The scramble to replace Robert White on the D.C. Council has become a political circus, and frankly, it’s embarrassing.

White resigned his at-large seat on November 2. The next day, Councilmember Christina Henderson announced plans to switch from independent to Democrat, raising questions about whether the Democratic Party could still appoint White’s replacement under the city’s party-balance rules.

On November 3, the party notified Council leadership that it had appointed Jamal Holtz. The calculation was obvious: act before Henderson’s registration change could complicate the party’s ability to fill the seat.

Fair enough. That explains the urgency. It doesn’t excuse the clumsy process that followed. Political convenience is not a reason to treat established procedures as optional.

The party invoked what it called “emergency authority” and chose Holtz as a temporary placeholder, promising a broader selection later. The public largely learned of the arrangement through news reports. Meanwhile, Henderson faced suggestions that changing her affiliation undermined home rule. That’s a stretch. She had every right to change her registration, even if doing so raised a legitimate legal question.

But what about the process?

The Board of Elections’ regulations describe a sequence: the Board certifies the vacancy, notifies the party chair by registered mail, and the party appoints a replacement after receiving that notice.

Yet the party had already told Council leadership on November 3 that Holtz was appointed. The Council announced his swearing-in on November 6. The Board met to certify the vacancy at 10:30 a.m. on November 9, and Holtz took the oath at 1 p.m.

The oath followed the Board’s meeting. The question is how the earlier appointment fits the Board’s required sequence.

When did the Board send the required notice, and when did the party receive it? Was the November 3 letter treated as the formal appointment? Council leadership has said it relied on legal advice. OK. But how did that advice reconcile the appointment with the Board of Elections’ regulations?

There may be a sound legal explanation. If so, let’s hear it. If officials believed the Home Rule Act allowed a different sequence, they should have put that reasoning on the record or sought a clear legal determination before proceeding. Residents shouldn’t have to piece together the law from press releases and conflicting accounts.

There was a more orderly path. The party could have announced Holtz as its preferred candidate, the Board could have certified the vacancy and sent its notice, and the party could then have made the formal appointment before the Council administered the oath. That may have complicated the party’s preferred timetable. But rules mean little if they apply only when politically convenient.

Instead, the process looked like an inside arrangement, with public institutions appearing to catch up to a political decision already made.

And now we’re preparing for another appointment.

Henderson has returned to independent status. Holtz is serving on the Council and has said he intends to step aside. The party is proceeding with a broader selection for another interim Councilmember, even though voters will fill the seat in an April 6, 2027, special election.

A more inclusive selection has value. But what public purpose is served by another resignation, another appointment, and another swearing-in so soon after the first? Holtz’s willingness to step aside doesn’t answer that question. Neither does the fact that a second selection was part of the original plan.

The Democratic Party had a political reason to move quickly. The Board and Council had responsibilities of their own, including ensuring that the legal process was respected — not simply accommodating the party’s timetable. If they believed a different approach was lawful, the public deserved that explanation before the decision was carried out.

D.C. cannot demand respect for its right to govern itself while leaving residents to question whether its own rules were followed. Governing ourselves also means holding our institutions accountable, especially when political interests threaten to take precedence over established procedures.

The party got what it wanted: a Democrat in Robert White’s seat. The public deserves something, too: a clear account of how the rules were applied — and a convincing explanation for why we’re preparing to fill the same seat again when voters will make their choice in less than five months.

Councilmember Christina Henderson may be considering changing her party affiliation from independent to Democrat. She hasn’t announced a decision, and she may never make the switch. But with Robert White preparing to resign from the D.C. Council on November 2, the possibility raises a legal question worth exploring.

Here’s why.

The Home Rule Act limits any political party to three of the Council’s five at-large seats, including the chairman. If Henderson joins Democrats Phil Mendelson and Anita Bonds after White leaves, Democrats would already be at that limit.

The Democratic Party would still have the authority to appoint White’s replacement, but it couldn’t put another Democrat on the Council without exceeding that limit. That makes an independent a possible alternative.

But can the party legally appoint one?

Robert’s decision to step down follows a disagreement over how a 1970 federal law affects his eligibility to serve as D.C.’s Delegate to Congress. I had the privilege of serving on his Council staff and saw firsthand his commitment to our city. I’m grateful for that experience and look forward to supporting him in his next chapter.

Under the Home Rule Act, his departure gives the D.C. Democratic Party responsibility for choosing an interim replacement until voters elect someone to fill the seat. Having served on the D.C. Democratic State Committee myself, I understand the significance of that responsibility.

The party is already preparing to vet potential candidates, as it should. Filling a Council vacancy is a serious responsibility, and the committee deserves time to consider its choices carefully. The possibility of Henderson changing parties could complicate that task through no fault of its own.

The legal question comes down to a few words.

The Home Rule Act says the central committee of the departing member’s party shall appoint “a person.” It doesn’t specifically say that person must belong to the same party. But the D.C. Board of Elections has a regulation, 3 DCMR § 908.1, requiring exactly that.

History helps explain how we got here.

In 1977, the D.C. Statehood Party appointed fellow party member Hilda Mason to replace Julius Hobson Sr. after his death. Two years later, the D.C. Democratic State Committee appointed Democrat John Ray to replace Marion Barry after Barry became mayor.

Both appointments happened before the Board adopted its vacancy regulations in 1981. Perhaps the Board was simply putting an existing practice into writing, based on what it believed Congress intended. That’s certainly possible. But just because parties had been choosing replacements from their own ranks doesn’t necessarily mean Congress required them to.

And that’s where the distinction matters.

The Home Rule Act is the law Congress passed, and the Board’s regulations must be consistent with it. So does the same-party requirement reflect what Congress intended, or does it go further?

Consider this: When an independent at-large Councilmember leaves office, Congress specifically requires the Council to appoint another independent. But when a party-affiliated member leaves, Congress simply says that party shall appoint “a person.”

Why the difference?

Maybe Congress assumed a political party would naturally appoint one of its own. Or maybe the wording was intentional. Either way, it’s worth asking whether Congress anticipated a situation in which a party could have the authority to fill a vacancy but no clear way to exercise it without exceeding the three-member limit.

The timing makes this more than an abstract question.

White’s resignation is scheduled for Monday, November 2, just one day before the general election. Once the Board receives his written resignation, it has five working days to certify the vacancy and notify the party. Democrats then have a reasonable period to appoint a replacement, without a fixed deadline. Understandably, the committee will want time to thoroughly consider its candidates.

Meanwhile, the Board can process party-registration changes after Tuesday’s election. Henderson could therefore become a Democrat while the committee is still considering its candidates. If she does so before the appointment, Democrats would already hold three at-large seats. The committee would still be responsible for replacing White, but the Board’s regulation would require it to appoint another Democrat — something the Home Rule Act’s three-member limit would prevent.

Of course, Henderson may decide to remain independent, making this entire discussion moot. But given the public debate, the legal questions are worth considering.

If she switches parties before an appointment, can Democrats appoint an independent despite the Board’s regulation? If not, what happens to the vacancy? Would it remain unfilled until voters elect a replacement?

It’s entirely possible that the Council, the Democratic Party, and other District officials are already examining these questions privately. If so, that’s a good thing. But should Henderson change her affiliation, the Board of Elections should clarify how its regulation applies, and the Council should seek a formal written opinion from the Attorney General before an appointment is made.

None of this assumes Henderson will switch parties, nor should it influence her decision. And it isn’t about questioning the Democratic Party’s responsibility to fill the vacancy.

It’s about making sure everyone understands what the law allows before that responsibility is exercised.

Whoever fills Robert’s seat will have a voice in decisions affecting all of us. The legality of that appointment shouldn’t be left in doubt after the person takes office.

Robert White is headed to Congress.

Once he leaves his at-large Council seat, the D.C. Home Rule Act sets up an unusual two-step process for replacing him: the D.C. Democratic State Committee appoints an interim Councilmember, and voters later choose the permanent successor in a special election.

For D.C. Democrats, that is not a ceremonial responsibility. The State Committee’s choice would have the same vote, influence and power on the Council as every other member.

The State Committee is the elected local party organization for D.C. Democrats, with representation from every ward and members elected at-large. Most residents understandably do not spend much time thinking about it. But in moments like this, it suddenly holds real governing power.

That makes the process now being discussed for Robert White’s anticipated vacancy worth a closer look.

A draft proposal — explicitly offered for discussion — calls for a large Democratic convention before the vacancy occurs. The written proposal envisions 1,000 delegates, though reporting suggests the idea now being discussed could grow to roughly 1,200.

The proposal is intended to make the process more open and participatory by bringing more Democrats into the discussion before State Committee members make the appointment.

That goal is worthwhile. But the convention raises a basic question: what problem is this additional representative body solving?

The proposed delegates would include party leaders, elected officials, former candidates, younger Democrats, rank-and-file Democrats selected by lottery and other constituencies. Candidates seeking the interim appointment would speak, delegates would vote, and the result would be advisory.

But the State Committee is already an elected representative body. Roughly 50 State Committee members were elected by voters to represent wards, constituencies and the city at-large — and to exercise the responsibilities entrusted to the committee.

So why create another representative layer to advise the representatives voters already chose to make the decision?

That does not mean the appointment should happen behind closed doors.

Far from it.

Hold public candidate forums and debates. Invite the media. Require detailed questionnaires. Let residents submit questions. Livestream the proceedings. Make candidate materials public. Have substantive deliberations publicly to the fullest extent possible. Then vote publicly.

Give people a chance to hear from the candidates, ask questions and understand how — and, more importantly, why — the final decision is made.

And because the convention vote would only be advisory, the fundamental question of power would remain unchanged. Delegates could choose one candidate and State Committee members could choose another.

That may broaden input. It does not change who decides.

But this debate also raises a more consequential question: why should there be an interim party appointment at all?

The Home Rule Act treats Council vacancies differently depending on the seat. When a ward seat becomes vacant, voters fill it through a special election, with no interim party appointment. When a party-affiliated at-large seat becomes vacant, the party’s central committee appoints an interim Councilmember until voters choose the permanent replacement in a special election.

If a ward vacancy can go directly to voters without an interim appointment, why should an at-large vacancy be treated differently?

I believe it should not.

The deeper question, then, is not whether 1,000 or 1,200 Democrats should help choose an interim Councilmember. It is whether any select group of party officials or delegates should make that choice in the first place.

Because the interim appointment process is based in the Home Rule Act, changing it is not something the State Committee can simply do on its own. And given the persistent threats to D.C.’s autonomy, no one should casually invite Congress to reopen the District’s governing framework.

But that does not mean the question should be ignored.

As local Democratic leaders organize to defend home rule, resist federal interference and continue the fight for greater self-government, this should be part of the broader conversation about what meaningful local democracy looks like.

If the main idea behind this convention proposal is that more people deserve a voice, then take that principle to its logical conclusion.

A convention of 1,200 people may be more inclusive than a vote of roughly 50 to 80 State Committee members alone. But 1,200 people are still a select group of people.

The electorate is something different.

The special election is already required. In the longer term, D.C. Democrats should make reform of the at-large vacancy process part of the party’s broader agenda for protecting home rule, strengthening local democracy and expanding the power of District voters.

That means building support among local elected officials, advocates and other allies for a system in which voters themselves ultimately have as much direct authority as possible — while being thoughtful about D.C.’s unique legal status and careful not to create new opportunities for federal intrusion.

For the vacancy in front of us, however, the State Committee has the authority and the responsibility. It should open the process, invite meaningful public participation and make the decision.

Then there is much more work to do.

The opportunity before the new party leadership is bigger than one Council vacancy. At a moment when D.C. home rule is under attack, the local Democratic Party should be a strong, organized voice for protecting the District’s autonomy and advancing the fight for statehood.

Its leaders should be asking: How do we organize Democrats to defend D.C.? How do we build meaningful ward-level infrastructure between elections? How do we develop candidates, recruit volunteers and educate voters? How do we create a pipeline for people who want to participate in local politics? And how do we build a Democratic Party that people actually know, understand and see as relevant to their communities?

Those are the questions that should help define the next chapter of the local Democratic Party.

A convention may bring more Democrats into one decision. The real test for the new leadership is whether it can bring more Democrats into the life of the party — defending D.C., building power in the wards and giving people a reason to stay engaged when there isn’t a vacancy to fill.

The morning after every election, the all-knowing gods of political punditry descend from the heavens to explain what just happened. They flood social media with hot takes, rush to television cameras, and confidently declare the simplest narrative as the absolute truth.

This year was no different.

A familiar narrative has taken hold: Washington, D.C. has moved left.

Why? Well, Janeese Lewis George is going to be the next mayor. Oye Owolewa won the Democratic At-Large race. Robert White is headed to Congress. Elissa Silverman is returning to the Council.

All of them are generally viewed as progressive politicians. Therefore, case closed. Or so we’re told.

Of course, D.C. is an overwhelmingly Democratic city, so most ideological debates here already happen inside the Democratic Party itself. But even within that reality, it is still too easy to mistake the outcome of a Democratic primary for a clear ideological mandate.

That is the problem with the “D.C. moved left” narrative: it assumes every election result is telling the same ideological story. It isn’t.

Consultants, activists, elected officials, and reporters spend a great deal of time debating ideology, factions, coalitions, and political movements. Most voters do not.

Most voters are trying to answer a much simpler question: Who is going to look out for me and my family?

The Washington Post’s poll offered an important clue. Fifty-five percent of voters believed the city was on the wrong track, while only 28 percent believed it was headed in the right direction. The Post poll and the City Cast poll also found voters concerned about affordability, public safety, economic uncertainty, and the city’s overall direction.

Those are not abstract questions of political philosophy. They are quality-of-life concerns.

For many voters, this election was not about choosing a label. It was about opening a rent renewal and wondering how much longer they can stay. It was about the quality of their child’s school, whether the bus shows up on time, whether the neighborhood feels safe, and whether the people running the city seem urgent enough about any of it.

That does not mean ideology is irrelevant. It matters. But voters experience government through daily life: housing costs, schools, safety, transportation, economic opportunities, and whether they believe things are getting better or worse.

That is where political observers often go wrong. They mistake the victory of a candidate for an ideological mandate. The two are not always the same thing.

D.C. may be overwhelmingly Democratic, but it is not politically or geographically monolithic. Voters in different wards and neighborhoods often bring different concerns to the ballot box.

Since Home Rule, Washington has elected mayors with different governing styles, coalitions, and visions for the city. Walter Washington, Marion Barry, Sharon Pratt Kelly, Anthony Williams, Adrian Fenty, Vincent Gray, Muriel Bowser, and now Janeese Lewis George all emerged from different political moments.

Sometimes elections are about ideology. Sometimes they are about competence, change, personality, circumstance, or frustration with the status quo. More often, they are about several of those things at once.

We’ve seen this movie before.

Anthony Williams emerged during a fiscal crisis when voters were looking for financial competence and stability. Sharon Pratt Kelly was elected because voters wanted an outsider. Muriel Bowser benefited from an electorate looking for a fresh start after the campaign finance scandal that surrounded Vincent Gray’s term.

The details were different. The lesson was the same. Successful candidates understood what voters were looking for and aligned themselves with it.

The pattern extends beyond the mayor’s office.

There was a period when Carol Schwartz and David Catania, both Republicans, were elected At-Large Councilmembers in an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

Did that mean D.C. was suddenly becoming a conservative stronghold? Of course not.

It meant voters were responding to the candidates in front of them, their records, and the issues of the moment.

The same lesson applies today. Janeese Lewis George understood the moment.

To her credit, she did not build her campaign around legislative accomplishments or her résumé. She built it around a theory: voters wanted something new.

Kenyan McDuffie was pushing a different theory. His message was rooted in experience, accomplishments, and results. He entered the race with significant strengths and a reputation as a serious policymaker.

But many voters appeared to be looking for something else.

In an election where most believed the city was on the wrong track, Lewis George’s argument ultimately proved more persuasive.

If this election were simply about ideology, every race would tell the same story. But it doesn’t.

Consider Robert White’s victory over Brooke Pinto, which some have pointed to as evidence of a leftward shift.

White’s message aligned with the political moment. While Pinto often emphasized affordability, housing, and local concerns, White primarily focused on defending the District from federal overreach, pushing back against the Trump administration, and helping Democrats regain control of Congress.

That distinction matters because this is a congressional seat, not the D.C. Council.

In a city where Donald Trump remains deeply unpopular, and in a race centered on federal representation, White’s message connected naturally with the office he was seeking and the concerns many voters had about national politics.

But that was only part of the story.

Voters had known White for more than a decade. They watched him serve on the Council. They watched him run a serious mayoral campaign. They knew who he was long before this race began.

Pinto, by contrast, was still introducing herself to many voters citywide.

White’s message fit the moment and the office. His familiarity helped. His record mattered. All those factors fueled his victory.

Elissa Silverman offers another reminder of how nuanced elections can be.

Four years ago, she lost her seat to Kenyan McDuffie, a candidate broadly viewed as moderate. This year, she won her way back onto the Council.

If every election result is evidence of a sweeping ideological shift, how should we interpret those two outcomes? Did Washington move from progressive to moderate and then back to progressive in just four years? Probably not.

Janeese Lewis George won Ward 7 in the Democratic mayoral primary. Yet two years ago, the same ward elected Wendell Felder, a candidate generally viewed as moderate, to represent it on the Council.

Did Ward 7 suddenly become progressive? Does the ward now embrace democratic socialism? And where does Muriel Bowser’s victory in Ward 7 just four years ago fit into that theory?

And how should we interpret Bowser’s citywide victory in 2022, when Washington Post polling found that 47 percent of voters believed the city was on the right track and 58 percent approved of her job performance? That may be a clue.

Here’s what we know for sure: different elections feature different candidates, different electorates, and different concerns. Voters evaluate candidates within the context of the moment in which they are running.

That is why broad ideological explanations often fall short.

Still, it is tempting to take these results, draw a straight line through them, and declare the mystery solved. The narrative of a leftward movement fits neatly into headlines, television segments, podcasts, and social media posts.

But elections are rarely that simple.

Voters were not casting ballots in a seminar on political ideology. They were responding to rising costs, public safety concerns, economic uncertainty, increasing federal interference in local affairs, and a broader sense that government was not meeting the moment.

That is not automatically evidence of a city moving left or right. It is evidence of voters demanding that government respond differently to the realities they face every day.

The winners of this year’s elections understood that demand for change. Now they inherit the responsibility that comes with it.

The same voters who reward change can also grow impatient when change becomes another promise waiting to be fulfilled.

Because today’s change candidates eventually become tomorrow’s governing coalition. And when that happens, voters tend to ask the same question they have always asked: Is life getting better? That is the real lesson of this election.

D.C. wanted change. That much is clear. But that does not necessarily mean the city has undergone a sweeping ideological transformation. It may simply mean voters were tired of conditions that felt too expensive, too uncertain, and too slow to improve.

Those are challenges of governance, not ideology.

And history shows that when government fails to meet those expectations, voters eventually go looking for something new.

For the first time since Adrian Fenty’s election two decades ago, D.C. has an open-seat mayoral race, an unusually rare opportunity for voters to decide not just who leads the city, but what direction it takes next. But despite constant comparisons to the political environment that put Fenty in the mayor’s seat, there’s little evidence this is the same kind of “change election” some are framing it as.

In fact, the structure of the race suggests something more complicated.

If this were truly an anti-establishment election, Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George — who is offering an ambitious agenda centered around changing the system — would likely be running away with the race.

At the same time, if voters were primarily seeking institutional stability and pragmatism, former At-Large Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie — who offers a more grounded and pragmatic vision for the city — might already have the election firmly in hand.

But the available public polling suggests the electorate may not be fully settled in either direction.

Earlier this year, a poll commissioned by the Center for Stronger Public Schools found that among registered Democrats, 29 percent of voters believed the city was on the right track, while 36 percent believed it was on the wrong track, with a sizable share of voters either unsure or holding mixed views about the city’s direction.

While that poll was conducted earlier in the cycle and voter sentiment can evolve, the findings pointed to an electorate that appeared divided, unsettled, and still weighing competing visions for the city’s future.

The more I watch the campaigns, the polling, the advertising, and the messaging, the clearer it becomes that this race is about two distinct constituencies fighting for a future that reflects two opposing worldviews.

The recent City Cast poll, which is not affiliated with any campaign or independent expenditure group, captured that dynamic. It suggested that Lewis George performs especially well among younger voters, newer residents, college-educated voters, and highly engaged progressives. McDuffie, meanwhile, appears stronger among older voters, longtime D.C. residents, Black voters, and voters more focused on governance and public safety concerns.

To be clear, the City Cast poll is not a scientific forecast for the election. It is a snapshot of both registered and self-identified likely Democratic voters, not a likely-voter model designed to predict the outcome. But while it may not be conclusive, it still offers a useful directional look at the coalitions forming around both candidates, the voters each campaign appear to be attracting, and the broader tensions shaping this contest.

That divide has defined the race from the beginning and shaped each campaign’s theory about its path to victory.

Lewis George and allied groups entered the race with the stronger grassroots operation and a clear game plan: own the “change” message, build enthusiasm early, define Janeese positively, and increase her name ID.

You could argue that strategy has been mostly effective.

When Lewis George launched her campaign in December, she entered the race with significantly lower citywide name recognition than McDuffie. But over the past several months, her campaign and allied organizations have worked aggressively to change that dynamic.

At just 38 years old, Lewis George built one of the most formidable grassroots fundraising operations the city has seen in years — raising roughly $2.7 million with support from more than 5,700 local donors while also securing support from labor unions, progressive organizations, and a growing number of institutional allies. Her campaign packed the Howard Theatre at its launch event, mobilized a highly engaged activist base, and successfully expanded her appeal beyond progressive voters alone.

For months, Lewis George and allied groups dominated the airwaves, mailboxes, digital advertising, and social media conversation surrounding the race, helping transform a candidate who once trailed significantly in visibility into a serious contender to become the next mayor of the nation’s capital.

McDuffie, by contrast, appears to have approached the race with a very different theory of victory — one rooted less in early enthusiasm and movement energy, and more in coalition-building, institutional relationships, and traditional turnout dynamics.

When he announced his candidacy, he focused on meet-and-greets, knocking on doors, and gathering signatures to qualify for the ballot. There was no flash or major launch party. Of course, the all-knowing political class had plenty of criticism, but some of that criticism may have overlooked the structural strengths of his candidacy.

He quickly assembled a strong campaign apparatus led by talented operatives with local and national experience, is even with Lewis George in fundraising, rolled out notable endorsements, and now has a large, energized, and dedicated group of supporters.

In recent weeks, the campaign has significantly ramped up communications, including a major seven-figure advertising push and an aggressive digital strategy as more voters begin tuning into the race. At this point, it is difficult to open Instagram or Facebook without seeing a McDuffie ad somewhere in the feed — or checking your phone without another campaign text message popping up.

For a campaign once criticized for being too quiet, McDuffie suddenly seems to be everywhere.

Outside interest groups have also played a major role in shaping the race. Pro-Lewis George groups spent heavily early on defining McDuffie negatively, questioning his integrity and framing his record in ways favorable to their narrative. At the same time, groups aligned with McDuffie have attempted to paint Lewis George as too ideological, risky, and out of step with voters on public safety and pragmatic governance.

Yet despite all the money, advertising, the barrage of attacks, the electorate still appears unsettled.

According to the City Cast poll, 24 percent of registered Democrats initially said they were undecided in the mayoral race. But when voters leaning toward a candidate were factored in, Lewis George led the combined first-choice with 39 percent to McDuffie’s 34 percent among registered Democrats.

Among self-identified definite voters, Lewis George’s lead was 42 percent to McDuffie’s 36 percent — suggesting she maintains an advantage among voters who are most certain to vote, while also indicating that McDuffie may have an edge among the undecided bloc.

The ranked-choice dynamics complicate the picture even further. Among voters whose first choice is neither Lewis George nor McDuffie, McDuffie leads Lewis George in second-choice preferences by 12 points — 27 percent to 15 percent for the Ward 4 Councilmember.

That may ultimately be the most important number in the race.

Taken together, the polling suggests Lewis George currently has stronger core support. But McDuffie may be better positioned once ranked-choice voting begins reshuffling the field. He may not be every voter’s first choice, but he increasingly looks like the candidate many voters can live with.

That does not guarantee McDuffie a victory. But it does suggest the race is more competitive and more fluid than some public narratives would imply.

McDuffie’s path appears to rely on a more traditional coalition: older voters, longtime residents, and turnout patterns that have historically dominated local elections. Lewis George, by contrast, is betting she can disrupt that structure by energizing younger and more progressive voters while also building broader crossover appeal.

Under ranked-choice voting, however, both candidates will ultimately need support beyond their core base as lower-performing candidates begin to fall away.

That is ultimately the real question hanging over this election: whether D.C.’s political future still operates within its traditional electoral framework, or whether a new coalition is beginning to emerge — and which candidate is best positioned to bring enough voters together to win the city’s first ranked-choice mayoral race.

On June 16, voters will decide not only which vision for D.C. they prefer, but which coalition is broad enough to assemble a governing majority under the new voting system.

I’m excited to announce that I’m throwing my hat in the ring to represent Ward 7 on the DC Democratic State Committee! I’m running on the “Ward 7 Dems for Action and Progress” slate with Dorothy Douglas Lauren Grimes and Phil Hammond.

In a city where the voter registration is 76 percent democrats, I believe that the DC Democratic Party has a role to play in holding leaders more accountable and using the Party’s resources to better serve communities.

I’m committed to bringing more people into the political process and working towards having a more robust Party in Ward 7, strengthening the community’s position to demand high quality services and amenities.

Over the past few years, I’ve led the Fair Elections effort in Ward 7, lead the Ward 7 Dem’s Issues & Policy committee, and serve on the Hillcrest Community Civic Association’s education committee. And I’m ready to put those skills to work on the Democratic State Committee and ensure that our communities are well represented.

I hope that I can count on your support.

— Dex

The Elephant in the Room

Since Vince Gray’s return to the Council, people have speculated that he would challenge the mayor to get his old job back. Last year, I wrote an article talking about the difficulty in successfully challenging the mayor. People from across the political spectrum took issue with that claim and said the argument was naive and baseless.

But months later, the Washington Post published an article saying “D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) enjoys a 67 percent approval rating among District residents heading into her 2018 re-election campaign…” In addition to that, The Post’s poll found that, in a three-way matchup, Bowser captured 50 percent support among Democrats while Gray and Karl Racine (D.C. Attorney General) would earn 27 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Racine has since decided not to run for mayor, leaving Gray as the most viable potential challenger. It’s not clear if Gray will join the mayor’s race, but if he does, he will need a compelling message and, more importantly, the rationale for replacing Bowser.

Bowser’s opponents and critics have underestimated her political prowess at their peril. The mayor is now on the cusp of being re-elected. She has not only weathered numerous scandals since taking office but has managed to maintain the confidence and trust among voters. All of these factors have left her potential rivals twisting in the wind.

The Chairman’s Race

Current D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson has drawn a serious challenger to the race: Ed Lazere. Lazere is the former Executive Director of the influential DC Fiscal Policy Institute. He served in that position for decades and is an expert on a variety of issues, particularly the budget. He’s well-known among some constituencies and already has established relationships with council members. Lazere would certainly be a strong match for Mendelson. Both of them are policy wonks, have relationships with community activists, can raise large sums of money, and appeals to diverse groups of people on the political spectrum.

With that said, let’s look at the mechanics of the race. Mendelson is a Council veteran who is deeply connected throughout the city. In recent election cycles, Mendelson earned more than 60 percent of the votes. Now, some will argue that his vote totals are that high because he hasn’t had a serious challenger. I’ll admit that there’s validity to that point. But the fact that he doesn’t generally draw serious challengers also speaks to his strength as a candidate. There’s also the anecdotal aspect that goes unmentioned.

Mendelson is one of the best retail politicians in the city. He shows up at several events (sometimes unannounced), he greets voters at the polls even when he’s not on the ballot. He is generally liked by the people and he doesn’t take any election for granted. In addition, he hasn’t given voters a strong reason to kick him off the dais.

So, Lazere will have his work cut out for him. To his credit, his messages of addressing inequalities, homelessness, and education will certainly resonate with voters. Residents are very concerned about these issues and will see Lazere as a viable option. He’ll also have the support of many progressives who will see him as a champion for their cause. Although, Mendelson will cut into that support using the fact that he has supported and helped pass many progressive pieces of legislation.

For Lazere, assuming he has a strong ground game, he will have to make a compelling case against Mendelson. It’s hard to see now, but perhaps in the coming months it will unfold. If it does, then the chairman will have many sleepless nights.

Anita Bonds’ Race

At-Large Council-member Anita Bonds faces multiple challengers who are ambitious and have spent years laying the groundwork for a Council bid. Most of her opponents, at this stage, are young people who care deeply about the city and believe that the District needs to go in a different direction.

Political observers see Marcus Goodwin, Jeremiah Lowery, and Aaron Holmes as her main challengers after hauling in several thousand dollars in donations. They each bring their talents and strengths to the race. Goodwin is a well-connected real estate professional with deep roots across the city. He’s also raised over $52,000 between September and December, which is the largest amount of money raised thus far. Lowery has been active in progressive politics for over a decade and has a grassroots network that helped some of the current council-members get elected. And Holmes is a well-known community activist who has run for Council before and has a rolodex of community activists, city officials, and national figures who can bolster his campaign.

Of course, as former candidates have experienced, going against Bonds will be an arduous task. She has decades of experience as a political operative, serves as chair of the D.C. Democratic State Committee, and has a strong base of support. In the last Democratic primary, she received over 50 percent of the vote, beating her opponents in every ward. She also enjoys the benefits of incumbency. And to compound problems for her rivals, there are multiple people in the race, making it harder for any challenger to emerge as the alternative candidate.

But this doesn’t mean that she’s not beatable. Anyone is beatable. It’s just a matter of probability and the political landscape. If D.C. political history is any guide, council members generally lose re-election if they’re engulfed in scandal or if their favorability is low for some reason. But that doesn’t seem to be the case for Bonds. There have been some gripes about her approach and policy disagreements, but there hasn’t been any major event during her tenure that would seriously motivate voters to reject her.

With that said, there’s a possibility that one of her opponents pulls an upset on Election Day. But in order for that to happen, several variables would have to come into play. (1) At least one strong candidate withdraws from the race, (2) a strong message and rationale for rejecting Bonds is offered to voters, and (3) the alternative candidate would need to bring in new voters. If that happens, then we’ll have a serious race.

Elissa Silverman’s Race

Independent At-Large Council member Elissa Silverman will face business woman Dionne Reeder and potentially former Ward 7 council member Yvette Alexander, which promises to be a blockbuster race. Silverman has emerged as a liberal champion, and some would argue the liberal leader, on the D.C. Council.

In 2014, she campaigned on making the government more efficient, accountable, and responsive to residents. And while that agenda has endeared many progressives and even some moderates, her policy prescriptions have angered the business community and the Bowser Administration — incentivizing them to find an alternative candidate.

It’s no secret that business leaders are eager to replace Silverman with a council member they believe will support policies that are more aligned with their interest. It’s not clear if they will coalesce around Reeder, Alexander, or an unannounced candidate. What is clear is that once they find an alternative candidate, they will back that person with full force. But what exactly does that mean? Generally, it means they will financially support a candidate, which is nothing to sneeze at. Whoever that candidate will be will have enough money to get their message out and organize a strong get-out-the-vote effort.

The question here is, does any of that matter? Silverman has proven to be a strong fundraiser. In 2014, she raised nearly $143K. And in the 2013 special election, she came close to beating Bonds. One could argue that she would have won that race had another candidate with a similar following withdrawn. So, beating Silverman as an incumbent is going to be tough. She’s immensely popular in progressive circles, and they are going to do everything in their power to ensure that Silverman remains on the Council.

Of course, there’s a caveat. Silverman is the favorite, but her re-election is not a sure thing. Reeder and Alexander, if the former council-member joins the race, will both be very competitive candidates. Alexander is a former council-member with strong name recognition across the city. She is charismatic and can make a strong and credible case to people who feel that the city is moving too far to the left on the political spectrum. And Reeder as a fresh face in politics with a business background, has a compelling story, and is building a coalition of supporters who want the city to focus more on inclusive economic development, policies (from their perspective) that don’t hurt businesses, and a slew of issues facing underserved populations.

Remember, this race is for the independent seat, meaning that all voters (democrats, republicans, other political affiliations, and independents) will be voting. If a candidate targets voters and identifies the number of votes they need to win, anything can happen.

DCision 2018 (City Wide Elections): The year of Challengers or Incumbents? was originally published in Dexter’s Political Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Dear Ward 7 Family:

Happy New Year! I hope you were able to enjoy some time off with family and friends during the holiday season and ready to work on your New Year’s resolutions.

One of my resolutions for 2018 is to make sure that the Fair Elections Act is passed and fully funded. So far, we’re off to a great start.

The Council has scheduled the first of two votes for Tuesday, January 9th at 10 a.m. in room 500 of the Wilson Building (1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW).

Can you join us for the vote on Tuesday? Email me at dexterowilliams@gmail.com if you can make it. We’ve come so far, and it’s important that we show the Council that residents in Ward 7 support Fair Elections and that we’re depending on them to pass and fully fund the program.

This legislation is an opportunity for us to not only change the way our leaders are elected, but it’s also a strong first step to ensure that issues like education, high unemployment, and having inclusive economic development are at the forefront of the city’s agenda.

So, let’s work together and make sure this bill crosses the finish line.

In solidarity,

Dexter Williams
Ward 7 Chair, DC Fair Elections Coalition
http://dcfairelections.org/about/

Dear Ward 7 Neighbor:

Thanks to your support, we cleared a major hurdle last week with the Fair Elections Act passing unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. This could not have happened without you.

Also, I want to thank Councilmember Vince Gray for voting in favor of the bill. His support and vote was critical and sends a strong message that Fair Elections is important to Ward 7.

Over the past year, hundreds of Ward 7 residents signed petitions, many of us testified before the Council, and we’ve made it crystal clear that we’re tired of being left behind and want a seat at the table instead of being on the menu.

While it’s important that we celebrate this milestone, the fight for Fair Elections is far from over. The next step is for the full Council to schedule the first of two votes to pass the bill and ensure that the program is funded.

Once a full Council vote is scheduled, we’ll be sure to keep you informed.

Again, thank you for your unwavering support.

In Solidarity,

Dexter Williams
Ward 7 Chair, DC Fair Elections Coalition
http://dcfairelections.org/about/

Ward 7 Update on Fair Elections was originally published in Dexter’s Political Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

It’s clear that the author of The Washington Post’s October 24th op-ed didn’t do a good job of researching how publicly financed campaigns are a success. So, I wanted to set the record straight.

The D.C. Council is considering legislation that would publicly finance campaigns. The goal of the program is to empower everyday people by limiting the influence of wealthy donors and corporations.

The benefits of similar programs are substantial. In New York City, during the 2013 elections, half of small dollar donations to participating candidates where from first time contributors, meaning more people were engaged in the political process. And in Connecticut — after their program was implemented — policies adopted by the state reflected what Connecticuters wanted.

It’s true that some jurisdictions have had challenges. But those are not reasons for D.C. to reject this proposal. They are lessons that should inform the city of how to make public financing stronger.

It’s important that we don’t lose focus and pass this legislation. This isn’t about political ideology — it’s about our quality of life. There are people across the city that feel left behind and voiceless, and this is our opportunity to give them a fair shot in a rapidly changing city.

RE: Publicly funded campaigns haven’t lived up to expectations anywhere. Why would they in D.C.? was originally published in Dexter’s Political Blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.