisions on a new state budget in the 2026 general assembly session.

David Reel is a public affairs consultant, public relations consultant, and a not-for-profit organizational governance, leadership and management consultant who lives in Easton.

The Chesapeake Bay has a long history of challenges to its health and sustainability.

Its ability to not only survive, but also to thrive are threatened by: 

• Regular discharges of untreated wastewater from malfunctioning wastewater treatment plants in Baltimore.
• Runoff from farms, streets, parking lots, and development.
• Sediment discharges from Susquehanna River overflows at the Conowingo Dam. 
• Constantly fluctuating levels of native species.

If history is any indication, the prospects of meaningful action on any of these challenges is not promising. 

There is one constant on all of these challenges. 

When all is said and done about them, a lot has been said, but almost nothing has been done. 

Another serious challenge that has not received widespread attention has been the steadily increasing numbers of blue catfish in the Bay.

Blue catfish are not a new challenge. 

They first appeared in the Bay over fifty years ago after they were originally introduced into rivers on Virginia’s Western Shore. 

All expectations were they would remain in those rivers since conventional thinking was blue catfish prefer a freshwater environment. 

Defying expectations, blue catfish adapted to higher salinity levels more than anticipated. As a result, they successfully migrated into the Bay where their numbers continue to expand.

They were then and continue to be classified as an invasive species. Their numbers are not only increasing in the Bay, but they are also in every major river in Maryland.

Worse yet, they have no natural predators and are voracious predators of other native species such as blue crabs, clams, mussels, oysters, striped bass (rockfish), menhaden, American eel, and other economically and ecologically important species. 

Their appetites are so voracious they have been known to devour small blue catfish. 

Scientists who follow the Bay ecosystem have concluded that completely eradicating blue catfish in the Bay is not realistic. 

Instead, the goal is reducing their numbers in the Bay to a point where native species can at least coexist with them and not become extinct.

Efforts to reduce the blue catfish numbers have had relatively limited success at best.

Ongoing marketing efforts by Maryland’s Department of Agriculture to promote eating blue catfish to chefs, consumers, restaurants, grocery stores, and distributors have not made a dramatic difference in demand.

Apparently, many consumers view blue catfish as foul-tasting muddy water bottom feeders. 

In reality, many who have eaten blue catfish, me included, have found them to be not only edible, but also nutritious, healthy, and delicious.

Even with greater human consumption of blue catfish, more action is needed. 

One way to do that is to significantly increase the overall market for them.

That is the goal of legislation that was introduced in Congress earlier this month, the Mitigation Action and Watermen Support Act, or MAWS Act.

If approved by Congress and by President Trump, the MAWS Act is intended to increase blue catfish harvests for use as dog and cat food.

 

Achieving that goal could lead to greater harvesting of another invasive fish species in the Bay.

Snakehead fish are comparable to blue catfish in terms of being nutritious, healthy, and delicious, despite their unappetizing name and appearance.

Going forward there are encouraging developments on The MAWS Act.

It currently has bipartisan sponsorship with two Republican House members from Virginia — Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans and two Democratic House members from Maryland — Sarah Elfreth and Steny Hoyer. 

Wittman, Kiggans, and Elfreth are also members of the Sub Committee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries of the House Natural Resources Committee. 

The MAWS Act also has support from The Pet Food Institute of America, whose members make the vast majority of dog and cat food purchased by an estimated 65.1 million households in America who have dogs as pets and an estimated 46.5 million households in America who have cats as pets. 

Their president and CEO recently said, “Pet Food Institute is proud to endorse the MAWS Act, … enabling pet food makers to use Chesapeake Bay blue catfish as a high-quality ingredient in complete and balanced cat and dog food,”

Hopefully, timely enactment and implementation of the MAWS Act will not only help the bay with two invasive species but also serve as a catalyst for less talk and more action from elected and appointed national, state, and local officials to address all the Chesapeake Bay Blues. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Following Richard Nixon’s election as President in 1968, John Mitchell, Nixon’s campaign manager, was asked by the media what to expect when Nixon assumed office.

Mitchell said prophetically long before Watergate, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

Those words apply to many candidates for public office today.

The are at least two recent examples in Maryland.

Prior to leaving office after two terms, Republican Governor Larry Hogan announced that he had no interest in running for an open U.S. Senate seat in Maryland, formerly held by Ben Cardin.

Hogan went as far as saying his experience as a business executive and eight years serving as governor left him reluctant to serve in a deeply divided legislative body marked by lengthy and often bitterly partisan dialogue and decision-making.

Then, in February 2024, Hogan entered the Senate race, where he easily won the Republican nomination in a primary election but lost in the general election with 42.8% of votes cast.

In 2022, Wes Moore was elected as Hogan’s Democratic successor with 64.5% of votes cast.

Almost immediately following his election, Moore was widely viewed by political pundits in Maryland, Washington DC, and nationally as a potential presidential candidate in 2028.

To date, Moore has said early and often regularly he is not pursuing that goal.

Despite saying that, it has been most interesting watching media reports of what Moore has done in the political arena during his first term as governor.

Moore:

Spoke at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
Campaigned for Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan.
Campaigned for Democratic candidates in Virginia.
Appeared on The View where Joyce Behar told him he looked “very presidential.”
Interviewed with CNN following his college commencement speech in southeastern Pennsylvania.
Attended an Aspen Colorado fundraiser hosted by Damian O’Doherty, a Maryland political operative and co-founder of Baltimore based KO Public Affairs.
He shared his thoughts on “bold, purposeful leadership” on a podcast with the NBA’s Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr, and CBS Evening News co-anchor John Dickerson.
Delivered a keynote speech at the South Carolina Democratic Blue Palmetto Dinner.
Attended a fish fry hosted by Congressman Jim Clyburn who is widely credited for a Joe Biden 2020 primary campaign resurgence when that campaign was stalled.
Met with former political advisors to Barack Obama and Joe Biden to discuss a presidential path to the White House through South Carolina.
Spoke to hundreds of political insiders in South Carolina about his personal biography and on his record as Maryland Governor.
Spoke at an NAACP “Fight for Freedom” Dinner in Detroit Michigan.
Spoke at the Virginia Democratic Party’s Blue Commonwealth Gala.

Ultimately, all this travel and schmoozing by Moore may be for naught.

Next year, Moore must win both the Democratic primary election and the general election in Maryland.

The conventional wisdom that he will win both is far from a given.

In polling done earlier this year, Moore’s job performance approval fell to 55% from 61% from polling done in the prior month.

These poll results occurred before Moore signed into law a wide range of tax increases, new taxes, fee increases, and new fees that were approved in the 2025 general assembly session.

As I write this, Moore has an opponent in the 2026 Democratic primary and three potential opponents seeking a gubernatorial nomination in the 2026 Republican primary.

He will also have a Green Party candidate in the 2026 general election.

In the case of the Democratic and Republican primaries especially, but not exclusively, there may even be even more candidates deciding to run.

One wild card in the Republican primary is former Governor Hogan.

Despite his failed U.S. Senate run, a survey done after Hogan’s two terms as governor showed he had a 77% job approval rating that included an 81% approval rating with Democratic voters.

Hogan has not yet announced his decision on seeking a third term ,which the state constitution allows since it would not be a third successive term.

Assuming Moore is the successful Democratic candidate for governor, there is also the hard political reality that not meeting expected vote totals in elections that any candidate is expected to win can be an insurmountable roadblock on a journey to the White House.

Preeminent Maryland political analyst Len Foxwell has observed — “What we have seen in the past where prospective gubernatorial candidates and prospective presidential candidates have been derailed because of weaker than expected showings back home.”

Regardless of who is elected Maryland Governor in 2026, voters in that election cycle and every election cycle in Maryland would be best served if there was no longer a regular mismatch between what some candidates of every party affiliation say and what they do.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In an increasingly polarized America, one public policy issue with decades of unresolved and widely divergent opinions has been southern border immigration into America.

On one side are those who feel strongly that deportations of every immigrant who has not followed long established, but not enforced immigration laws, are long overdue, necessary, and proper. 

On the other side are those who feel strongly that mass deportations of southern border immigrants who have not earned legal immigration status is not feasible, needed, or proper. 

One thing is irrefutable. 

Southern border immigration was a huge issue, if not THE issue in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections, when Donald Trump won the Presidency for a second nonconsecutive term and Republicans secured majorities in both houses of Congress. 

Recently, Harry Enten, chief data analyst at left of center CNN did a deep dive on the current state of this issue during the height of the protests in Los Angeles.

The Columbia Journalism Review calls Enten “a new generation of political journalists focusing on data-driven journalism instead of reporting from the campaign trail.” 

Enten has reported that no group has moved more sharply to the right on immigration than southern border immigrants who went through the long and arduous process to become an American citizen.

They followed the rules and waited patiently for the process to be done. They filled out forms, took citizenship tests, paid fees, and often spent years separated from family while following U.S. immigration law to the letter.

According to Enten, since 2020 this group of immigrants have shifted their partisan allegiance toward Republicans by a large margin. 

In 2020, Democrats held a 32-point lead among these voters on the issue of who best to address southern border immigration issues. 

Today, Republicans are up by a 40-point lead resulting in Enten concluding bluntly, “This group of voters in the American electorate believes that “the Democrats don’t have a clue on the issue of immigration.” 

Enten also suggests, “Trump is begging for a fight on this because he knows what he’s doing so far is working with the American electorate. There is no issue on which Trump is doing so much better than he was in his first term, more than the issue of immigration.”

Enten maintained other polls affirm his conclusions. He cites comparable results from CBS and from Ipsos, a multinational research firm headquartered in Paris. 

Enten says, “No matter what poll you look at, no matter which way you cut it, the American  public is with the Republicans. The American public is with Trump.”

Not necessarily and certainly not guaranteed for the long term.

In reviewing survey results, one must remember they are a snapshot at a given point in time.

American voters are often inconsistent and are always unpredictable. Their views on any and all public policy issues are subject to change dramatically.

After relatively peaceful nationwide “No King “protests, right of center Fox News engaged Daron Shaw, a Republican pollster, and Chris Anderson, a Democratic pollster, for a survey. 

Their survey results included an unexpected shift by unaffiliated (independent) voters on the issue of widely publicized ongoing searches for illegal immigrants led by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. 

Those unaffiliated voters are now expressing concern that ICE efforts are “heavy-handed and cast the deportment net too broadly”.

As I write this, there is breaking news on American military action in Iran. 

That will have a profound impact on the results of any future current events polling results, regardless of who conducts the surveys.

For now, the range of issues and their current interest intensity by respondents to the Shaw and Anderson polling are: 

85% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about the future of America.

84% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about inflation.

80% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about government spending.

78% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about Iran.

69% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about antisemitism.

67% of the survey respondents were extremely or very concerned about immigration. 

The mid-term general elections are less than 18 months from now.

It will be interesting to see which issues if any of the above, or new ones yet to emerge, will have the greatest impact on voter views, turnout, and choices in the midterm elections.

Donald Trump will not be on the ballot, but midterm voters will decide party control of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate during the last two years of the Trump administration.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant in Easton. 

Under current Maryland election law, political parties have the power to decide whether or not to hold closed primary elections.

For example, with closed primary elections, only voters registered with the Republican Party can vote in Republican primary elections, and only voters registered with the Democratic Party can vote in Democratic primary elections.

Unaffiliated voters and voters registered with other parties can vote in post-primary general elections, nonpartisan municipal elections, local judicial elections, and school board elections.

When most Maryland voters were registered as Republican or as Democratic voters this was not widely viewed as an issue requiring review or attention.

That could change based in large part on unaffiliated voter registration numbers.

Currently 907, 638 of Maryland voters are registered as unaffiliated in contrast to 1,007,000 voters who are registered Republican and 2,211,316 voters who are registered Democratic.

Currently, 123,324 of Congressional District 1 (which includes all of the Eastern Shore) voters are registered as unaffiliated in contrast to 242,659 voters who are registered Republican and 185,754 voters who are registered Democratic.

Currently, 5,905 of Talbot County voters are registered as unaffiliated in contrast to 11,597 who are registered as Republican and 10,534 who are registered as Democratic.

The unaffiliated voter registrations numbers in Maryland have been noticed by the Open Primaries Foundation. This national organization advocates for open primary elections in America and should not be confused with the Open Society Foundation founded and funded by George Soros.

An Open primaries Foundation spokesperson recently said “The Open Primaries Foundation is dedicated to closing closed primary elections around the country. Maryland is just the beginning.” Another Foundation spokesperson recently said “Nearly a million Maryland voters shut out of voting is a crisis. Independent voters are the fastest growing group of voters in America, but they are treated as second-class citizens in Maryland and across the country. We cannot continue to publicly fund and administer elections that shut these voters out if we want to continue to call ourselves a democracy.”

The Open Primaries Foundation is now collaborating with a Maryland law firm and five Maryland voters on a lawsuit challenging state funding of closed primaries.

All five voters are registered unaffiliated voters and were barred from voting in the partisan 2022 and 2024 primary elections in Anne Arundel County.

The lawsuit claims that state election officials are violating Article 1, Section 1 of the state constitution, which guarantees that every qualified U.S. citizen who is a resident of Maryland shall be entitled to vote in the ward or election district in which the citizen resides at all elections to be held in this State. The suit also maintains state election officials are violating Articles 7 and 24 of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights.

The lead attorney for this lawsuit is former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford.

Recently, Rutherford has said the following regarding the lawsuit:

“The constitution says all elections. Nowhere in the constitution does it state anything about primaries or political parties or anything of that notion.”

“It [the lawsuit] is not an attack on the parties. It does not require the political parties to allow Unaffiliated voters to vote in partisan party elections. This action is to prevent the state from funding these primaries that unconstitutionally exclude Unaffiliated voters.”

“Requiring party affiliation to vote creates a barrier of partisan primaries that the state endorses and supports and funds, which is contrary to the plain reading of the state constitution and the Declaration of Rights.”

Some suggest this issue could be and should be addressed in the General Assembly. While that is always possible, it is not probable, at least in the near future.

In 2023, two open primary bills in the General Assembly were never voted out of a committee.

Rutherford has also said “I don’t think the legislature sees it in their interest, even though they should, because it is a question of voting rights. We think the courts need to take it up, just like the Voting Rights Act or Brown versus Board of Education. The legislature alone is not going to do it.”

I agree and suggest that lack of legislative action on this issue affirms Niccolo Machiavelli’s timeless observation on change:

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than introducing new ways of doing things. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old ways of doing things and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.”

That said, I optimistically predict that eventually the legal challenge will succeed, and the General Assembly will approve changes to the current law to allow for some form of open primaries in Maryland.

Until then, Maryland’s unaffiliated voters will continue to be observers of, rather than participants in partisan primary elections.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Few places in America outside of the political arena are more likely to affirm the timeless observation — always expect the unexpected.

This was certainly the case with regard to the 2024 Presidential election.

Relatively few people expected Joe Biden would perform so poorly in a debate with Donald Trump, and that his performance marked the beginning of the end of Biden’s re-election campaign.

Conversely, relatively few people expected Kamala Harris’s performance in her debate with Donald Trump would go well enough to temporarily jump start her ultimately unsuccessful campaign.

Relatively few people expected Donald Trump would win the election for a delayed second term with a significant majority of the popular vote and a solid majority in the Electoral College.

Less noticed, but important to consider, was the unexpected pivots by at least two left of center national newspapers — The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times — on their candidate endorsement decisions.

These pivots were especially noteworthy as all three of them endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Joe Biden in 2020. Expectations were all three would endorse Kamala Harris in 2024. It did not happen.

Only The New York Times endorsed Harris.

The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times did not endorse Harris or Trump.

In the case with The Washington Post, publisher Will Lewis announced a new no presidential endorsements policy at the Post, not only for the 2024 presidential general election, but for future presidential general elections.

In announcing new policy Lewis said, “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president. I am very excited about this new clarity and transparency and cannot wait to see it brought to life in our opinion section. Every Day.”

He also wrote in a memo to the staff at the Post — “This is not about siding with any political party. This is about being crystal clear about what we stand for as a newspaper. Doing this is a critical part of serving as a premier news publication across America and for all Americans.”

Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post and founder of Amazon, who purchased the newspaper after it was owned by the Meyer-Graham family for over eighty years, also recently wrote a memo to Post employees.

He wrote, “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”

Bezos also wrote, “There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”

In the case of The Los Angeles Times, Dr. Patrick Soon Shiong, a surgeon and entrepreneur who has been is the owner and Executive Chair of the paper since 2018, asked the editorial board to do a factual analysis of the policies of Harris and those of Trump during his first term.

He also asked them to provide their understanding of the policies and plans of Trump and Harris that they presented during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years.

He wrote, “In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years.”

He noted the board “chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.”

Going forward, it will be most interesting to see what The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times decide on their policies regarding presidential general election endorsements in the 2028 election cycle.

I predict The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times will maintain their most recent policy decisions and will not make general election endorsements in that election cycle.

I also predict The New York Times will maintain their most recent policy decision and will make general election endorsements in that election cycle.

For now, all I can write with certainty is they all have the power and a demonstrated willingness to retain or change their endorsement policies at any time for any reason.

That said, always expect the unexpected in the political arena.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.