Maryland Needs A Strong, Organized Progressive Caucus

While Maryland's progressive lawmakers may know each other personally and be able to coalesce on important issues when necessary, this is not always the case. There is no formal structure uniting the Maryland General Assembly’s progressives and no current announced plans to do so. The consequences of this are apparent, as revealed by the events of March 10.

On Wednesday, March 10 of 2021, Delegate Gabriel Acevero (D-Montgomery) stood up for over an hour introducing four amendments to Speaker Adrienne Jones’s police reform bill. These amendments, all of which were rejected, included allowing counties to create civilian oversight boards, abolishing qualified immunity, investigating white nationalism within Maryland police, and removing armed police officers from schools.

The outcome of the four amendments Del. Acevero introduced. None received roll call votes except the last, which was a surprise roll call vote called by Republicans. The final vote tally may not be final.

To any progressive-minded person in Maryland, these all sound great! The issue is that their progressive lawmakers were seen to be preventing roll-call votes (which require a second from the main floor of the House of Delegates and not the chamber annex) and voting against the single one that came up en-masse. This has sparked outrage and Twitter feuds that are still ongoing as of the writing of this article. People are furious, lawmakers feel confused, and a bill they viewed as not going far enough was untouched besides fixing a typo.

I am not saying that people are wrongfully angry these amendments weren’t adopted, nor that lawmakers who found themselves in a difficult position when faced with the ire of leadership were unjustified in what they did, said, and didn’t say. In fact, I’m here to argue that better organization and communication through a formalized progressive caucus would have avoided much of this frustration, confusion, and sloppiness.

Before getting into the merits of a progressive caucus, I want to bring up two moments where progressives were able to unite and change the consensus on a controversial issue and pave the way for change: the Johns Hopkins private police force legislation in 2019, and allowing undocumented immigrants filing taxes through an ITIN to receive the earned income tax credit (EITC) in 2021.

The vote for SB793 in 2019, with Republican lawmakers highlighted with a red square. For a local bill, this was a considerable amount of opposition.

When Johns Hopkins University requested authorization for a private police force, many were furious. The local bill narrowly cleared the necessary channels by a single vote, after which it earned what the General Assembly deems “local courtesy.” While not impossible, opposing a bill given local courtesy is often arduous and comes with political consequences. Despite this, 35 Democratic Delegates, facing many potential consequences from leadership, voted against SB793 when it came to the floor. Many also worked to support amendments proposed by then Delegate Nick Mosby and Delegate Gabriel Acevero. While this show of force did not kill the legislation, it prevented it from being a lopsided victory for Johns Hopkins and allowed efforts to abolish this authorization to continue into 2021.

Progressive leadership again rose to support an issue during debate of the RELIEF Act of 2021, which gave direct payments to Marylanders who had filed for the EITC. When it was found that immigrants who did not have citizenship but still paid taxes were not included, immigrant rights groups such as CASA rose up and demanded a change. What happened next was amazing: leadership listened! With the threat of a wave of progressive lawmakers adding the amendment to the bill on the floor, the bill was pulled back into subcommittee, amended, and then approved by the full House of Delegates. In the end, this provision was separated out into another bill that went into effect without Gov. Hogan’s signature, but this move prevented MGA leadership from leaving out tens of thousands of immigrant taxpayers from receiving vital stimulus.

These are the kinds of battles that progressive lawmakers can wage, even with institutional constraints and limited numbers. A progressive caucus allows these fights to happen with organization and active communication, as opposed to haphazard coalition building that doesn’t remain reliable. The mere presence of a unified front for progressive causes can have significant influence on politics in Annapolis and can work to ease some of the consequences that politicians may face from working against legislative leadership. After all, having forty people on your side is a lot better than having five people!

The first question a progressive caucus would answer is about who is a “progressive” and what that term means. By setting up a formalized membership structure, voters and advocates can further understand where their state legislators stand on issues. If you ask many different advocates in Annapolis, their list of the “progressive legislators” may completely change. This is not a minor issue: it leads to confusion when seeking to amend legislation and determining who to contact on which committee when seeking progressive change. The advocates behind the fight against the Johns Hopkins police force and including immigrants in the RELIEF Act would feel far more at ease if they knew who their allies were and that their allies were actively communicating to help them achieve their goals.

Another problem addressed by the introduction of a progressive caucus is communication and strategy. Point blank, Twitter feuds are an unproductive use of time and make lawmakers appear incredibly disorganized. An actual formal caucus will allow lawmakers to settle disputes amongst themselves outside of the public eye and without allowing tensions to boil over. Most importantly, it will attempt to avoid many of these tensions by providing a space to plan which amendments to introduce, why they should be introduced, and allow lawmakers to minimize their collective risk posed by undermining the leadership of their legislative chamber.

A common refrain from progressive lawmakers from the past few days has been “I didn’t know about these amendments” and “I agree in principle but (insert legislative technicality here).” While not inherently incorrect on their face, these answers shouldn’t even be able to be used! These debates should be properly arranged before they take place, otherwise progressive organizations and voters view these excuses as offensive. A progressive caucus that has rules for membership and public decorum, regular meetings, and a unified strategy prevents lawmakers from feeling ineffective and allows advocates to feel confident in what progressive leadership has to offer.

Maryland’s burgeoning progressive movement should be allowed to flourish in the halls of Annapolis. By learning from the mistakes in strategy and communication made after Delegate Acevero’s amendments, elected progressives can evolve to match the energy of advocates and convince their voters that the status quo can and should be broken in Maryland. I hope that progressive lawmakers seize this moment and band together, not through Twitter, but through Zoom and good old-fashioned bylaws.