Cuyahoga
Politics Today
New Political Season brings critical choices,
questions
What is the value
of a Fudge endorsement?
How does Mandel's exit affect GOP Senate Primary?
If it seems that politics is never-ending, that‘s because it’s true. Our
interests, and those of our community — however we may define “interests” and
“community” — are being negotiated, threatened, defended, or traded away
continually by public officials who appear on your ballot. So it behooves us to
pay attention to what our public officials do and say.
Consider that in a little less than 72 hours last week, roughly 100 local
Democrats chose the newest member of county council and made recommendations
for who should get the party’s endorsement in various judicial and legislative
primary contests on the May 8 ballot.
Those choices, made in most cases by people you likely don’t know or
seldom think of, have consequences with close-to-home effect upon who gets put
in jail, where your taxes go, and which sections of our community get treated
better than others.
That likely doesn’t sound fair, but it’s the way our democracy works. And
if you don’t like it, you have a real chance to change it this year. And if you
decide to get involved, you may set in motion positive changes not only for
your neighborhood, but for your judicial system, your state government, your country, and the world.
That’s not hyperbole. It’s the result of living in Cuyahoga County, which
still remains the dominant political goldmine in a crucial battleground state.
Democrats hold the lion’s share of offices in Cuyahoga County. Republicans
control some of the suburbs, especially those on the county’s outskirts. Though
they are largely irrelevant to county politics — their political interests are
generally expressed through the business community — the GOP functions pretty
much the same way in its spheres, that is to say through a network of volunteer
central and executive committees and ex
officio structures that carry great
weight in influencing who gets on the ballot.
So last Thursday, 46 of a possible 75 or so precinct committee members who
live in County Council District 10 — Cleveland Heights, East Cleveland,
University Heights, Bratenahl, and Cleveland Wards 8 and 10, met at Dem Party
headquarters to choose a successor to Anthony Hairston, who resigned his county
council seat after winning the Cleveland Ward 10 seat vacated by Jeff Johnson,
who opted to challenge Mayor Frank Jackson. [Johnson came in third in the
September mayoral primary; he’s now running for the State Senate seat he had 20
years ago.]
Successful professional politicians chart their careers and their alliances
with great care. Hairston’s county-to-city council switch was in preparation
for at least a year, which meant that his council seat was potentially in play
for at least that long. Michael Houser, who won the intraparty vote last week
to replace Hairston, had long ago secured the latter’s support to replace him.
In Cleveland, that would have been sufficient; a councilperson who leaves under
honorable circumstances is permitted to designate a successor who is then
ratified by the council.
County Council functions under a different set of rules, set by state law.
When a vacancy occurs between elections, the successor is chosen by the Party
of the outgoing incumbent. Even though the process is different, neither Houser
nor Hairston gave much thought to any particular challenger. So Houser moved
into an apartment in the district and apparently expected pretty much to waltz
in to the seat.
But the unexpected is part of what makes politics so fascinating. Shortly
after the November election, Cleveland Heights mayor Cheryl Stephens realized
that a power realignment among council members meant that her colleagues were
unlikely to reelect her as mayor. Moreover, she was about to leave her job as
director of acquisitions, dispositions & development at the County Land
Bank to take a job in Akron. Suddenly, she was seen as a preferred alternative
to Houser by many party activists.
For starters, Stephens
has an accomplished resume as a public official in both elected and managerial
roles. Of perhaps greater weight politically, she represented a chance for the
Heights forces to regain the seat that had gone to Clevelander Hairston when
Julian Rogers had resigned to take a job with Cleveland State.
Stephens was especially appealing as a potential candidate to Congresswoman
Marcia Fudge, who has increasingly sought to play a larger role in local
politics. Once Stephens was officially offered her new job — as president and
CEO of the East End Neighborhood Development Corporation — and prepared to
leave the Land Bank, the conflict between her work and the part-time council
position evaporated, and she agreed to seek the county council position.
Suddenly, Stephens seemed the favorite to succeed Hairston on county
council.
In politics the currency that matters is votes, and so for 45 days or so
Houser and Stephens sought to secure commitments from the precinct committee
members of District 10. Fudge’s involvement put a strain on political and
personal loyalties. Hairston had pledged his support to Houser but wanted to
stay in her good graces. Julian Rogers, the Democratic city leader in Cleveland
Heights, is tight with Hairston both politically and personally, but with a
base that heavily favored Stephens. County Executive Armond Budish is a Fudge
political ally but Houser was one of his executive assistants.
This really should have been no contest. Everyone recognizes the weight of
a member of Congress. But for some reason, Rep. Fudge has established a track
record of making endorsements but failing to put substance and resources behind
them. Thus, she made a robocall on Stephens behalf but did not make the dozen
or so phone calls that could have secured the seat for Stephens.
The immediate result was a dramatic 24-22 second-round ballot win for
Houser at the party headquarters on Superior Ave. But this small episode has
other winners and losers.
Stephens’ combination of experience, expertise, and leadership suggest she
would have been a formidable representative of District 10 and a valuable asset
to the county on all issues related to development and governmental
performance. These were stated priorities when the battle was waged and won
over reforming county government.
Houser is much more of an unknown
quantity. He has long been eager to win elective office but already whispers
abound that he will take his orders from County Executive Budish.
Houser takes office immediately and will need to tend his political flanks
immediately. The filing deadline for the office is February 7 and a Board of
Elections spokesperson has confirmed this seat will be on the May 8th
primary ballot, providing an early test of political strength for Houser and
any challengers, including possibly Stephens, who is rumored to be considering
a run.
A larger issue remains, and it was on display two days after the District
vote. What does it mean when the Congresswoman cannot secure a seat for a
highly qualified candidate of her choosing over a political novice? Let us note
that race was not a consequential factor in this contest; both Houser and
Stephens are black. But given that Fudge has chosen increasingly to involve
herself in local party politics — she pushed for the election of Shontel Brown
as local party chair; she has taken early sides in several state legislative battles, even supporting
challengers over incumbents — her constituents are entitled to question her end
game.
This is no idle question. There are four open countywide judicial seats in
this year’s election cycle. There are no black or Hispanic male judges on the
county bench. Five African Americans and one Hispanic — three men, three women
— are among the competitors for the four seats. Fudge is widely regarded to
have negotiated with some party powers to secure endorsements of two black
women lawyers in their respective races. Yet when forty city and ward leaders
from across the county met last Saturday to present recommendations to the party’s
Central Committee, which will meet this Saturday to act on those
recommendations, not a single judicial candidate of color received a
recommendation, and Fudge’s two choices were defeated handily.
We will explore this issue in tomorrow’s post.
# # #
Last week brought news that State Treasurer Josh Mandel, possibly the
least-liked state public official of this century, was ending his campaign to win
the GOP nomination for US Senate and challenge incumbent US Senator Sherrod Brown.
Mandel was expected to defeat his challenger for the nomination, wealthy
Cleveland businessman Mike Gibbons. But Mandel withdrew citing an undisclosed
medical issue concerning his wife.
Gibbons does not have a clear field, however. Congressman Jim Renacci, who
was in the midst of an uphill battle for the GOP gubernatorial nomination
against Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Lt. Governor Mary Taylor, is now
shifting over to the Senate race.
Gibbons is a relative unknown politically. He
will be a guest tonight on “Race
Relations in America with Laverne and Jack”, which airs Tuesdays from 6-7PM
on WERE TalkCLE Radio 1490/AM.
Mandel was such a distasteful candidate — he specializes in ugly campaigns — but it seems that he will be replaced by another Trumpster.
While we are on the subject of that Senate contest, we understand why many Republicans don’t like to talk about the racist who heads their party. But we
would like to hear what our own Ohio Senators, Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman,
think about Trump’s “s***hole countries” comment.
# # #
