Last night, seven at-large candidates traipsed down to John Tyler Elementary on Capitol Hill for the race’s first candidate forum of the general election—and most of them arrived on time. The debate, hosted by the Ward 6 Democrats and moderated by WTOP’s Mark Segraves and WRC-TV’s Tom Sherwood, pitted all comers against each other—Democratic incumbent Kwame R. Brown, “independent Democrats” Michael A. Brown, Dee Hunter, and Mark Long, Republican nominee Patrick Mara, Republican incumbent Carol Schwartz (running as a write in), and Statehood Green David Schwartzman—in front of about 75 attendees.

The Post’s Nikita Stewart filed her report on the matter this morning, but allow LL, unfettered by the bounds of objectivity, to render some judgments on the forum’s participants:

Kwame R. Brown: The defining moment of Brown’s performance came when asked about whether or not he’d vote for the Michelle Rhee two-tier teachers contract. Brown spent a minute talking around the issue, about how “at the end of the day, no one wants bad teachers” Pressed by Segraves for a substantive answer, Brown said, “If it were between option A and B, I would choose option A.” Huh? He also gave a squirrelly answer on whether he’d support a citywide single-beer ban. On the other hand, you can’t argue with the fact that, when asked which other candidate each would vote for besides themselves, five of six said Kwame Brown (only Schwartzman demurred). Kwame, in fact, also said he’d vote for Kwame: “I’m gonna take my son [also named Kwame] so we can both vote for Kwame Brown.” Grade: B-

Michael A. Brown: If you’re gonna attend a candidates’ forum, you attend the candidates’ forum. You don’t show up an hour into a 90-minute debate and expect a passing grade from LL. Brown cited a pair of events he’d made prior commitments for, but LL is told Brown had committed to the debate weeks before, then sent his regrets mere hours beforehand. Not cool. But LL can understand why he showed up late: Brown would likely have been more of a punching bag for other candidates, such as when, at debate’s end, Hunter called him out for giving local labor leaders a different answer from what he said last night regarding a charter schools moratorium. And make no mistake Brown will be milking his last name for all its worth—”I like how two Browns sounds….Brown squared,” he said in response to the who-else-are-you-voting-for question, marking the first time he’s tried to push the Brown connection in LL’s presence. Grade: D+

Dee Hunter: A question early in the debate about to what extent a candidate’s personal and professional dealings should be fair game was a clear shot at Hunter, who is facing disciplinary proceedings from the D.C. bar counsel. “Once you make the commitment or decision to seek public office, your life becomes an open book.” Later, Segraves followed up with a more direct line of inquiry about the charges, to which Hunter gave a supremely unsatisfying answer, excusing his behavior based on his large number of clients. Also, in response to a question on voting rights, he laid the failure of the D.C. Voting Rights Act at the feet of congressional Republicans. Sorry, Dee—Democrats are just as much to blame for that one. Grade: D

Mark Long: Long never quite met the old James Stockdale test (Who am I? Why am I here?). Long was cogent, well-spoken, and pretty much forgettable. If you’re going to jump in to a citywide race late with virtually no public service record and even less name recognition, you need to have a good reason ready. LL hasn’t heard it yet. Grade: C+

Patrick Mara: Mara did a good job of staying on his message of being a fiscally responsible type who would support the Fenty schools plan foursquare. The problem is, in a room (and city) full of Democrats, who buys that message from a Republican? Mara showed a strong grasp of the issues, citing several areas where real budget cuts are possible, and played defense better than anyone, including making a strong case why sick leave is a bad idea (though LL remains unconvinced by his POV). When Schwartz angrily accused him of taking upwards of a half-million dollars in business money, Mara demanded additional time to respond and, though he didn’t exactly get permission, took it, over the moderators’ objections. Why did he beat Schwartz? “I got off my duff,” he said. Snap! Grade: A-

Carol Schwartz: Schwartz was at her best when defending her record on the sick leave bill, making it perfectly clear she sacrificed her council sinecure by standing up to the business community. Good on ya, Carol! But the rest of the time, Schwartz’s thin skin showed in her slightly unhinged responses to other candidates’ criticism, particularly when Mara jabbed at her on gay marriage and Michael Brown implied that she’s a John McCain supporter (she hasn’t made a presidential endorsement). But her biggest mistake? Rather than hammer home the fact she’s a wrote-in every time she opened her mouth, Schwartz only mentioned that exactly once, at the very end of the debate. She doesn’t seem to recognize this is a different kind of campaign. Grade: C-

David Schwartzman: Schwartzman beat extremely low expectations with candor, a sense of humor, and showing up in a coat and tie. Make no mistake that Schwartzman, a Howard University biology professor, is well to the left of any other candidate out there, and he was not at all reticent about positioning himself as a “real independent progressive.” That’s not to say LL endorses his policy positions: On the need for austerity measures in upcoming budgets, Schwartzman said that spending on housing and human services issues is too low and called on a steep tax hike on the richest 5 percent of D.C. residents to pay for it. Probably a bad move in this economy, but it’s a nice change of pace to have an unabashed small-s socialist in house, in any case. Grade: A

Meet the new boss of the D.C. Democratic State Committee…

Same as the old boss: Anita Bonds held off a challenge from Ward 6’s Betty Smalls at the first meeting of local Dems since the Sept. 9 elections, held last night at the Wilson Building.

Bonds and supporters had for the most part held off a challenge from a competing slate in the elections, Obama4UnityBeatsMcCain. While the slate won several seats in ward committee races, it was routed in the at-large races, pushing several of the committee’s most active members out of office.

If anything, Bonds consolidated her control, with Ward 5 ally Jim Berry winning election as vice chair. He replaces Jeff Richardson, who was chair of the Obama4Unity slate and did not win re-election as an at-large committee member.

In other news, Ward 2’s Dan Wedderburn, without opposition, was elected treasurer, replacing Ward 1’s Lenwood Johnson, who had come under fire in recent months for not filing fiscal reports to the membership at recent meetings and not filing required reports to the city campaign finance office. Early in the meeting, DCDSC staffer David Meadows noted that Johnson had not showed at a pair of meetings held in recent days to go over the group’s books. Johnson, who remains a committee member, was at last night’s meeting.

Cary Silverman, who unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Jack Evans in the Democratic primary for Ward 2 councilmember, plans to ask the Board of Elections and Ethics for a recount, according to a press release from his campaign.

Why a recount in a race Silverman lost with only 35 percent of the vote? According to the release, that’s because the BOEE certified the Sept. 9 election results “before completing its investigation, issuing a public report, or otherwise explaining massive voting discrepancies.”

Silverman says he “does not anticipate that the recount will change the ultimate outcome of the Ward 2 election, but will seek a recount to help restore voter confidence, determine the source of the apparent error, and ensure that DCBOEE is prepared for the November general election and future elections.”

Full release after jump. Read the rest of this entry »

A few months back, LL included in his column an item about how the federal Office of Special Counsel declared that the chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals was in fact subject to the Hatch Act—the federal law prohibiting political activity by certain federal and city employees. That opinion [PDF] was sent in response to an inquiry by At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who had been investigating the case of former BZA head Geoffrey Griffis in the context of a 2007 confirmation hearing.

It was all boring stuff, no doubt. So LL is tickled to note that someone noticed.

Yesterday, Robert Kabel, chair of the D.C. Republican Committee, dispatched a letter to the OSC asking them about the special case of Paul Strauss. The alleged conflict lies in Strauss’ concurrent service for the past decade as an elected partisan “shadow senator” and as chair of the city’s Board of Real Property Assessment Appeals, aka BRPAA (pronounced “BURP-uh,” FYI).

That, in light of LL’s disclosure of the Griffis letter, raises this issue: “The positions of Chair of [BRPAA] and Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals are analogous. The Mayor appoints members of both Boards with the advice and consent of the Council. Both officials are paid on a per diem basis by the D.C. Government. If OSC found that the Hatch Act applies to Mr. Griffis’ position, it would also seem logical that it applies to Mr. Strauss’ position.”

Strauss says that the OSC has already ruled on the matter. The issue, he says, first came up in 2006, amid his run for the Ward 3 council seat. At the time, the OSC rendered an opinion that his service in elective office and his service to BRPAA are not incompatible.

Kabel’s letter asks that the OSC release both the Griffis letter and the 2006 Strauss letter. It does not ask for an additional review of the matter.

OSC spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi says that his office will not release the letters, as they are “advisory opinions” narrowly focused, rather than decisions dealing with a broader scope of law. “They’re just FYIs to interested parties,” he says.

The 2006 Strauss decision still holds, he says, because there was a differing interpretation of the types of service each board position entails. In the OSC’s analysis, he says, the BZA head serves on a regular basis than the BRPAA head, who is forbidden from political activity only while discharging his board duties.

Why would the Republicans be pressing the issue? Strauss is running for re-election as a Democrat on Nov. 4; he has Republican competition, in Nelson Rimensnyder.

In any case, Strauss says, he’s nearing the end of his BRPAA service. His term expired in July and he has not requested reappointment by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. Whenever Hizzoner gets around to naming a replacement, he says, he’s out.

The GOP letter is pasted after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

In this week’s column, LL reported that he saw several staffers for At-Large Councilmember David A. Catania partying at council hopeful Patrick Mara’s headquarters on election night on Sept. 9. That was noteworthy, LL wrote, because incumbent Carol Schwartz has implied that Mara’s candidacy was part of a secret conspiracy hatched by Catania.

Well, if there was a conspiracy, it’s a secret no more. Yesterday afternoon, folks around town received invitations to Mara’s general election kickoff fundraiser. And whose name is in large type in the middle of the invite? “THE HONORABLE DAVID CATANIA”! Also slated to appear at the fundraiser, scheduled for Wednesday evening at the offices of GOP lobbyist David Carmen, is former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele.

Catania had no comment Tuesday. Ben Young, Catania’s chief of staff, says today that Mara only asked for Catania’s support after the primary. “David said that he would,” Young says in an e-mail.

UPDATE, 3:30 P.M.: Mara says that “in recent days, [Catania has] stepped forward. He offered to hold a fundraiser for me. We share a vision for the city.” And Steele, he says, “gave some some great advice for the primary…He said, ‘If you win, I’ll support you.”

Check after the jump for a rundown of the host committee list.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday evening, Legal Times reporter Jeff Jeffrey reported that at-large council candidate Dee Hunter is facing strong reprimand from the D.C. Bar Counsel for, among other things, allegedly keeping settlement proceeds without informing his clients.

Reports Jeffery:

Bar counsel accuses Hunter of violating a number of ethical rules, including committing criminal acts (forgery and theft), misappropriating funds, failing to maintain complete and accurate financial records, and “engaging in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation.” The charges carry a maximum penalty of disbarment.

Now Hunter isn’t the only candidate to have a history before the bar counsel. When running for mayor in 2006, it came out that Adrian M. Fenty had been lightly reprimanded for mishandling the affairs of an elderly client. The charges against Hunter are more serious.

Hunter did not immediately return a phone call from LL. Here’s what he told Jeffery:

“These allegations are completely, absolutely, 100 percent untrue,” Hunter said. “It’s hard to think it’s a coincidence that they’re coming out days before the election. After the hearing, it will be clear that I’ve done nothing wrong.”[...]

Hunter declined to go into detail about the bar counsel charges, saying only when dealing with a heavy caseload “sometimes things fall through the cracks.”

“In my career, I’ve had times where I had a caseload of hundreds of cases,” Hunter says. “I was acting as attorney, paralegal, secretary, bookkeeper, and file clerk. Under these circumstances, did I make some mistakes? Yes. Did I ever do anything intentionally wrong? Never.”

Hunter also ran into the legal system earlier this year, when a woman filed for a stay-away order against him after a Jan. 2 altercation. That petition was eventually denied by a Superior Court judge.

His troubles don’t end there: Hunter is also having his ballot petitions challenged by former at-large candidate Adam Clampitt, now a supporter of fellow independent Michael A. Brown. In a conversation with LL last week, Hunter said he believed Clampitt’s challenge would be summarily dismissed. A pre-hearing on the matter is scheduled for today.

UPDATE, 4:05 P.M.: Clampitt’s claim has been dismissed, says Board of Elections and Ethics spokesperson Dan Murphy. Clampitt did not challenge enough signatures to potentially take Hunter below the 3,000 necessary, so Hunter will appear on the November ballot.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

LL shot Carol Schwartz’s speech earlier this afternoon. Enjoy:

“Write In and Connect,” Carol: That’s what you need to do!

That was the idea behind Mayor Anthony A. Williams‘ 2002 write-in push, the only successful such campaign for major elective office in District history. “Write In and Connect” was a mantra in community meetings, a slogan on campaign mailers, and a jingle in radio spots that accompanied a big educational push from the Williams campaign. The push was so successful that he not only won the Democratic nomination for mayor, but the Republican nomination, too. (Since he remained a registered Democrat, he could not appear on the general election ballot as a Republican.)

Tony Bullock, a former aide to Williams, says the write-in campaign was “like a public education project.”

“We actually had ward meetings and pencils were provided for poeple and how-to mailings. This is how you do it. At the end of the day, we didn’t win every precinct, but we won every ward,” says Bullock, who says Schwartz has a chance: “It’s an achievable event. Carol Schwartz as a write-in has a very good chance of winning because she’s so well-known.”

So why can’t Schwartz rebottle lightning? There are some issues:

• Williams had light competition. His prime challenge came from Union Temple Baptist pastor Willie Wilson, who mounted a write-in campaign of his own. Of four Democrats actually on the ballot, two were unknowns and the only two were, shall we way, of dubious credibility. One was Faith, the single-named trumpetress and former exotic dancer, and the other was former at-large councilmember Douglas E. Moore, best known for biting a tow truck driver in 1976.
• Williams had a bunch of money, with a mayoral war chest allowing him to spend about $1 million to educated voters on how to cast a write-in vote. (Schwartz had about $85,000 on hand a week before the primary.)
• Williams was mayor, and a mayor well-loved by folks who could keep his campaign coffers fat for an expensive write-in campaign. Says Bullock, “There’s a lot of people who have a vested interest in keeping a mayor in office rather than a councilmember in office.”

There is another instructive historical precedent here. That would be the 1984 general election for the at-large council seat, where incumbent Rev. Jerry A. Moore Jr. lost to Schwartz, running to the right in the Republican primary, and then decided to mount a write-in challenge for the general election.

Sound familiar?

Things didn’t turn out so well for Moore: Schwartz won 50,892 votes, and only 42,282 write-ins were cast.

LL got Republican at-large nominee Patrick Mara on the phone for comment on vanquished incumbent Carol Schwartz’s decision to wage a write-in campaign.

“In all honesty,” he says, “I welcome any and all challengers in the general election.”

Schwartz’s decision seems in no small part to be motivated by spite toward Mara, who she lambasted today for “extremely nasty, dishonest and unfair efforts to undermine my record.”

Mara defended his message and campaign materials: “The key component of the primary that she is overlooking is that I got out and visited 8,000, 9,000 voters, spoke with thousands of voters on their doorsteps. On election day, 90 percent of the voters who I met at the polls I already knew. My mailers were comparison mailers; they stated how she voted and what she has done. Those mailers did offer stark contrast between myself and Mrs. Schwartz.”

So does a Schwartz write-in push help or hurt Mara? He says neither: “You know, I think it’s a pretty neutral move.”

LL also asked about Schwartz’ contention in a speech today that Mara “targeted and registered…College Republicans from schools throughout the city”—as many as 750 of them.

Says Mara, “That would be amazing if we did. We picked up volunteers from area schools, [but] most college students don’t want to give up their home-state voter registration. Believe me, I asked plenty of College Republicans to re-register. They have high hopes of returning to their state and running for office themselves.” At most, Mara says, he got 15 students to register in D.C., out of a total of about 100 residents he registered.

Here’s some highlights from the speech Carol Schwartz delivered this afternoon in front of reporters and supporters at her U Street campaign headquarters:

• “I am here today, to say, as Mark Twain once said, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” And, of course you know I’m talking about my political life, and it’s been a pretty long and mostly successful one.”
• “Last Tuesday, after the nastiest, most unrelentingly negative campaign I’ve ever seen in the District was waged against me by a relatively unknown person, I lost the chance to be on the General Election ballot in November to a candidate who only received 2,234 votes….Granted, I received only 1,483 votes - 751 fewer votes than my opponent. But we also know that he targeted and registered a comparable number of College Republicans from schools throughout the city. And why should these hundreds of students, with no real vested interest in the District of Columbia - rather than the hundreds of thousands of voters who do have a vested interest - decide my fate, the potential fate of our city and the possible fate of workers who need sick leave?”
• “There has been a huge outpouring of support for me to run as an Independent -which I cannot do - or to run a write-in campaign, which I can do.”
• “Why should so few voters decide? They should not decide for the rest of us. So I’m answering the calls for a write-in.. .with a resounding yes!”
• “To be certain, this will not be an easy task. But if all those who have encouraged me to undertake this task join in, we can win in November. And what’s the worst thing that can happen? I can lose again….So, to my past supporters and, hopefully, some new ones - whether they be Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Statehood/Greens or whatever - please grab a pencil. We’ve got a lot of writing in to do.”

Full text is after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

This morning, reporters received a terse e-mail from the campaign of At-Large Councilmember Carol Schwartz, saying the loser of last week’s Republican primary is slated to make “an important announcement” at her campaign HQ at 1 p.m. today.

Could Schwartz be announcing a write-in campaign—something she said last week she would not do? Could she be giving her farewell speech? Announce a challenge to the ballot results in light of the election-night irregularities?

Oh, the suspense! LL will be on the scene and will be liveblogging updates.

UPDATE, 1:10 P.M.: Carol has yet to enter the building. And no one here knows quite what to expect.

Update, 1:15: Write-in campaign! More to come.

Cary Silverman, the Mount Vernon Square lawyer who ran a spirited campaign against longtime Ward 2 incumbent Jack Evans, has conceded the Democratic primary.

“I spoke to Mr. Evans yesterday and I congratulated him,” says Silverman, who also posted a valedictory message on his blog last night. “I don’t expect the outcome [of the election] to change.” Silverman’s campaign had sent out a press release Wednesday morning that said “it’s too early to declare a winner or a loser.”

Still, Silverman says he’s not entirely convinced of the latest numbers’ accuracy. Particularly, he says, he’s not as worried about the phantom write-in votes as much as the phantom votes that were actually allocated to candidates. “They took away more of mine than more of his. You’d think they’d affect both of us proportionally.”

“It’s more confusing today than it was yesterday than it was the day before,” he says.

To that end, he’s dispatched a letter to the elections board asking the board to “take all steps necessary to restore trust in the election results.” Silverman, though not asking specifically for a recount, thinks it might not be a bad idea: “This was not a huge election in terms of turnout,” he says. “It shouldn’t take a lot of time to take out the ballots and run them again, right?”

According to the unofficial numbers, Silverman won a single precinct—Precinct 2, in East Foggy Bottom, 17-11. (It also turned in, by far, the fewest votes of any precinct; it contains mostly George Washington University student housing.) The CW going in was that if Silverman was going to pull a Hoosiers-like upset, he had to run strong in Foggy Bottom and in the eastern reaches of the ward, in Shaw and Mount Vernon Square, to get carried off the court a la Gene Hackman.

Didn’t happen for him: Evans’ worst showing off of the GW campus was in east Dupont Circle, where he won 55 percent. West Foggy Bottom, the residential part of the neighborhood, went 59 percent for Evans; Silverman’s home precinct, encompassing south Shaw and north Mount Vernon Square, went 64 percent for Evans, just one percentage point off his ward-wide margin. Unsuprisingly, Evans racked up huge margins in the western parts of the ward, garnering better than 70 percent in Georgetown and Kalorama.

Silverman declined to indulge in any postmortems, saying he’ll wait until he has more confidence in the precinct-by-precinct numbers.

Today, LL asked Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles about the investigation he’s been asked to do by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty into Tuesday’s voting irregularities.

Nickles’ probe is in addition to those launched by the Board of Elections and Ethics itself and one announced by the D.C. Council.

Nickles says he has begin looking into the matter, having “had a number of conversations yesterday”—but with who, he wouldn’t say.

LL asked what the product of the investigation would be, whether a written report on what happened Tuesday would be released to the public. Nickles wouldn’t commit.

“At some point,” he said, “I’m doing something.”

Finally, a look inside the madness at the Board of Elections and Ethics headquarters Tuesday night. When LL arrived shortly before 10:30, about a dozen people had gathered, including Ward 2 incumbent Jack Evans, who was poring over the questionable tallies. Within an hour, 50 people were in the board’s lobby and in the hallway, including Evans challenger Cary Silverman and a gaggle of his supporters.

Just before 11 p.m., board spokesperson Dan Murphy appeared to inform folks that the tallies were being examined and news would soon come. About 45 minutes later, everyone was directed downstairs, tot eh One Judiciary Square lobby, for his official statement.

In Part 2, LL arrives at incumbent Republican Carol Schwartz’s headquarters at about 9:30 p.m., just in time to catch her giving what she termed a “reality check” to supporters, with a mere 20 percent of precincts reporting. Immediately afterward, LL claimed on City Desk that Schwartz had conceded; others claimed no concession had been made.

Here’s a reality check: It was a concession speech. Watch LL’s exclusive video and see for yourself.

In attendance were colleagues Jim Graham of Ward 1 and Mary M. Cheh of Ward 3, not to mention much of the local Republican leadership. After Schwartz’s remarks, she retreated to the back room and showed reporters the numerous mailings sent to local Republicans by opponent Patrick Mara and the secretive “Citizens for Empowerment PAC.”

Toward 10 p.m., new numbers came in from the Board of Elections—the bad numbers—and Schwartz staffer Denise Wiktor began wondering exactly what the hell was going on. That’s when LL bolted for Judiciary Square.