The ninety-day 2026 regular session of the Maryland General Assembly is now underway.

There is almost universal consensus that the top priority before they adjourn is to enact a balanced state budget when a $2.6 billion deficit is currently projected. It could be more.

The options to reach a balanced budget this session are comparable to the options considered last session. Then and now, they include new taxes, tax increases, new fees, fee increases, transfers from the state’s “rainy-day” reserve fund, borrowing money, shifting the funding for state-mandated programs and services from the state government to county governments, and spending cuts. There is no consensus yet on any of these options this session.

Governor Moore has said there will not be tax increases. He said much the same last year, calling for a “high bar” on tax increases. When all was said and done, he approved a balanced budget funded with a package that included the above budget balancing options.

New to the dialogue and deliberations budget debates this year is Delegate Joseline Pena Melnyk who was unanimously elected last month to serve as Speaker of the House.

Speaker Melnyk has delivered mixed messages so far in the session. She has said she “doesn’t expect” any tax changes this session from her chamber. She followed that with, “I’m not sure about that. I hope not.” Then she said “But to be honest, I haven’t had an opportunity yet to talk to my committees about those issues. Session hasn’t even started, but I can tell you the taxes [are] definitely off the table.”

Senate President Bill Ferguson has said, “Our focus is going to be on living within our means. He has said his chamber won’t be the ones to put forward a plan to increase the cost of living for Marylanders. When asked if he’s concerned the House of Delegates may float proposals to raise taxes and fees, Ferguson said he can’t speak for the members in the lower chamber, just that he knows “where the Senate will be.”

Another matter that merits watching in the 2026 session is how the relationship between the Democratic super majority and the Republican minority in the House of Delegates may change with Speaker Penya Melnik’s approach to leadership.

One reporter covering the opening day of the new session observed that the new speaker ushered in a new era with a leadership style geared toward bipartisanship, civility, and finding solutions that involve delegates from across the state, including Republicans, to ensure everyone’s ideas are heard.

If that occurs, it will be a major change from the historic pattern of decision-making in Annapolis. Republican minorities in the Maryland House of Delegates and the Maryland Senate have long endured legislative decision-making where the minority caucus has had their say, but the majority caucus has not seriously considered what the minority has to say, and the majority caucus has always had their way.
We will know soon if and how these changes play out.

Speaker Melnyk has also expressed a desire for further accountability in state government spending.

This is not surprising given recent widespread and regular media coverage of two audit reports conducted by the bipartisan Office of Legislative Audits (OLA) in the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.

In one audit, OLA auditors reported Maryland’s overpayment of $807.4 million in unemployment benefits, $760 million of which the auditors have deemed unrecoverable because the state did not act in time to pursue recovery.

In another audit, OLA auditors reported the State Highway Administration (SHA) overcharged $360 million in unauthorized expenses to federally funded projects that need to be paid back.

Last week, there were media reports that the OLA, Maryland Department of Human Services’ inspector general, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s inspector general have been made aware of allegations by two former state employees of payment errors in Maryland’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly referred to as food stamps.

Pursuing greater transparency and accountability on state spending is not new. In 2020, a Maryland Efficient Grant Application Council was created and charged with developing recommendations for greater oversight and accountability on state grants to not-for-profit organizations in Maryland. The deadline for their recommendations was originally July 1, 2024. Now the deadline is July 1, 2027. It remains to be seen if this new deadline will be met.

Last week, Maryland General Assembly Republicans called for creating a special investigative committee with subpoena power to discuss the SHA audit, the unemployment overpayment audit, and the whistleblower allegations on the SNAP program. Such a committee is not unprecedented, but the last one was put in place at least twenty years ago.

Time will tell if and how Speaker Pena Melnyk will achieve success in her expressed desire for further accountability in state government spending.

Time will also tell if and how Speaker Pena Melnyk will achieve success in ushering in a leadership style characterized by bipartisanship, civility, and finding solutions that involve delegates from across the state, including Republicans, to ensure everyone’s ideas are not only heard but are also respected and given serious consideration.

Going forward, President John F. Kennedy’s thinking on bipartisanship is a great model for Governor Moore and every member of the General Assembly.

JFK said — “Let us not seek the Democratic answer or the Republican answer, but the right answer.”

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Last week, after worship at The Presbyterian Church of Easton, each attendee was given a gift by Pastor Eric Markman.

It is a simple gift, a hand-crafted cardboard star with one word painted on it, each one different.

The word on my star is appreciation.

We were asked to contemplate using that word as a North Star (also known as a guiding principle), to help us focus our perspective on and approach to life in a new year.

My initial reaction to appreciation as my North Star was negative. I told myself, I very rarely received or delivered appreciation, even when I was the recipient of unexpected acts of kindness.

I told myself privately in the world we live in, it is naïve to even think much about receiving or delivering appreciation on unexpected acts of kindness.

In such a world, we should expect nothing more than a continuation of deepening divisions based on strongly held and differing opinions on political party allegiances, the motives and the performance of elected and appointed government officials at all levels of government,  positions on issues of the day, endless wars, rumors of wars, senseless acts of violence, and the causes and effects of economic uncertainty.

Despite that negativity, one of my North Stars is – “Sometimes it pays to sit and think.”

Accordingly, I decided to take some time to sit and think about the past and the future of unexpected acts of kindness in my life.

Much to my surprise, I came to realize that I had, in fact, experienced more unexpected acts of kindness than I expected.

Some were large, many were small. Regardless of size, every one of them was worthy of appreciation and none of them should have been ignored or forgotten.

Some of the most memorable that emerged from my “sit and think” session include:

•    Neighbors clearing our driveway after it was plowed shut from a snowstorm.
•    Neighbors delivering a portable air-conditioner during an intense heat wave after ours stopped working.
•    Neighbors joining us to rake and bag leaves in our large back yard.
•    A neighbor inviting us to a neighborhood block party as a way to get to know each other better, and in some cases, meet new neighbors        for the first time.
•    A friend inviting us to her home for Thanksgiving dinner and Christmas dinner with her family members and guests after learning that,        as  empty nesters, we would be home alone on both holidays.
•    A friend fixing a windshield wiper after getting a huge estimate at a repair shop to do it.
•    A friend lending us a car for two days while our truck was in a repair shop.
•    A friend installing two new outside lights on our front porch.
•    A good Samaritan in Texas witnessing a dog pregnant with nine unborn puppies being pushed from a car and abandoned, then took her          to an animal shelter after which she was brought to Maryland for adoption by us.
•    A local veterinarian providing support and compassion beyond measure when it was time to have both of our senior dogs euthanized.
•    Volunteers at a monthly free “MY Tech Clinic” at the Talbot County Free Library, who patiently help non techies like me address technical        issues with their electronic devices.
•    The former owner of a historic and unique office desk who gave it to us and said his father would be thrilled it found just the right home.
•    A couple from Washington DC visiting our area, finding my wife’s lost wallet in St. Michael’s, hand delivering it to our home, and refusing        any reward.
•    Readers of my weekly point of view columns telling me how much they enjoy them.
•    Readers of my columns telling me they do not always agree with my point of view, but they always disagree without being disagreeable.

All these experiences had one thing in common beyond being unexpected gifts of kindness.

No provider of our unexpected gifts of kindness has ever cared about where my wife and I live, where we came from, what we do or did for a living, who we voted for, or what positions we have on local, state, and national issues of the day. Every unexpected act of kindness we have received has been spontaneous, freely given, and done without any expectation of any reward. They came from the heart.

Dr. Maya Angelou, often referred to as “America’s Poet,” has written, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

Now, I do know better about how often I have been on the receiving end of many unexpected acts of kindness.

As a result, I will do better… starting now.

In the spirit of “To whom much has been given, much is expected,” I will go forward searching for and responding to opportunities to provide unexpected acts of kindness with a hope the recipients may be inspired to do the same.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton with his wife, one rescued dog, three rescued cats, and nine ducks.

Eighteen months ago, a consortium representing Anne Arundel County, Calvert County, Queen Anne’s County, Somerset County, and Saint Mary’s County released a feasibility study on a new Chesapeake Bay passenger-only (no cars) ferry boat service. The study was funded with a $250,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, along with contributions from each of the four counties. The study concluded this new service would be used by roughly 50,000 people annually from May to September.

The grant for a feasibility study has not been the only federal money spent or approved on this matter. Another federal grant commitment of $3.9 million was approved for purchases of new “green “passenger ferry boats.

In the most recent update on this proposed initiative, a consortium spokesperson said they hope to launch this new service in 2030. The spokesperson also said, “One of the things we really try to avoid is to create studies that are just done for the sake of a study. So, where we are now is trying to follow the recommendations of this study and see if we can’t take it to the next step.” The spokesperson also said, “If it doesn’t happen, it won’t be for a lack of trying.”

Lack of trying should be the least of the consortium’s concerns.

One concern is what the results of reviews by the Army Corps of Engineers will be regarding the ferry boats’ impacts on fish, wetlands, the overall aquatic habitat, and public health.

Another concern is the short- and long-term funding for this initiative, which is competing with other transportation projects in Maryland. The consortium projects the ferry system will need an estimated $8 million to buy the ferries, $4.8 million to fund necessary docking improvements. They also project the new system will sustain a net loss of $2.5 million in the first year of operations without a subsidy at the local, state, or federal levels and $5 million annually to operate the system.

How realistic is it to expect the Trump administration to approve 100% federal funding to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge as promised previously by the Biden administration? The Trump administration has already expressed concerns that the latest estimates for this essential rebuild project may cost $5.2 billion which is more than twice original estimates. There is no guarantee the Trump administration will approve any or all of those costs, nor is there any guarantee the final costs will not be even higher than the latest estimates.

How realistic is it to expect state funding for a new Bay passenger-only ferry boat service?

When the Maryland General Assembly convenes later this month, its focus will be on addressing a projected at least a $1.2 billion state budget deficit for this fiscal year, as well as projected future structural deficits. Still to be addressed by the General Assembly is a projected new revenue need of $4 billion annually to fully fund the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, also known as the Kirwan Plan.
With regard to far too many government-funded programs, expenses very rarely come in at or lower than projected. Instead, cost overruns are standard operating procedure.

There is another grave concern about the new publicly funded passenger ferry boat service on the Chesapeake Bay.

What will be the impact on privately owned and operated tour boat operators who already offer a wide range of tours on the Bay?

These tour boat operators offer regularly scheduled Bay tours as well as customized charter trips to and from Baltimore, Annapolis, St. Michaels, Crisfield, and Cambridge, among other Bay locations. These charter tours can be customized to go anywhere in the Bay that clients want to go, whenever they want to go, and for as long a time or as short a time they want to go. For example, last summer a small business in Easton chartered a tour boat for a round-trip on the Bay between Kent Island and the Inner Harbor in Baltimore for its employees. That trip included an Orioles game. By all accounts, this outing was a great success.

One has to ask if it is necessary to launch a new publicly funded boat tour service to compete with existing and successful privately owned businesses.

This proposal is a taxpayer-funded solution searching for a problem.

If this consortium and their supporters want to help solve a real problem, they need to look no further than assisting Maryland to owners and operators of recreational fishing charter boats. They have been struggling mightily due to government regulations that put draconian limits on recreational fishing for Striped Sea Bass, also known as Rockfish. Historically, boats chartered for recreational fishing of Rockfish in the Bay have attracted recreational fishing enthusiasts from across Maryland and from surrounding states. Unless or until those limits are modified or rescinded, these charter fishing boat operators desperately need new clients. They can, and they should be helped to transition to serving the predicted public demand in the Chesapeake ferry boat consortium’s feasibility study of roughly 50,000 people for Bay boat tours.

All these concerns lead one to ask THE single most important question on this issue. Should a launch of a new Chesapeake Bay passenger ferry boat system continue to be pursued simply to meet a consortium’s goals of “trying to follow the recommendations of this study and see if we can’t take it to the next step” and “If it doesn’t happen, it won’t be for a lack of trying”.

Peter F. Drucker has observed, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”

Given the above concerns, pursuing a new Bay ferry boat system should NOT be done at all.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In 1960, then-U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy and then-U.S. Vice President Richard M. Nixon were opponents in the Presidential election. It was hard fought contest that led to Kennedy being declared the winner with a winning popular vote margin of 0.17%.

Then and still today, political observers suggest an event that was pivotal in that outcome was the first televised presidential debate featuring the candidates rather than surrogates debating on their behalf.

The first of three-hour-long debates held in 1960 was watched by an estimated seventy million viewers at a time when almost the same number (68,638) of the U.S. population actually voted in the subsequent presidential general election.

As presidential candidates, Nixon and Kennedy had much in common. Both were intensely ambitious, close in age — Kennedy was forty-three, and Nixon was forty-seven, World War II veterans, elected to serve as members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, and both were seasoned campaigners.

Polling done after the first debate had starkly different results on who won and who lost.

Many of those who watched the first debate thought Nixon did poorly and “lost” the debate. They thought Nixon appeared old, haggard, and even menacing due in part to a five o’clock shadow beard made worse by his refusal to wear makeup.

Many of those who watched the first debate thought Kennedy did well and “won” the debate. They thought Kennedy appeared young, vigorous, and tanned due to pre-debate tanning sessions.

Conversely, many who listened to the first debate on the radio thought Nixon did well and “won” the debate and many who listened thought Kennedy did poorly and “lost” the debate.

Only years after the debate did it become well known that appearances can be deceiving.

John F. Kennedy had numerous, lifelong, chronic, and serious medical conditions, all of which were carefully hidden by himself and his campaign advisors.

Among other things, he had Addison’s disease, colitis, ulcers, autoimmune issues, back issues requiring several operations, and depression, all treated with regular and copious amounts of painkiller pills and injections.

Some medical professionals have suggested his Addison’s Disease alone could have led to an early death had he not been assassinated.

As often happens with public opinions, first impressions are lasting impressions.

That reality was duly noted by Richard Nixon, who, despite his ethical lapses, was an astute and shrewd politician.
In 1968, Nixon ran for president again and narrowly defeated then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, winning the popular vote by 0.7%.

In the 1968 election, Nixon effectively rebranded himself using a television commercial blitz that is discussed in detail by Joe McGinnis in his bestselling book, “The Selling of the President.”

Despite Nixon’s landslide re-election in 1972, in which he won with a 23.2% popular-vote margin, he could not overcome the fallout from Watergate, which ended his presidency.

Fast forward to today.

Campaigning for the next cycle of presidential primaries and the 2028 presidential election is well underway.

A recent article by Holly Otterbein and Alex Thompson, published on the Axios website, featured the following headline: “Makeovers are part of the prep for Dems eyeing 2028.”

The article offers observations on several potential Democratic presidential candidates for 2028 with respect to their appearance in three areas: weight, fashion, and facial hair.

With regard to weight, they mention Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and United States Senator Elissa Slotkin, both of whom have lost substantial weight.

With regard to fashion, they include observations by Derek Guy, the editor of “Put This On” and a writer on men’s fashion.

Guy had this to say about Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro — “When Shapiro was elected governor in 2022, his clothes looked like clothes that you bought in the ’90s. Shapiro’s suits [now] are more tailored and modern, but not flashy. Shapiro sometimes ditches a tie, has swapped out his old glasses for a trendier, rectangular pair, and often wears sneakers.”

Guy also had this to say about California Governor Gavin Newsom — “He dresses pretty well. I particularly like his ties but wonder if that look might be too stylish for some voters.”

Otterbein and Thompson wrote that United States Senator from Connecticut Chris Murphy and former United States Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg are now sporting beards.

The Axios article also includes this cogent observation from veteran Democratic campaign consultant and political pundit James Carville: “No one’s going to say, ‘I’m not going to vote for someone because they’re not attractive’… but it certainly matters.”

Yes indeed, it does matter.

After the next cycle of presidential primary elections and the 2028 presidential general election it will be interesting to review and analyze exactly how much candidate appearances and exactly how much candidate issue positions mattered on voter thinking and behavior.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for not for- profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

Governor Wes Moore recently spoke to elected and appointed county officials from across Maryland at a conference of the Maryland Association of Counties (MaCO). Moore shared his thoughts his version of a proposed state budget that he must present to the General Assembly no later than January 24, 2026. The General Assembly must approve their version of the state budget and return it to the governor for final approval no later than midnight on April 3, 2025.

A reporter from Maryland Matters wrote that Moore said, “Budget decisions in front of us won’t be easy or simple.” Moore’s Acting Budget Secretary said much the same with, “The choices in front of us are difficult.” Both observations are huge understatements.

Current projections are a $1.5 billion budget deficit for the next fiscal year, despite news last week that projected revenue for next year has been increased very slightly by $9.1 million.

At MaCO, Governor Moore proclaimed, “We cannot – and will not – balance our budget on the back of Marylanders. This is not a year where we anticipate tax increases.” His comments were echoed by House Majority Leader David Moon, who said, “Tax increases are unlikely in the upcoming session.”

The key words in both comments made by Moore and Moon are “anticipate” and “unlikely.”

What they did not say was more telling than what they did say.

Neither said there would not be approval of new taxes, tax increases, new fees, fee increases, spending cuts, and withdrawals from the state budget reserve (rainy day) fund next year to achieve a balanced budget as mandated by the state constitution.

These omissions are reminiscent of a period before and during the 2025 General Assembly session, when Governor Moore repeatedly stated that he had set a very high bar for considering tax increases to address a previously projected budget deficit.

We now know Moore decide that high bar had been reached as he and the super Democratic majorities in the state House and state Senate agreed to address that deficit with a wide range of new state taxes, tax increases, new state fees,  fee increases, and transfers from the state budget reserve (rainy day) fund, which now has a balance of between $ 2.3 to $2.4 billion, and relatively modest spending cuts.

Those actions were heralded at the time as a means of achieving a $300 million surplus for the next budget. Instead, Maryland is again facing a large deficit that could grow larger.

At MaCO, Moore also declared that he will right-size programs that, in his words, “need to be made more sustainable.”

He did not provide details on which programs may be considered, how he will evaluate more sustainability, or the total potential savings on state spending from program right-sizing.

In any event, that observation will surely catch the attention of a large number of progressive lawmakers in both the state House and state Senate who will strongly oppose any effort to reduce state funding for already approved progressive initiatives, especially, but not limited to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Education, also known as The Kirwan Plan.

Kirwan is projected to require at least $30 billion in funding over the first ten years to fully implement the plan.

Will history repeat itself in the upcoming 2026 regular General Assembly session?

Most likely yes, unless there are radical and long-overdue changes in how Maryland’s governors and a majority of legislators make decisions on state budgets in Maryland.

One change that merits consideration is in Richmond, the state capital of Virginia.

There, the governor and the legislature worked together to approve state budgets that resulted in $10 billion in surplus revenue over the four years ending in Fiscal Year 2025.

Some will say Virginia has not faced the same negative impacts of federal job losses as Maryland has.

Not so, based on research done by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. That research concluded that between January 2025 and May 2025, Maryland lost 5.4 percent of its federal workforce and Virginia lost 4.8 percent of its federal workforce, a difference of 0.6 percent.

Virginia Governor Glen Youngkin has predicted Virginia will continue to see balanced or surplus state budgets and revenue growth, despite any federal headwinds. I suggest that is because Virginia has been successful at attracting economic development and adding private-sector jobs before and after Donald Trump was sworn in for a second term.

Prior to the start of, or early on in, the 2026 Maryland General Assembly session, the governor and legislative leaders should meet with their counterparts in Virginia.

The meeting goal is to explore how the Virginia governor and legislature have worked together to have Virginia be ranked “Americas Top State for Business” last year by CNBC, expanded their tax base, and consistently achieved balanced state budgets with surpluses.

Otherwise, I predict Maryland taxpayers will continue to endure a never-ending cycle of state spending increases followed by a never-ending cycle of new taxes, tax increases, new fees, fee increases and transfers from the rainy-day fund until that fund is drained to the point where a minimum balance of 5% of the previous year’s general fund revenues is no longer in place.

That, in turn, will accelerate the rate of Maryland businesses and residents moving to other states.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

Recently, Governor Wes Moore addressed a group of regional business leaders at a Greater Washington Board of Trade event at National Harbor.

Moore noted that historically, Maryland’s economy has depended on higher education, federal government spending, federal government jobs, and health care. Going forward, he stated Maryland needs greater diversity from and less reliance on these three economic drivers.

He also challenged the business leaders by saying, “If you’re not going to take big bets, then, frankly, get out of the seat and let someone else sit in it.”

That is also a timely challenge for a governor and legislature in a state with a less than sterling track record on taking big bets on steps to improve the state’s business climate.

In a 2025 Top States for Business rankings report from CNBC, Maryland ranks 32nd overall in a one-spot decline from last year and part of a 10-place drop over just two years ago.

Maryland’s 32nd-place ranking is not just lower than #1-ranked North Carolina, #2-ranked Texas, and #3-ranked Florida. Maryland is also ranked lower than California (#22) and New York (#23). Closer to home, Virginia ranks #4, Pennsylvania ranks # 17, and Delaware ranks #29, even though there are regular reports on an increasing number of large corporations leaving the state.

To help convert that vision into reality, here are four key messaging strategies for Governor Moore and all who support converting his economic vision for Maryland into reality.

•    Develop and distribute memorable SMART goals on economic growth and economic diversification. SMART goals are Specific, Measurable, Assigned for Accountability, Realistic, and Time Sensitive. Peter Drucker has written, what gets measured gets done. Drucker has also written, “Not-for-profit organizations [governments at all levels included] need management even more than business. Good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results.”

•    Create and maintain a sense of urgency. John Kotter has written a true sense of urgency is when one acknowledges action on critical issues is needed now, not eventually, not when it fits easily into a schedule. Now means making real progress every single day. Urgent behavior is not driven by a belief that all is well or that everything is a mess, but instead the world contains great opportunities and great hazards.”

•    Communicate a better future. Frank Luntz has written, “It’s not what you write or say, it is what people read or hear. You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of their own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs. Get your audience to visualize… imagine. Only when people can see a better future will they consider a change.”

•    Repeat your vision and your goals early and often. Adam Grant has written, “It’s better to overcommunicate and sound redundant than to undercommunicate and seem unclear and uncaring. Repeating yourself is vital to effective communication. In an analysis of thousands of 360 feedback assessments, leaders were over nine times more likely to be criticized for undercommunicating than overcommunicating. In an experiment, people who undercommunicated were judged as unqualified to lead because they lacked empathy. When you hesitate to repeat your ideas, you don’t just fail to get your point across—you also come across as if you don’t care.”

Maryland is at a crossroads facing a projected a $1.4 billion state budget revenue shortfall in the next fiscal year and a new estimate on the cost to rebuild the Key Bridge has gone from $1.7 billion to between $4.3 and $5.2 billion.

Maryland has also not yet addressed full funding for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. The Blueprint, also known as the Kirwan Plan, is a 10-year education “reform” initiative. Kirwan needs new state and local funding for the state’s public school to offer universal pre-K, improve teaching and make sure students are ready for college or careers. Some estimates are that fully implementing Kirwan will require more than $4 billion from the state by 2029.

Despite that projection, there has not been and is not any sense of urgency on decisions on where this new funding will come from. Last year, State Senate President Bill Ferguson said, “Several years from now we’re going to have to have a much more direct conversation about the long-term costs but we’re not there yet.” This year, State Senator Guy Guzzone, Chair of the State Senate Budget and Taxation Finance Committee, said, “I think we know the reality that we’re facing. And I think there’s gonna be a lot of discussion about that. I just don’t know that there’s an immediate answer.”

The best immediate answer is to reduce overall state spending and to revise Kirwan to include reducing or eliminating new spending mandates for local school districts.

The only other options available to the governor and general assembly are increasing the number of taxpayers, cutting services, higher tax rates, new taxes, higher fees, new fees, more draws from the “rainy day” fund, and issuing bonds, hoping for a good credit rating.

No wonder: in recent surveys conducted by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 49% of Maryland respondents believe the state is on the wrong track, and 53% have considered moving to another state.

Now more than ever, Maryland residents deserve less talk and more action on Maryland’s economic future to help ensure they are not just staying here but are also thriving here.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

Governor Wes Moore has demonstrated a zealous sense of urgency on his Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission (GRAC), an unprecedented initiative to redraw Maryland’s eight congressional district maps before the 2026 midterm elections.

The GRAC has been quickly and aggressively challenged by both expected and unexpected sources.

An expected source is the Republican caucus leadership in the Maryland General Assembly.

They have proposed their own redistricting initiative as an alternative to Moore’s GRAC initiative.

Their initiative includes legislation to limit partisan redistricting by creating a new independent redistricting commission, prohibiting future efforts to do redistricting on an accelerated schedule, and codifying part of a 2022 court ruling calling for compact congressional districts with common sense boundaries.

Republicans are also prepared for a legal challenge to any GRAC proposal that may be presented in a special session of the General Assembly later this year or in the 2026 regular session.

Opposing extreme gerrymandering through legal means was a strategy for Republicans in 2022 when a Maryland court ruled the original versions of proposed new congressional maps drawn by Democratic supermajorities in the General Assembly were gerrymandered.

An unexpected challenge to Governor Moore’s GRAC is from the Washington Post.

In early November, the Post published a scathing editorial with the following headline – “Wes Moore’s Gerrymandering Ploy. 

One dictionary defines “ploy” as “a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one’s own advantage.”

The Post editorial includes the following comments:

“This is brass knuckle politics, a flex of raw power, but Moore is trying to pretend he is being principled. Make no mistake, what the governor really wants is to disenfranchise his Republican constituents, especially in the conservative Eastern Shore and Western panhandle. Moore capitulated to escalating pressure from the left because he wants to be president. While Moore enjoys delivering lectures about fighting for democracy, he has not practiced what he preaches.”

Another unexpected and likely most consequential challenge to the GRAC comes from Democratic State Senator Bill Ferguson, the President of the Maryland Senate.

Recently, Ferguson shared his thinking with the Senate Democratic Caucus on the GRAC.
He believes that GRAC efforts if successful, could backfire He raised a critical rhetorical question – What if the Democratic super majorities in the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates draw a new map before the 2030 census and that map is struck down by the Supreme Court of Maryland? He suggested the result could be the court drawing new maps, which could lead to incumbent Democratic candidates losing future elections in one or even two existing congressional districts.

That result would reverse past gerrymandering that has led to the election of Democratic members of Congress in seven out of the eight districts in Maryland.

In a not-so-subtle shot across the bow to Governor Moore, Senator Ferguson wrote, “The majority of the Senate Democratic Caucus understands this unbalanced risk calculation, and I plan to represent that perspective as a member of the recently announced Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission.”

Another challenge for Moore is a question raised by Cumberland, Maryland, Mayor Raymond Morriss, the only Republican Moore appointed to the five-member GRAC. At the first GRAC meeting, Morriss said – “I’m all in here, but I’m trying to figure out what the problem is.”

All things considered, Wes Moore’s most significant challenges are not Senate Ferguson, Republicans, Washington Post editorials, or a good question from one GRAC member.

His greatest challenge is the current lack of interest in and demand for a GRAC in Maryland.

In what appears to be an organized, orchestrated, and targeted effort disguised as a spontaneous grassroots campaign to show interest in redistricting in Maryland, Senator Ferguson has reported that his office received more than 6,000 calls on that issue, but less than 100 of those calls were said to be from Maryland residents.

Accordingly, I predict that Wes Moore’s decision in year three of his first term to push for a GRAC initiative will not generate sufficient public support to move forward and address gerrymandering in Maryland, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Currently, there are more challenging issues facing Governor Moore and the General Assembly:

In a November 2025 University of Maryland, Baltimore County poll, 49% of Maryland respondents believe the state is on the wrong track, and in a February 2025 UMBC poll, 53% of Maryland respondents have considered moving to another state.

Earlier this month professional budget analysts in the General Assembly’s nonpartisan Department of Legislative Services projected s a $1.4 billion state budget revenue shortfall in fiscal year2026, an amount five times more than they predicted in April 2025.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

Governor Wes Moore recently announced he is moving forward with an unprecedented effort to redraw Maryland’s eight congressional district maps before the 2026 election.

Historically, redistricting occurs every ten years following the completion of a national census. With that schedule, the next census-driven redistricting would take place no sooner than 2030.

Republican controlled legislatures in Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri have recently approved new congressional district boundaries to help maintain a Republican majority in the U.S. House after the 2026 midterm elections.

As a result, Democratic Governors J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Gavin Newsom of California, both of whom have Presidential ambitions, are pursuing comparable initiatives in their states to help secure a Democratic majority in the U.S. House after the 2026 midterm elections.

Governor Moore recently launched his own Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission.

About that commission, Moore has said, “My commitment has been clear from day one — we will explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps.”

So far, Moore has appointed Democratic U.S. Senator Angela Alsobrooks as commission chair, and the following as commission members: Democratic President of the Maryland Senate Bill Ferguson or his designee, Democratic Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates Adrienne Jones House or her designee, former Democratic Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and the Republican Mayor of Cumberland, Ray Morriss.

I believe Moore has two additional unannounced goals that are driving his redistricting initiative three years into his first term.

One may be to help Moore demonstrate his commitment to leaders of the national Democratic Party that he is doing his part to advance an accelerated congressional redistricting initiative in Maryland. Achieving that goal helps Moore maintain and expand the narrative that he is a rising star in the Democratic Party and is an attractive prospective Democratic candidate for a future national office.

The second unannounced goal may be to redraw the boundaries of Congressional District #1 where Andy Harris is the only Republican in Maryland’s eight-member congressional delegation.

Gerrymandering congressional district boundaries in Maryland to flip congressional seats from red to blue have had measurable success. At one time, Maryland’s congressional delegation was split evenly between four Republican members and four Democratic members. Today the split is seven Democratic members and one Republican member.

Time will tell exactly what, if any, Moore’s unannounced goals may be.

Until then, I have two questions about Moore’s stated commitment to “explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps.”

Does he know about the past efforts and results of former Governor Hogan’s 2021 Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission? If not, why not?

For his commission, Hogan appointed nine members from across Maryland — three Democrats, three Republicans, and three Independents. No commission member was a current or former elected official with one exception. One of the Democratic commission members was elected twice as State’s Attorney in Prince George’s County. Stanford University Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily, an expert on voting rights and election law, served as an advisor for the Commission.

The commission’s final report, issued in November 2021 included the following observations:

“The lines were drawn without regard to the interests of any party or candidate and without taking into account the place of residence of any incumbent officeholder or other potential candidate, nor did we consider how residents of any community may have voted in the past, or with what political party they may be registered. The Citizens Commission believes its maps embody good redistricting principles, including compactness, minimal splits of counties and municipalities, and a highly understandable layout for congressional representation.
Additionally, they offer better adherence to the principle of “one person, one vote” through a closer approach than in past maps to population equality. We are proud that our proposed congressional and senate maps earned a rating of “A” for fairness from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.”

At the final commission meeting, Professor Persily told commission members their efforts should be held out as a national model for the way things should be done.

It was not done in Maryland. The 2021 Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission report was not brought to the floor in the House of Delegates or the Senate for consideration or action.

History may soon repeat itself.

While a governor can call a special legislative session, legislative leaders will control what happens or does not happen during that session. Moore has not yet secured agreement on how the General Assembly will handle his commission’s report. Senate President Bill Ferguson is strongly opposed to any accelerated redistricting initiative and to a special session. House Speaker Adrienne Jones is strongly supportive of both.

Until governors, state legislative leaders, and the majority of state legislature members agree on redistricting done right, i.e., earning an “A” for fairness, America’s voters will continue to experience gerrymandered Congressional districts.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.