Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated debate over emergency special‑election bills; county attorney flags state‑law constraints and ranked‑choice amendment fails
Summary
Councilmembers debated four emergency election bills proposing alternate special‑election timelines and formats (including eliminating special primaries). County Attorney Rhonda Weaver and other legal staff warned of potential conflicts with state election law; a proposed ranked‑choice voting amendment failed and multiple bills were set for further work or held.
Councilmembers spent a prolonged portion of the meeting debating four emergency election bills (CB‑92 through CB‑95) that would change how Prince George's County schedules and conducts special primary and special general elections. The proposals diverge: some remove the special primary in favor of a single, nonpartisan special general (shortening the timeline and reducing the number of elections), while others conform to state board of elections timing (at least 100 days) and petition signature/verification standards.
Councilmember De Noga argued the county should risk legal challenge to avoid "hemorrhaging" millions of dollars on multiple special elections and suggested a single nonpartisan general could save time and funds. County Attorney Rhonda Weaver and other legal advisors reported discussions with state election officials and cautioned that state law, including primary nomination provisions and uniformity rules, likely constrain the county’s ability to eliminate a special primary; Weaver said the state law framework presents a substantial legal question and recommended conforming to state law to avoid immediate litigation.
Councilmember Olson introduced an amendment to allow the county to elect ranked‑choice voting for a special election when county voting machines can accommodate it; that amendment was defeated (motion failed 4–2–2). Several bills and amendments were either held for further work or amended and transmitted as committee recommendations; council members signaled interest in compromises and possible future charter or legislative changes to address the timeline and costs of special elections.
The debate included a sustained legal exchange: Weaver said state law contains mandatory provisions that may require primaries for principal political parties and that removing the special primary could expose the county to prompt legal challenge. Some council members said the urgency of potential multiple special elections justified taking legal risk to shorten timelines and reduce costs. The committee ultimately held several bills for additional drafting and set follow‑ups.
