By Adam Pagnucco.
For more than twenty years, Democratic candidates have won all partisan elections in Montgomery County for county executive, county council and General Assembly. Reardon “Sully” Sullivan, the chair of the county’s Republican Party, would like to change that reality for council members through a proposed charter amendment. Does he have any shot to do so?
First, some background. Republicans have not always been wiped out in MoCo elections. Back in the 1990s, two council members and up to a quarter of the county’s state legislators were Republicans. But a combination of changing national politics and deliberate targeting by local Democrats (including the District 39 purge of 1998) gradually ejected them. The final hammer fell in 2006, when District 1 Council Member Howie Denis and District 15 Delegate Jean Cryor, the last two partisan Republicans in the county, lost their seats.
Sully would like to end complete Democratic domination through a charter amendment restructuring elections for the council’s four at-large seats. Currently, the Democratic and Republican parties each hold primary elections to decide their four nominees for the seats. Those nominees along with any unaffiliated, third party or write-in candidates then face off in the general election, with the top four vote-getters winning. The Montgomery County Council had two at-large seats from 1970 through 1990 and has had four of them since. A non-Democrat has never won an at-large council election in all of those years while three Republicans (Denis, his predecessor Betty Ann Krahnke and District 2’s Nancy Dacek) won district seats.
Sully would like to add this language pertaining to at-large council members to the county’s charter: “Four Councilmembers shall be elected by all qualified County voters, with no more than two members belonging to the same political party.” That would guarantee that Democrats, who have always controlled all four seats, would be limited to two at most.
Sully’s model for this concept is the Council of the District of Columbia. The D.C. Council has four at-large seats, with two being elected every two years for four year terms. The two candidates who are elected in each cycle may not be from the same political party, a requirement embedded in the D.C Home Rule Act passed by Congress in 1973.
In the past, Democrats and Republicans would often split the two at-large seats. This was likely the only way that Republicans like Carol Schwartz and David Catania could ever be elected to the D.C. Council. More recently, D.C. has seen a succession of Democratic politicians change their party registration to independent to win these seats. That’s what would probably happen in MoCo if Sully’s proposal were to ever pass.
And could it? Right now, Sully has asked the county’s Charter Review Commission, which advises the county government on the charter, to consider recommending his idea to the county council. The chances of the commission actually doing so seem low since a majority of them are Democrats, and even if they did, the all-Democratic county council would never place it on the ballot.
But here’s where it gets interesting: Sully has proven his ability to get charter amendments on the ballot through gathering petition signatures. He did so in 2024 for a charter amendment limiting the county executive to two consecutive terms, which voters overwhelmingly approved. He is now gathering signatures for another charter amendment limiting county spending. Will Sully’s idea on at-large seats become the next cycle’s charter amendment campaign? If it does, would voters approve it? And if so, would it even be legal under state election law? While D.C. has a system like this, I don’t know of anything like this in Maryland’s 23 other local jurisdictions.
Those are questions for another day. For now, Sully’s proposal to the Charter Review Commission is printed below.
*****
Proposal to Amend Montgomery County Charter §102
Ensuring Diverse Representation on the County Council
January 12, 2026
Montgomery County has consistently emphasized the importance of diversity, inclusion, and broad community representation. Despite these stated values, the current structure of the County Council does not provide institutional safeguards to ensure that political minority viewpoints are represented in legislative deliberations. This absence persists even though Montgomery County is home to more than 100,000 registered Republicans and approximately 150,000 unaffiliated voters.
Maryland law provides a relevant and instructive precedent. Under Maryland Election Law §2-201, local Boards of Elections must include representatives of both the majority party and the principal minority party. This statutory requirement is intended to prevent domination by a single political viewpoint and to enhance public confidence through bipartisan oversight of critical governmental functions.
A similar principle is applied in the District of Columbia, where election law limits at-large Council representation so that no more than two of the four at-large members may belong to the same political party. In practice, this ensures that political minorities are guaranteed representation in a jurisdiction otherwise dominated by a single party.
Montgomery County’s own Charter reflects the philosophy of diversity of representation. Section 509 provides that no more than six of the eleven members of the Charter Review Commission may belong to the same political party, demonstrating the County’s recognition that diversity of political thought improves governance and decision-making.
That same logic should apply to the County Council. Balanced political representation enhances legislative deliberation, strengthens oversight, and improves budgetary decision-making by ensuring that policies are examined through multiple perspectives. Absent structural safeguards, a single ideological viewpoint may dominate the Council’s work, potentially undermining public confidence in the fairness and inclusiveness of County government.
Proposed Amendment to Article I, §102 (Composition and Election)
Current language (excerpt):
“Four Councilmembers shall be nominated and elected by the qualified voters of the entire County.”
Proposed revised language:
“Four Councilmembers shall be elected by all qualified County voters, with no more than two members belonging to the same political party.”
This amendment would preserve the existing eleven-member structure of the County Council, seven district members and four at-large members, while ensuring that the election of the at-large council members allows for political party diversity.
Rationale for the Amendment
Consistency with State Principles: Maryland law already mandates bipartisan representation in election administration to promote fairness, balance, and public trust. Extending this principle to legislative representation is logical and consistent with established policy.
Structural, Not Partisan: The proposal does not favor any political party or candidate. It creates a neutral, durable framework ensuring that the minority political parties are provided representation.
Good Governance and Oversight:
o Encourages deliberation informed by diverse political perspectives
o Reduces the risk of groupthink and one-party dominance
o Enhances transparency and accountability
o Reflects Montgomery County’s stated values of inclusion and representation
Public Confidence: Institutionalized political diversity in major legislative decisions can strengthen residents’ trust in County government, particularly in a politically diverse jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Charter Review Commission is uniquely positioned to recommend structural reforms that enhance the legitimacy, balance, and credibility of Montgomery County’s government. Requiring that no more than two at-large Councilmembers belong to the same political party would strengthen representative governance, align with existing Maryland statutory principles and the County Charter itself, and reaffirm Montgomery County’s commitment to inclusive and diverse political representation.