Posts about Endorsements

If it passes, DC will have amended its own charter, which it has the power to do. It will no longer have wait for Congress to approve its budget before spending local tax dollars. Congress could block the amendment from taking effect, but to do that, both houses of Congress would have to act.

Congress can also always pass laws forcing DC to do things in the future, or taking away DC's autonomy, but again, it would require an affirmative act of Congress (and the President could veto such changes).

Besides, there are both Democrats and Republicans who support this. They can't get a clean bill through Congress to give us the right, but by this method, they don't have to; all they have to do is get Congress not to interfere. That's not so hard.

Why does DC have this power?

The Home Rule Act, which Congress passed in 1973, has several sections. Title IV, the main part, sets up the DC locally-elected government and its powers and structure.

Title III section 303 says that DC can amend any part of Title IV with three exceptions:

• 401(a), which says "There is established a Council of the District of Columbia; and the members of the Council shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District";
  
• 421(a), "There is established the Office of Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the Mayor shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District";
  
• all of section C, which relates to the judiciary.

The budget process, which DC wants to change, is in section D. That's not on the list. Therefore, lawyers supporting the referendum conclude, DC is within its rights to try to amend that part of the charter.

Congress also made a specific list of things DC can't do without Congressional approval, such as changing the height limit, imposing a commuter tax, exercising any power over the zoo, or changing the way the judiciary operates. Another section of the law prohibits charter amendments from giving DC power over these things. The budget process is not on this list either.

(Congress was really quite nervous about what DC would do with power over the criminal laws; another provision blocks the DC Council from changing the criminal laws for the first 4 years of Home Rule.)

There is one provision which makes some lawyers doubt whether the referendum is legal. That's section 603, which says in part,

(a) Nothing in this act shall be construed as making any change in existing law, regulation, or basic procedure and practice relating to the respective roles of the Congress, the President, the federal Office of Management and Budget, and the Comptroller General of the United States in the preparation, review, submission, examination, authorization, and appropriation of the total budget of the District of Columbia government.

Wait, doesn't that mean nothing can change with the budget process?

But what is "this act"? That's the 1973 Home Rule Act. This provision doesn't say that DC can't change the budget process by amendment, but rather than in 1973, when the act passed, Congress didn't intend to revamp the budget process at the time.

As DC Vote chairman John Bouker said in his testimony to the DC Council,

Section 603(a) is not framed as a "limitation" on the Council's authority, as is the case with some of the other provisions in Section 603. Instead, it is a rule of construction which clarifies that, at the time of passage in 1973, "[n]othing in the Act shall be construed" to change then-existing law regarding the District's budget process.

Supportive lawyers note that Congress went to great lengths to enumerate the parts of the charter DC couldn't change, like all of section C on the judiciary, so if they wanted to keep the budget process sacrosanct, why wouldn't they have listed section D as well? It doesn't make a lot of sense to be extremely clear about which parts DC can't amend and then have a subtle additional part with language that sounds like it refers to 1973.

Some others don't see it this way. But ultimately it's in Congress' hands. The DC government believes it's legal and, if the referendum passes, will operate on that basis. If Congress wants DC to still have to submit its budget, both houses can pass a resolution to say so. Since there are leaders on both sides of the political aisle who do support the idea, Congress will most likely not step in.

Even if some lawyers and judges disagree, the courts won't intervene, because Congress is probably the only body with standing to sue, explained Smith. You have to be harmed by something to sue to stop it, and only Congress' power over the budget will change. But Congress won't sue because it doesn't have to; it could just pass a resolution to stop the change. Which it won't do.

Essentially, this referendum shifts the burden from one where Congress has to act (very hard to achieve) to one where it simply has to not act (far easier). DC voters can take this step knowing that Congress almost certainly won't act, and by voting for this amendment, they will gain an important element of self-government.

Ms. Silverman embraces transit, mixed-use zoning, and the need especially to safeguard pedestrians now that the city is more walkable every year. She emphasizes the need to encourage more housing units for families as many of the young people who have moved to the District begin families and want to remain in the District's walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Thanks to her journalism background, Ms. Silverman has demonstrated that she can ask very penetrating questions on policy details. When talking with editors about issues such as the zoning update, for instance, she probed much more deeply into the effects and tradeoffs than other candidates or even many advocates.

She has said that she wants to turn this skill toward oversight of District agencies such as DCRA; this would be an invaluable asset to residents who find agencies often papering over inefficiency. She has advocated reforming DCRA to make it easier for District residents to open businesses as well.

Matthew Frumin scored very well on Let's Choose DC, most often slightly ahead of Ms. Silverman and sometimes slightly behind. Mr. Frumin has made very valuable contributions to the District through his civic efforts, such as building coalitions on the Tenleytown ANC. However, we feel he still faces significant challenges to connecting with voters outside of upper Northwest. This will not only be a prerequisite to win but a necessary component to being an at-large councilmember.

Mr. Frumin also has less detailed knowledge of the District government's operations and major policies outside of a few areas of strength such as education. While being an expert is not mandatory for a new council candidate, with Ms. Silverman in the race, her greater expertise is a strong asset. The winner of this race will have to instantly start participating in budget negotiations and then continue to operate on the council while almost immediately running for re-election in the April 2014 primary.

We hope Mr. Frumin will continue participating on the citywide stage in other ways following the campaign, and has strong potential to be a top-tier candidate in a future at-large race once he has built more connections and experience working with neighborhood leaders citywide.

Patrick Mara has garnered some significant support in DC based on his recent races and repeated endorsements from the Washington Post. David Alpert also endorsed Mr. Mara in his previous race (against Michael Brown, who is running again this year). However, he has not shown the depth that one would expect from a repeated candidate, and did not answer several Let's Choose DC questions.

The Washington Post's endorsement last week largely centered around his views on cutting taxes and school reform. We don't disagree with charter schools or school reform by any means, but feel that education in the District needs more analysis into what actually works instead of blind ideology. Mr. Mara has made education a centerpiece of his campaign, but when pressed, hasn't been able to actually put forth compelling insights on the matter.

Michael Brown has a strong commitment to helping the less fortunate, such as his stalwart defense of affordable housing which was very welcome on the council. However, Mr. Brown has repeatedly made clear that he is skeptical of a growing city and is very quick to side with the residents most afraid of change, such as with his response on the DC zoning update at Let's Choose DC or his letter of "concern" almost a year ago.

Mr. Brown was the only candidate to oppose several avenues of ethics reform on that question on Let's Choose. Financial mismanagement problems such as unpaid rent continue to dog Mr. Brown, as did malfeasance by his previous campaign treasurer, even though there has not been any evidence that he himself violated campaign finance laws.

Anita Bonds has not chosen to engage with our community by only responding to one Let's Choose DC question. While we didn't want to prejudge her longtime ties to much of DC's machine power structure, she has not availed herself of opportunities to demonstrate her independence from that machine or policy reasons to support her. She also initially promised to serve as a full-time councilmember, but has since backed off that commitment.

Perry Redd and Paul Zukerberg have valuable perspectives to contribute, and we also agree with Mr. Zukerberg's core message that excessive prosecution of minor drug offenses creates a dangerous environment with too many young people having criminal records at huge expense to taxpayers. We hope both will continue to participate in civic discourse and that the DC Council will take up marijuana decriminalization soon.

Voters considering themselves "urbanists," "progressives," or just "reformers" have seen their votes split in several recent elections, including the last two for at-large council. A number of civic and business leaders have lined up behind Ms. Silverman, including respected top Fenty administration officials like Neil Albert and Victor Reinoso, and we hope that all residents will do the same and elect her to the DC Council on April 23.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active regular contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing the candidate.

Disclosures: Elissa Silverman also submitted 4 guest articles to Greater Greater Washington in 2011 and 2012. We had also specifically invited Patrick Mara (after previous campaigns) and Matthew Frumin (before the current campaign) to submit guest posts, in keeping with our general policy of encouraging guest posts from many people active in local affairs. Also, Ken Archer, who serves as Silverman's treasurer, is a Greater Greater Washington editor. He did not vote in the internal poll or write any of this endorsement.

Voters will also have the opportunity to choose ANC commissioners, a position which often carries significant influence over neighborhood affairs. There are many great candidates across the city, including Greater Greater Washington editor Jaime Fearer in Trinidad's district 5D07.

DC Council at-large: We recommend voting for David Grosso.

Congress' grant of home rule to the District included a provision that limited how many candidates can be members of the same party, which in practice means that one at-large seat every 2 years goes to one individual who is not formally affiliated with the Democratic Party. We hope voters choose David Grosso over incumbent Michael A. Brown.

More than anything, the DC Council needs stable, ethical leadership at this time. Mr. Grosso has embraced openness and transparency by disclosing any corporate interests that have donated to his campaign. By contrast, whether any laws were broken or not, Mr. Brown's record is marred by a series of personal missteps and questionably ethical political actions.

Michael Brown has been a staunch supporter of many important policies for affordable housing, workforce development and other poverty-related issues. However, when it comes to building healthy and walkable urban places, Mr. Brown simply does not seem to understand the issues beyond a narrow and out-of-date suburban mindset. He pushed for a Redskins training facility on Reservation 13, sent a letter echoing many alarmist and often false fears about the zoning update, wants to spend public money on municipal parking, and more.

Mary Brooks Beatty, the Republican candidate, has proven even worse, voicing the tired "war on cars" theme during a recent debate. After nominating an avowedly pro-urban candidate 4 years ago, it's too bad the DC GOP's standard-bearer is so out of touch with the changing District.

Mr. Grosso, meanwhile, supports better bicycle infrastructure, removing minimum parking requirements, and also wants to shore up funding for affordable housing. Tommy Wells, the DC Council's most ardent voice for smart growth, has thrown his weight behind Grosso, as has the DC chapter of the Sierra Club.

District voters have the opportunity to cast 2 votes. For Mr. Grosso to win, he will have to place in the top 2; most expect that Vincent Orange, the Democratic nominee, will gain the most votes, and that the 2nd will come down to Mr. Grosso or Mr. Brown.

There are also a number of other candidates running, several of whom have promise, such as AJ Cooper, our 2nd highest vote-getter in our contributor poll, but none received a clear consensus required for a formal endorsement. However, voters can certainly use a 2nd vote for one of these other candidates without fear of upsetting their top choice's chances to win.

DC Council chairman: We recommend voting for Phil Mendelson.

Mr. Mendelson is well suited to bring order and credibility to a damaged DC Council. His record of ethics is impeccable, and he is well-positioned to get the council working together collaboratively instead of fracturing into warring factions as it did under former Chairman Kwame Brown.

Some council staffers say that Mr. Mendelson will need to work on shifting his attention to the big picture issues rather than the narrow, often nitpicking hyper-attention to detail he has become known for. He also continues to lean toward sympathy with those who don't want to see the District change or grow much at all. Zoning is not the council's purview, and since becoming chairman he has stayed away from taking a position on such issues that won't come before that body. However, voters need to keep careful watch on this issue.

Shadow representative: We recommend voting for Nate Bennett-Fleming.

The shadow representative is an unpaid position whose purpose is to lobby for District voting rights. Current shadow representative Mike Panetta is not seeking reelection, and we hope District voters will choose Nate Bennett-Fleming.

Mr. Bennett-Fleming brings a youthful energy to District politics. He is able to work and talk with people from all over the city—rich and poor, young and old, black and white, advantaged and disadvantaged. The shadow representative is a relatively thankless position, but it needs someone with the vigor to stir things up and push for equal representation. Mr. Bennett-Fleming's political science background and law degree will also help him know what can work and what can't, instead of pushing for absolutely unworkable ideas.

Ballot questions: We recommend voting FOR all 3 charter amendments.

The proposed charter amendments will officially empower the DC Council to expel a member for gross misconduct, and disqualify any candidates with a felony conviction while in office from serving as councilmember or mayor.

Each of these takes a small step toward improving the laws around ethics in DC. They leave many ethics issues unresolved, and most DC leaders have been reluctant to take the stronger steps necessary to bring more substantial ethical reform to city politics, but these are a step in the right direction.

Update: The original version of the endorsement said that 2 charter amendments disqualify any candidate with a felony conviction from holding office. In fact, they only disqualify candidates who have gotten that felony conviction while in office, which makes the amendments even less meaningful as ethics reforms, but still worth voting for.

These are the official endorsements of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors discussed endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong consensus in favor of endorsing for or against each issue or candidate.

Question 1 (eminent domain): We recommend voting AGAINST Question 1.

This proposed amendment to Virginia's state constitution would enact new rules on local governments' eminent domain authority. Specifically, the amendment prohibits governments from using eminent domain for economic development, and broadly redefines takings law to require government compensation for any action that reduces access to private property.

The latter issue is particularly troublesome. As several editorials have noted, the amendment is worded so broadly that it might require local governments to give significant financial compensation to property owners for any number of mundane and necessary actions. For example, if a city in Virginia adds a median to a road in front of a business, even without actually taking any of the owners' property, they could have to to pay every property owner because the access is in some way reduced.

Residents had some concerns about the breadth of eminent domain after the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, but the Virginia legislature already addressed these issues with a 2007 law. The overly broad language in this amendment would put a stranglehold on local government in Virginia. Routine projects could become prohibitively expensive, and get mired in court for years at a time. We urge you to vote against the amendment.

Alexandria Mayor: We recommend voting for Bill Euille.

Alexandria voters face a stark choice, between one candidate who is strongly pro-smart growth, and another who would force growth out of Alexandria farther from the regional core.

Mr. Euille, the 3-term incumbent, has shepherded extensive community planning efforts for redevelopment in Potomac Yard, the Beauregard Corridor, and Alexandria Waterfront. He has also pursued a transit-friendly transportation agenda pushing BRT corridors and an infill Metro station, with a possible streetcar connection to Arlington.

The challenger, Andrew Macdonald, is a classic anti-growth candidate who proposes to rein back the density of redevelopment projects. He offers no explanation for how the city or region should accommodate growth, except to say "not here."

Arlington County Board: We recommend voting for Libby Garvey.

None of the three candidates for Arlington County Board have engendered our confidence, but the incumbent, Ms. Garvey, shows the most promise.

Transportation planning has been the dominant theme during this election. Unfortunately, Ms. Garvey and her challengers Matthew Wavro and Audrey Clement have all displayed little understanding of the subject. All oppose the Columbia Pike streetcar. Mr. Wavro is concerned that it will increase automobile congestion, Ms. Clement says money would be better spent on schools and libraries, and Ms. Garvey says BRT does the same thing at lower cost.

But transportation models do not suggest the streetcar will increase congestion, the streetcar's funding sources cannot be spent on schools and libraries because they're fully dedicated to transportation regardless of mode, and buses are profoundly different from streetcar service for many reasons.

Given their positions thus far, we do not offer a full endorsement to any of the candidates. However, we believe that Libby Garvey has the most open mind and is the least likely to damage Arlington's decades-long commitment to smart growth. We are hopeful that she will win reelection, and with more experience become as strong an advocate for progressive urbanism and transportation as Arlington's other County Board members.

Arlington County bond referenda: We recommend voting for FOR all 4.

Arlington is requesting authority to issue bonds for 4 purposes: Metro and transportation, parks and recreation, community infrastructure, and public schools. All 4 are worthy priorities for County funding.

The Metro and transportation bonds are of particular importance. They will fund continuing maintenance upgrades to Metrorail, Arlington's bicycle and pedestrian initiatives, and provide matching funds that are necessary to obtain some federal and state grants.

These are the official endorsements of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors discussed endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong consensus in favor of endorsing for or against each issue or candidate.

Question 3 (removing elected officials): We recommend voting FOR Question 3.

This question will amend the Maryland Constitution to make it easier to remove elected officials from office once they've been convicted of or plead guilty to certain crimes.

Two recent cases involving officials have resulted in situations that hurt government and left some residents without representation. When Leslie Johnson was convicted on corruption charges in Prince George's, she refused to resign, and Maryland's laws only allowed her ouster upon sentencing. For several months, her council district in Prince George's was effectively without representation.

This change may not stop corruption. But it will make it easier to recover when an elected official does wrong.

Question 4 (Dream Act): We recommend voting FOR Question 4.

Education is a fundamental building block of our democracy. Allowing undocumented immigrants who were brought as children to the United States to attend state universities as residents will create more opportunities for these young people to join our society.

The Dream Act will allow those undocumented immigrants who grow up in Maryland to attend a state university at the in-state tuition rate if they get good grades in high school and spend 2 years in a community college. Opening up this opportunity for our neighbors will grow the Maryland economy and will open up new paths for immigrants who had no say in where they grew up.

Question 5 (redistricting): We recommend voting AGAINST Question 5.

Marylanders are being asked to approve or disapprove a Congressional redistricting proposal. The legislative maps drawn by the Maryland legislature are horribly gerrymandered. For proof, take a look at Maryland's 3rd District, which Comedy Central named the "ugliest congressional district in the nation."

The authors of this map create what would likely be a new Democratic seat by drawing oddly-shaped districts to divide more conservative voters. This kind of gerrymandering is bad when Republicans do it, and it's bad when Democrats do it.

To make matters worse, it also splits minority groups, making it harder for them to participate effectively in the democratic process. It splits communities, so that members of a single community have multiple disparate representatives who also serve voters of very distant communities with very different needs.

Question 6 (same-sex marriage): We strongly urge you to support marriage for all families by voting FOR Question 6.

In the legislative session earlier this year, the General Assembly courageously passed a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry in the Free State. While we oppose the idea that civil rights should be subject to a popular vote, opponents of gay marriage gathered enough signatures to put this issue on the ballot.

Gay couples deserve the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Maryland's expansion of marriage equality will not affect religious institutions, because protections were specifically written into the bill. Equality will mean stronger homes and stronger families for the 17,000 same-sex couples living in the state.

A vote upholding the law will also send a message to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender teens in the state that they are full members of society, too. Their fellow citizens support them and their right to love whomever they want.

Maryland's LGBT families share the same values as the straight couples in the state. They deserve the same legal recognition of their relationships from the state as well.

Question 7 (gambling expansion): Our contributors split evenly on this issue, and therefore we are not endorsing any position.

Replenishing the education trust fund could provide Maryland with the money it needs to move ahead with projects the Purple Line. However, gambling has adverse social consequences, and would be unlikely to promote sustainable economic development in Prince George's County. Voters should weigh these and others factors themselves in deciding how to vote.

These are the official endorsements of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority in favor of endorsing for or against each issue.

One of McDuffie's simplest promises is to hold community office hours, as Tommy Wells does in neighboring Ward 6. Ward 5 has a large elderly population that may find it difficult to travel downtown to the Wilson Building to discuss concerns, so McDuffie plans to be available to hear those concerns in person in individual neighborhoods.

McDuffie supports Initiative 70, the proposed citizen ballot initiative to ban corporate campaign donations. He's also taken a stand against corporate bundling, while other major Ward 5 campaigns have not.

Former Councilmember Thomas talked about the importance of small business corridors like Bladensburg Road, North Capitol Street, 12th Street, and Rhode Island Avenue, but did not get any funding for Great Streets programs on these corridors. McDuffie will make it a top priority to bring funding to Ward 5's neglected commercial corridors, instead of the recent trend of only focusing on drawing big-box retail to the ward.

McDuffie wants more transportation choices in Ward 5. He is interested in how the Circulator system could be expanded to serve the ward, as it will be many years before a streetcar could come to Michigan and Rhode Island Avenues even under the most optimistic scenarios.

McDuffie has degrees from Howard University and the University of Maryland School of Law. He has worked for Eleanor Holmes Norton, as an assistant state attorney in Prince George's County, a judicial clerk in Maryland's 7th Circuit, a trial attorney for the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, and, since after the 2010 election, as a policy advisor to the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice. His background in policy will bring much-needed experience to the table, as the budget process will be well underway when the new councilmember takes the seat.

McDuffie had a very strong performance at the March 3 candidates debate. He proved to be adept at answering detailed questions and clearly had a stronger grasp of issues such as ethics, campaign finance, and public safety than the other candidates on the dais that day.

He stood up for his beliefs, supporting a tax on sugary beverages because of their correlation with negative health outcomes, and refused to pander to the audience even when some audibly jeered his position.

Other candidates commonly discussed as major players for the seat bring questions to the table that raise serious doubts about their ability to lead.

Frank Wilds, who previously ran for the seat in 2006, has not provided serious solutions for Ward 5. One of his priorities, for example, is to bring a major federal government office to the Rhode Island Avenue corridor. Common sense shows that there are no parcels of land that could hold what one would assume would be an enormous building, nor is there the infrastructure to make such an undertaking viable.

Delano Hunter ran for the seat in 2010, and has done nothing to show a firm grasp of the issues that are of importance to all Ward 5 residents. His website includes bland pronouncements such as "issu[ing] annual reports" and working for development "that respects the tradition of our ward."

In addition, Hunter continues to support a referendum to repeal marriage equality. This stance is not just troubling, but should be an automatic disqualification for office. Anyone who believes that subjecting the civil rights of a minority group to the whims of the electorate is unacceptable.

Some progressive-voting residents of Ward 5 are excited about Drew Hubbard. Hubbard has legislative experience from working on the staffs of Councilmembers Kwame Brown, Marion Barry, and Michael Brown, but questions have been raised regarding his independence. He also remains a virtual unknown to the vast majority of Ward 5 residents.

Hubbard's presence in this campaign is building needed name recognition that could stand him in good stead for future runs for office, but his supporters should be mindful of the strategic realities of the race. Voting without regard for strategy has created problems in several recent elections. Nonetheless, we believe McDuffie will make the best Ward 5 councilmember and hope all voters, including progressives, will unite behind McDuffie.

Many Ward 5 precincts saw low turnout in last week's primary. The May 15 special election is critical to the future of the ward, and voters need to make their voices heard. Apathy is not an option this time.

Kenyan McDuffie's experience, continued leadership, and clearly articulated vision makes him the only choice for the Ward 5 council seat. We urge Ward 5 voters to select him on Tuesday, May 15th.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing the candidate.

Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

There are many reasons to support civil marriage for all. There's the simple issue of fairness: the state should not give a privilege to one group of people and deny it to another.

Equal marriage is also the best way to give all Maryland families the financial and legal protections they need to build a life. Committed couples who are unable to marry must to make financial sacrifices that opposite-sex couples do not have to make.

A 2009 study by the New York Times revealed that a same-sex couple will spend $467,000 more than a comparable heterosexual couple throughout their lives, in extra taxes, health insurance when an employer doesn't cover same-sex partners, and being ineligible for Social Security or pension benefits.

Without the ability to marry, committed gay and lesbian couples must set up a legal framework to reproduce the protections straight couples take for granted. These extra legal efforts are expensive and are only available to a small segment of the population.

Maryland State Delegate Mary Washington, the only openly gay black delegate in Maryland, makes it clear that there is a socioeconomic argument for gay marriage. "This is also about protecting our families, our poor and working-class people," she told the Washington Post in February.

Beyond economic arguments, studies show that children do better with married parents than with unmarried parents. And we've seen how communities that create an intolerant atmosphere towards gays or any minority group can destroy the well-being of its youth, gay or straight.

Civil unions, even when they're written to be "all-but-marriage," do not grant the same rights and protections. A separate word is not an equal word in practice. In New Jersey, where civil unions were explicitly written to provide the same rights as marriage, a state commission has found that civil unions have not fulfilled their goal. The "second-class status" of relationship created in New Jersey is hard to understand and often requires much more legal work in order to grant couples similar protection to their opposite-sex counterparts.

A referendum is not the appropriate forum to decide the rights of any minority group. As founding father James Madison discussed, in a system of direct democracy there is "nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party ... [and such systems] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property". In contrast, representative democracy allows for more measured, cool considerations of issues affecting the rights of minorities.

While Greater Greater Washington traditionally writes most about the physical shape of our neighborhoods, such as transportation infrastructure and buildings, we care about all policies that affect our communities. Encouraging healthier families of all types and all gender mixes is a fundamental part of building healthy communities. On the flip side, discrimination affects all of our lives for a long time, and our cities, too.

Equal marriage is a necessary step to extend important protections under the law to all people. While Maryland's legislature has taken a great step forward, it will likely come down to the citizens of the Free State to determine whether same-sex couples will retain the right to marry.

If you're a Marylander, we encourage you to support equal marriage by not signing the petition to bring it to a referendum. And if a vote does occur, we ask you to vote to uphold the legislature's equal marriage bill this November.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing (or, in this case, endorsing against) the initiative.

Most sitting councilmembers aren't supporting this ballot initiative. Their desperate excuse is that a ban on direct corporate funding of campaigns could push corporate dollars into the shady world of political action committees.

But the council has the authority to regulate those PACs, so that argument rings hollow.

Those councilmembers would actually have you believe that the current system of direct corporate contributions to campaigns is transparent by comparison. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Corporate contributors make a mockery of campaign finance rules by cloning themselves to circumvent contribution limits. Corporate donors bundle checks from each of their corporate subsidiaries, even if those subsidiaries do nothing but write checks to councilmembers.

By giving money through these veiled spinoffs, corporations can give many times more than you or I can give. Is that fair? Should your neighbor be able to contribute 12 times more than you because he owns a business with 11 subsidiaries and you do not?

Often, these corporate contributors are land developers who establish each development as a separate limited liability company (LLC), and bundle checks from each LLC to politicians. Using LLCs is particularly shady, as the identities of their owners is legally not public information.

We can strike at the heart of this culture of pay-to-play in DC government by passing this ballot measure. Doing so would force councilmembers to be more responsive to ordinary citizens in order to finance their campaigns.

As long as our politicians bankroll their campaigns with bundled corporate checks, though, we can forget about regulating PACs or passing any other meaningful campaign finance reform. Just last December, the council voted down several amendments to include campaign finance reform in ethics legislation, by a vote of 12-1.

Dissenting councilmembers claimed they voted no because they wanted to wait to address campaign finance reform separately. We aren't holding our breath. Only 2 members co-introduced a comprehensive reform bill, but just last week the rest of the council found time to support a much narrower campaign finance reform fix, limiting money order contributions to $25.

That's a good step, but other issues are equally pressing. Or is the council only willing to deal with the problem of the day on the front page of the newspapers, and none other?

Our patience has run out. As long as corporate owners can walk to a sitting councilmember and, while discussing a city contract, hand them 12 checks from each LLC they own, residents cannot trust our elected officials.

No, Banning corporate contributions to campaigns is not sufficient to reform campaign finance. Yes, it will still be possible for PACs to influence DC Council legislation.

But Initiative 70 will make it a lot harder for corporations to buy votes, and will send a clear message to the Council that continued campaign finance reform, including PAC regulation, can be delayed no longer.

Sign a petition when you vote on April 3rd, or even better, volunteer for DC Public Trust and help collect signatures.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing the initiative.

Shapiro worked with community stakeholders to bring a grassroots vision to fruition along Route 1, which has culminated in the Gateway Arts District. Despite the economic downturn, revitalization continues along the corridor, stopping dead in its tracks at the District's doorstep on Eastern Avenue.

Shapiro is ready and committed to bridge the gaps along DC's gateway corridors, starting with Georgia Avenue, and his record more than suggests that he is fully capable of doing so. Additionally, his involvement on local boards, including the Latin American Youth Center, the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington, and the Washington Area Housing Partnership, exemplifies his longstanding commitment to community development.

As executive director of the College Park City-University Partnership, Shapiro was a constructive voice in critical town-gown disputes, where he was able to win support from both sides. The Prince George's County Council elects their chair, and their choice of Shapiro strongly demonstrates his ability to work collegially with other councilmembers to work toward common goals. This skill is missing in many members of the current DC Council.

The District is a part of a diverse metropolitan region. Its issues affect communities hyper-locally and also cut across jurisdictional lines. A councilmember with a proven ability to think and work regionally will only benefit District residents in the long-term.

Incumbent Vincent Orange's record, particularly with regard to economic development, stands in stark, disappointing contrast to Shapiro's. Orange has long viewed the city's urbanity as something holding us back. He has exploited it, particularly in Ward 5, by touting a brand of economic development best defined by poorly-designed big-box stores and clear-cutting, greenfield development. Meanwhile, revitalization and small business development along Rhode Island Avenue, New York Avenue, and Bladensburg Road has floundered.

At the recent candidate forum, Orange repeatedly uttered Tommy Wells' catchphrase "livable, walkable." If he truly has come to believe in strengthening urban spaces as a top priority, he has not demonstrated that with more than words, at least not yet. Whether he wins re-election or remains in public life in other ways, he will have opportunities to actually walk the walkable walk, and hope he will avail himself of these.

Biddle's experience with education is impressive, but in both the past and current campaigns he has not been able to articulate a clear vision for how having him on the council will change education for the better. Nor has he made a compelling argument for electing him in other ways beyond simply not being Vincent Orange.

We do hope Biddle will continue to advocate around education policy, where DC's discourse still focuses too much on "horse race" issues such as how education news affects a mayor's political fortunes rather than what will best help DC's kids succeed.

Meanwhile, your vote on April 3 ought not to turn on vote-splitting game theory. Instead, vote for the best candidate for the job. That candidate is Peter Shapiro.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing the candidate.