By Adam Pagnucco.
No human being has deposited more charter amendments on Montgomery County ballots than former Delegate Robin Ficker. It’s not even close. A man of boundless energy, Ficker’s relentless proselytizing in public places of all kinds has enabled him to challenge the county’s establishment countless times with charter amendments on taxes, term limits and other subjects over several decades.
And while he is almost 82 years old, Ficker may not be done.
Yesterday, Ficker sent me the email below without any prompting from me.
*****
With large assessment increases, tax increases from a state that cannot grow its gross domestic product and now another money grab attempt by the county’s twice term limited county executive, it is time for the 2026 county election to be about making the county affordable— hence our ballot ? To limit property tax increases to the rate of inflation. Not a cut, just a modest increase.
*****
I asked Ficker if he was gathering signatures for a ballot question. He answered, “Of course, I am collecting signatures. There is a unanimous council exception.”
This is the second potential charter amendment on the 2026 general election ballot. Yesterday, I reported that Reardon “Sully” Sullivan had established a ballot question committee to pursue a charter amendment limiting county government spending.
Ficker has passed two charter amendments in this century. The first, in 2008, converted the override requirement for the charter limit on property taxes then in effect from seven of nine county council votes to all nine. (That came after a 13% property tax hike.) The second, in 2016, established term limits for the county executive and county council for the first time. (That came after an 8.7% property tax hike.) Ficker tried to tighten the property tax limit in 2020, but his amendment was defeated and an alternative proposed by Council Member Andrew Friedson passed instead.
Ficker running for council back in 2009.
Tax hikes tend to be good for passage of Ficker amendments. With County Executive Marc Elrich proposing another one last week (along with a gigantic fee hike), Ficker may be betting that a new charter amendment on taxes may get support from voters. But two factors apply here.
First, because of a 2012 change to state law essentially nullifying county charter limits on property taxes, a new amendment on that subject may be mostly symbolic. (I told the story of how that came to pass in The Hand of the King.)
And second, as I reported yesterday, Sullivan is pursuing a separate charter amendment on spending limitations. His amendment and Ficker’s do not seem to conflict. Could they both wind up on the ballot? Could they both pass?
Ficker has always had amazing stamina regardless of his age. This is a man who once climbed hundreds of utility poles in the middle of the night to post his campaign signs. Can he still singlehandedly gather more than 10,000 valid voter signatures? Could there be a team-up between Ficker and Sullivan? Would elements of the business community get involved?
Right now, there are more questions than answers. But charter amendments are serious business since they constrain the lawmaking and budgetary powers of the county executive and the county council. We shall see what the future has in store.