As is the case after American presidential elections, numerous books have been and will be written analyzing what happened and why.

On a regular, almost daily basis, political pundits and observers are focusing on the November 2026 “mid-term” congressional general elections that will determine which party will have majorities in both houses of Congress for the last two years of Donald Trump’s second term. 

While the outcome of those elections is consequential, next year there will also be two significant elections in Maryland, including a primary to determine which major party candidates will compete in the November 2026 general election for governor. 

Currently, there are at least two members of the Democratic party and at least five members of the Republican party who have filed to run for governor, announced an intent to run, or have launched an exploratory committee. There will likely be more.

In the volatile and ever-changing political environment in Maryland, few election outcomes can be predicted with a high degree of certainty.

For now, one certainty is Governor Wes Moore running for reelection. 

Another certainty is the Moore re- election campaign will have ample funding as reports are

they already have more than $4,000,000 in the bank. 

One more certainty is Wes Moore will handily win the Democratic party nomination, unlike the first time he ran for governor and defeated ten Democratic Party primary opponents including several who had impressive political resumes. 

Moore’s primary campaign this time will be a smooth flight with a soft landing.

That is not say his re-election in the November 2026 general election is a certainty.

The Republicans may have at least one candidate who has the potential to mount a serious challenge to Moore — former Governor Larry Hogan.

Hogan was first elected governor in a historic upset in 2014 and re-elected to a second term in 2018. 

In the closing days of his two terms as governor, Hogan had a 77% positive job performance rating. 

Based in part on that rating, Hogan won the Republican primary in 2024 to be the Republican candidate for a U.S. Senate general election, but he lost that election. 

Hogan has not yet announced if he is running for governor again, but indications are he will. A Facebook initiative launched last February – “No Moore” –compares and contrasts Hogan’s and Moore’s records on state spending, new taxes, tax increases, new fees, and fee increases. 

The reaction to these comparisons may help Hogan to announce he is running and may also be a gauge for a Hogan campaign to refine campaign messages that will most likely resonate with primary and general election voters next year. 

The negative comparisons and contrasts to Moore posted regularly on the “No Moore” Facebook page may already be resonating with some voters. 

The Baltimore Banner newspaper engaged Maryland-based Opinion Works to survey nine hundred registered Maryland voters between October 7 and October 10, 2025

The survey results are: 45 % of the nine hundred survey participants would vote for Moore, 37 % would vote for Hogan and 14% were undecided.

Two experts on Maryland politics shared their opinions on these results in a recent issue of Newsweek magazine.

Mileah Kromer is director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and is the author of Blue State Republican: How Larry Hogan Won Where Republicans Lose and Lessons for a Future GOP. In her Newsweek remarks, Kromer said, “Larry Hogan has always been a formidable politician. He does really well regarding retail politics and getting out and talking to voters. His particular strength has been in a blue state like Maryland. He’s been able to convince around 30 percent, at least in his two gubernatorial cycles, of Democrats to vote for him.” Kromer does inject a word of caution to any Hogan come back campaign — “The 2026 election would be different in that Moore, as an incumbent, will receive the backing of the Democratic Governors Association and have no trouble fundraising.”

David Karol is a political science professor at the University of Maryland. He told Newsweek: “Hogan is the best hope for Maryland Republicans,” but he also suggested “Hogan would be an underdog versus Moore.” 

No matter who prevails in the November 2026 gubernatorial general election, there are three more certainties to keep in mind.

Wes Moore has the most to gain with in a big reelection win. If it is a landslide win, he will further enhance his current standing as a rising star in the Democratic Party with a bright political future beyond Maryland. 

Conversely, Wes Moore has the most to lose if he is in a deep blue state and is defeated or wins reelection by a narrow margin. 

If either of these two outcomes occurs, he most certainly will lose momentum on his thinly disguised ambition to be nominated by the Democratic Party for president or vice president in the future.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant to not-for-profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton. 

Vince Lombardi, legendary head coach of the National Football League’s Green Bay Packers, often said, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

The leadership of the Green Party in Maryland does not embrace that philosophy, at least when it applies to winning an election.

Earlier this month, Andy Ellis filed paperwork with the Maryland State Board of Elections to be the Green Party candidate in the 2026 general election for Governor of Maryland. He also filed paperwork for Owen Andrews to be his running mate as the Green Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

According to his campaign biography, Ellis has served as a Green Party organizer and former Green Party nominee for the Maryland House of Delegates. He previously served as co-chair of both the Baltimore City and Maryland Green Parties and has held national roles on the Green Party’s Presidential Campaign Support Committee, Ballot Access Committee, and Coordinated Campaign Committee.

He is also the founder of Debate Strategies, LLC, a consulting firm focused on public debate, civic engagement, and political augmentation.

Ellis is realistic about his odds of winning.

He has said candidly, “I would love it if we were the next governor and lieutenant governor. But I am a student of history and political science. … We’re not going to go and set expectations that we don’t think we can meet.”

As a self-described student of history and political science, Ellis is likely aware that Maryland voters have only elected two third-party candidates for Governor.

They are Thomas Hicks, the American Party candidate in 1858 and Augustus Bradford, the Union Party candidate in 1882.

With regard to setting campaign expectations, Ellis has three key campaign goals.

The first goal is to take necessary steps for their campaign to qualify for and receive public campaign financing from Maryland’s Fair Campaign Financing Act.

That was a fundraising strategy that Larry Hogan used when he requested and received public funds in his first run for governor.

With a goal of $120,000 in contributions from 1,500 Marylanders (capped at $250 each), the Green Party of Maryland could get a state-funded match of the contributions received from other sources.

Ellis and Andrews have already started fundraising with a campaign launch party that met a goal of $2,026.

Goal two is to secure an invitation to participate in gubernatorial debates, including, but not limited to, the debate sponsored by Maryland Public Television.

Andrews has said, “We think that if Marylanders are able to see and hear us, and see and hear our positions, then we’re more likely to achieve that top-line goal.”

The third goal is for the Green Party candidates to receive at least 4% of the total votes cast in the November 2026 gubernatorial general election.

If they do that, they will eclipse the best showing by a third-party gubernatorial candidate in Maryland since 1895 when the Prohibition Party candidate received 3.2% of the votes cast.

More importantly, meeting or exceeding that goal will maintain their status as a political party that will automatically be included on future Maryland general election ballots.

This goal is immensely important for the future viability for the Green Party and also for other third parties in Maryland.

Every time the Green Party and other third parties in Maryland fail to get 4% of the votes in statewide general elections, party volunteers have to collect 10,000 signatures from registered voters for their candidates’ names to be included on future general election ballots.

That signature collection process requires an inordinate amount of volunteer time and effort.

That time and effort could be reallocated to inform, energize, and mobilize Maryland voters who may be ready and willing to consider supporting the Green Party’s core values and their positions on such issues as economic matters, housing affordability, and increasing energy costs.

This has significant potential at a time when polling results are showing increasing voter disenchantment with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

The bottom line is, the Maryland Green Party is well positioned going into Maryland’s 2026 gubernatorial general election.

That is not because their candidates have any chance of winning that election.

They do have an opportunity to demonstrate to candidates of both major parties that the Green Party’s core values and issue positions resonate with at least 4% of the voters.
r
That is meaningful, as Larry Hogan received 51.0% of the vote in his first run for governor and Anthony Brown received 47.2% of the vote, a difference of 3.8%.

It would also affirm that any third political party with realistic expectations, measurable goals, and effective campaign execution can achieve success in the political arena in Maryland without winning an election.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant to not- for -profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

To date, no individual born or living in Maryland has been elected to serve as President of the United States.

Ever since Governor Wes Moore was elected in 2022, he has been viewed by many as a rising star in the Democratic Party, despite never having run for any public office at any level.

Many of his admirers have even suggested he has the potential to be the Democratic Party’s 2028 candidate for President.

That is not surprising. Wes Moore is a charismatic, progressive, and relatively young elected official at a time when both major political parties are struggling mightily with internal divides between long-time and elderly party leaders and emerging younger leaders.

Despite that political chatter, Moore has repeatedly said he will not run for President in 2028.

Instead, he has said he is eager and ready to run for re-election as Governor for a second four-year term.

That said, if Wes Moore does have future national ambitions, they may ultimately be delayed or derailed by another charismatic Maryland Democratic elected official — U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen.

Van Hollen has had a long career in politics, starting with elections to serve as a Democratic member in the Maryland House of Delegates and in the Maryland Senate.

He was then elected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives as the Democratic representative from Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.

In 2016, he was elected to the United States Senate, re-elected to a second term in 2022, and is now the senior U.S. Senator from Maryland.

Van Hollen has not said anything about whether or not he may run for president, but his actions speak louder than silence on this matter.

Van Hollen has regularly and aggressively challenged a wide range of decisions and actions of the second Trump administration, including but not limited to federal government spending cuts, immigration deportments, and closing or relocating federal agencies.

Van Hollen has opposed the Trump administration’s efforts to detain and deport El Salvador native Kilmar Abrego Garcia, maintaining that Garcia has been denied due process in these efforts.

In September, he was the keynote speaker at a Democratic Steak Fry in Polk County, Iowa.

Iowa is a long-time early testing ground on the popularity and viability of presidential candidates from both major parties.

Van Hollen has also been a guest on Yahoo News, CBS News, CNN, NBC News, and The Hill.

Between now and the next two election cycles, a lot can happen in the Maryland and national political arenas.

In Maryland, Wes Moore is widely expected to win a second term next year, but in today’s volatile and unpredictable political environment, that is not a given.

Next year, Maryland’s Republican voters may nominate a candidate who unites, energizes, and mobilizes their base voters. Those voters, combined with enough Democratic and unaffiliated voters, could result in Wes Moore losing in the next election. That is unlikely, but not impossible.

In 2014, Democratic candidate and former Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown was almost universally expected to be elected governor, but he lost in a historic upset to Larry Hogan.

Key elements of a winning political campaign always include messaging, money, and meeting expectations.

In his upcoming re-election effort, Wes Moore will have no problem with messaging and raising campaign contributions.

He may find meeting or exceeding expectations to be a challenge.

His rising star status could be greatly diminished if, in a deep blue state, his re-election vote margin is significantly lower than his landslide win for the governorship the first time, when he received 64.5 % of the votes cast.

One unanswered question for Wes Moore and or Chris Van Hollen is if either would agree to be nominated as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2028.

Historically, candidates have not publicly announced or overtly pursued a nomination for the vice presidency. Instead, presidential nominees for both major parties announce their choice for a vice-presidential running mate and their choice is ratified at their party’s national convention.

That was the case when Richard Nixon chose Maryland’s former governor Spiro Agnew as his running mate in 1968. Agnew served in that role until 1973 until he resigned in disgrace.

Serving as a vice president as a pathway to nomination and election as president has had mixed success. Only six have done so since 1948 – Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Joseph Biden.

Ultimately, only time will tell if either Wes Moore or Chris Van Hollen will be the first Marylander in history to be nominated or serve as President of the United States or be the second Marylander in history to be nominated or serve as a U.S. Vice President.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant to not-for-profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton. 

 

The U.S. Constitution requires that district boundaries for representation in the U.S. House of Representatives be based on state population as determined by the results of a national census that is conducted every ten years.

In many states, including Maryland, drawing these district boundaries is done by the state legislature, subject to final approval of the governor.

In such states, redistricting is regularly characterized by gerrymandering, the practice of drawing the boundaries in a way that gives one political party a distinct advantage in elections.

Gerrymandering has been pursued aggressively by the Democratic and the Republican parties, depending on which party controls a state legislature and the governorship.

Following one reapportionment in Maryland, former Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley testified under oath — “I did everything in my power to draw a map that would be more favorable to the election of a Democratic congressional delegation.”

Recently, at the urging of President Trump, Republicans in the Texas state legislature launched a successful effort to discard the historical every ten-year redistricting schedule and redraw congressional district boundaries before the 2026 midterm elections.

Their goal was simple — to enhance the prospects for Republican candidates to flip seats currently held by Democratic members in the U.S. House. That would help Republicans maintain or expand their current House majority for the last two years of a Trump presidency.

Isaac Newton once noted that in physics, for every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. That is true in politics as well.

Following the gerrymandering in Texas, California Governor Newsom has raised $70 million for Proposition 50, a reapportionment referendum initiative. That amount includes $10 million from George Soro’s Open Society Foundation. Proposition 50’s goal is also simple — to enhance the prospects for Democratic candidates to flip seats currently held by Republican members in the U.S. House.

Legislation has also been introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates and the Maryland Senate for congressional district reapportionment to be done sooner rather than later.

State Senator Clarence Lam, a sponsor of Senate legislation, has said, “If red states want to redistrict early, with the goal of picking up additional seats in Congress, blue states should do the same.”

One proposal of Senator Lam would have a disproportionate impact on the Eastern Shore.

If approved all of the Eastern Shore counties would not be in one congressional district, as they are now. Mid and Lower Eastern Shore counties would be in a new congressional district (CD1) along with parts of Anne Arundel County. Cecil County and a part of Harford County would be in a new CD2 with parts of Baltimore County and Baltimore City. The rest of Harford County would be in a new CD3 with parts of Baltimore City and Howard County.

If an accelerated reapportionment effort in Maryland goes forward, there is a better way to proceed.

In 2021, former Governor Hogan issued an Executive Order creating the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission.

The Commission had nine members from across Maryland – three Democrats, three Republicans, and three Independents. Stanford Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily, an expert on voting rights and election law, served as an advisor for the Commission.

The commission’s final report, issued in November 2021, included the following observations:

“The lines were drawn without regard to the interests of any party or candidate and without taking into account the place of residence of any incumbent officeholder or other potential candidate, nor did we consider how residents of any community may have voted in the past, or with what political party they may be registered. The Citizens Commission believes its maps embody good redistricting principles, including compactness, minimal splits of counties and municipalities, and a highly understandable layout for congressional representation. Additionally, they offer better adherence to the principle of “one person, one vote” through a closer approach than in past maps to population equality. We are proud that our proposed congressional and senate maps earned a rating of “A” for partisan fairness from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.”

At the final meeting, Professor Persily told commission members their efforts should be held out as a national model for the way things should be done.

A majority in the General Assembly did not share that conclusion. The state Senate approved its own version of congressional district boundaries with yes votes from all the Democratic Senators and no votes from all the Republican Senators. The state House concurred with 90 yes votes from Democratic delegates and no votes from 40 Republican delegates and 1 Democratic delegate. Accepting the political reality that resistance was futile, Governor Hogan signed the redistricting legislation. Afterwards, Bloomberg Government’s Greg Giroux wrote, “The new map will continue to favor Democrats in seven of eight districts.

In these uncertain political times only one thing is certain.

Reapportionment in Maryland will remain politicized with gerrymandered results unless citizens demand legislative approval of reapportionment recommendations developed by a group comparable to the 2021 Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

 

Last week, Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist, co-founder of Turning Point USA, and ally of President Trump was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

Charlie had a huge following of supporters who strongly agreed with his conservative values and views. He also had a huge following of detractors who strongly disagreed with him.

This column will not focus on defending or challenging his views on the issues of the day.

In today’s deeply divided world, an effort to change strongly held views is an exercise in futility.

Instead, I will focus on how he conducted himself in expressing and discussing his views.

In watching videos of Charlie’s events with large crowds of mostly young people, college students and high school students I was always impressed with how different those engagements were in contrast to much of the political debates in our society.

Charlie presented his strongly held views without being aggressive or condescending. He always listened intently and respectfully to those who strongly disagreed with his views. He regularly took questions, answered questions. and listened to criticism of his views.

He encouraged and relished direct engagement with supporters and critics alike.

At the opening of his events, he often told attendees — if you disagree with my views, come to the front of the line so we can share and talk about our respective positions.

He was the epitome of a person who could disagree without being disagreeable.

Despite his civil approach in delivering, defending, and discussing his beliefs, he was regularly branded by his opponents as, among other things, a misogynist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, fascist, nazi, and a Hitler.

Immediately following his death and since then, there have been countless people saying or writing they condone, support, justify, or are actually celebrating Kirk’s murder.

They have a constitutional right to do that. They do not have human decency.

They do not understand or commit to the belief that every human life has value deserving protection and respect.

That is true even when that human expresses his or her beliefs that his or her opponents may strongly disagree with or even abhor without being murdered.

Mao Zedong, longtime leader of China once said, “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”

Currently in America, politics has become war with bloodshed.
This lack of civil discourse and respect for differing opinions is not exclusive to any religious affiliation or political party.

In just the past few months, two children were murdered, and seventeen people were injured when a shooter opened fire during worship in a Catholic school in Minnesota. The shooter’s manifesto described his hatred of Blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, and President Trump.

Also in Minnesota, a pro-abortion rights Democratic – Farm- Labor party State Representative was murdered along with her husband. A fellow pro-abortion rights Democratic -Farm – Labor Party State Senator, and his wife were shot by the same individual, but both survived the attempted murder. The murderer is an anti-abortion advocate.
Murders of children elected public officials, and political activists such as Charlie Kirk are more than tragedies.

They are a further indication of a warp speed acceleration in our society on the decline of civil discourse and decency, and the desensitization of the loss of human life.

Next year will mark 250 years of America’s experiences with free speech and civil discourse on and a wide range of divisive issues.

I am increasingly uncertain free speech and civil discourse in America will ever return.

In the book, Poorer Richard’s America, there is an ominous suggestion that Charles Darwin’s Theory of Organic Evolution: Natural Selection, applies not only to nature, but also to nations.
One example is Great Britain:

At one time, Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world.
It was often said, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”
After the end of World War Two, Great Britain declined rapidly as a great world power.
Some suggest that America is on a path do the same and will do so sooner rather than later.

That outcome is not inevitable.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a19th century French diplomat, political scientist, and social critic suggested that “America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great.”

It is not too late for Americans, individually and collectively, to strive to be good with a renewed commitment to freedom of speech, civil discourse, and respect for all people, all ideas, and all beliefs.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

Responding to recent media inquiry on the amount of state funding to not-for-profit organizations, a spokesperson for Governor Moore said it is “a miniscule amount of the budget every year.”

Since then, another spokesperson for the Governor expressed more interest in pursuing answers to that inquiry and said he is working on gathering that information. 

He also cautioned that gathering the information is a labor-intensive process and antiquated technology systems are contributing to the delay.

Whatever answers are eventually made available, questions on transparency and accountability should not and very likely will not go away.

State Comptroller Brooke Lierman recently suggested looking at a new process that would help not-for-profit organizations to succeed, but also ensure that there is accountability that state funds are being spent appropriately. She also recently voted no on a proposal before the State Board of Public Works on a nine-year $300 million state information technology contract. Lierman expressed concern that the agreement risks undermining both competition and transparency in state government contracting.

In any event the matter of transparency and accountability issues are not new. 

In 2021, the bi-partisan Office of Legislative Audits in the Department of Legislative Services conducted a comprehensive performance audit to assess the state’s policies for advertising, awarding, and monitoring state-funded grants. 

The auditors concluded there was no central control agency authorized to issue statewide grant-related regulations, policies, and procedures, engage in grant oversight, and monitor state agency’s grant-related activities to ensure accountability with grant terms and conditions. 

The auditors recommended all state agencies use a centralized grant management system (GMS) to administer and track grant awards and related expenditures. They also recommended uniform financial controls. reporting requirements on conflict-of-interest prohibitions, documentation on grant expenditures and deliverables, and performance progress reports. 

In  2020, the Maryland Efficient Grant Application​ Council (MEGA Council) was established and charged with studying and making recommendations to the Governor’s Grants Office and the Department of Budget and Management regarding the management of grants across Maryland. 

Key focuses of the MEGA Council included developing recommendations on uniform grant application forms and financial controls, establishing standardized reporting requirements, recommending timelines for the adoption and implementation of these processes, streamline the grant application process, improve grant administration efficiency, and providing guidance to ensure compliance with state and federal requirements.

While all these proposed recommendations and others to be determined may merit serious consideration, there is one critical missing element – a commitment to timely action on next steps. 

That was affirmed last January by State Senator Clarence Lam, former Senate Chair of the General Assembly’s Joint Audit and Evaluation Committee. Senator Lam said addressing grant transparency and accountability issues have “fallen through the cracks.” He also said they should be addressed “sooner rather than later. 

The original deadline for the MEGA Council recommendations to be presented to the Governor and the General Assembly was July 1, 2024. Now the deadline is July 1, 2027. There is no guarantee that deadline will not be pushed back again. 

That means with no further delays, the earliest the General Assembly will be able to take action on any recommendations from the MEGA Council, as well as earlier recommendations from the Office of Legislative Audits in the Department of Legislative Services, will be in the 2028 legislative session that will convene in January 2028.

Earlier this year, difficult decisions were made on state spending levels and allocations in the state budget. They will almost certainly be the new normal for the foreseeable future.

Now is the time for the Governor, State Comptroller, and the General assembly to embrace the observations of John Kotter In his book A Sense of Urgency. Kotter wrote:

 “The single most crucial factor in achieving permanent and meaningful change is a continuous sense of urgency. A true sense of urgency occurs with an acknowledgement that action on critical issues is needed now, not eventually, or not when it fits easily into a schedule. Now means making real progress every single day. Urgent behavior is not driven by a belief that all is well or that everything is a mess but, instead, that the world contains great opportunities and great hazards.”

The Governor, State Comptroller, and General Assembly also can and should do this:

Take whatever steps necessary to expedite the current ongoing research on how much state money has historically been sent to not-for-profit organizations.  

Take whatever steps necessary to require every not-for-profit organization that receives state funds to demonstrate how their operations reflect Peter F. Drucker’s observation that “Not-for-profit organizations need management even more than business. Good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results.”

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.

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.