Question A
Charter Amendment by Petition
County Executive – Term Limit – Reduction from Three to Two Consecutive Terms. Amend Section 202 of the County Charter to decrease the term limit that applies to the County Executive from the current three consecutive terms to two consecutive terms. The decreased limit would apply to anyone who already has served two consecutive terms as of December 2026
Background
In 2016, Montgomery County voters approved Charter amendments to prohibit the County Executive and Council members from serving more than three consecutive terms. The newly enacted term limits became effective with the election of 2018. Accordingly, when Marc Elrich was elected in 2018 he became the first County Executive subject to the three term limit. After being reelected in 2022, the existing law allows him to seek a third term in 2026. However, a petition drive headed by the 2022 Republican nominee for County Executive now seeks to amend the Charter to reduce the term limit for the County Executive from three to two consecutive terms, effective in 2026; prohibiting County Executives, beginning with Elrich, from running for a third term.
The petition for a Charter amendment to prevent the County Executive from running for a third term has been promoted repeatedly and consistently on the website of the Montgomery County Republican Party since 2023, with statements of support often posted by members of the Republican Central Committee.
Montgomery County’s History with Term Limits
The original Montgomery County Charter of 1948 vested both executive and legislative powers in the County Council, and the council appointed a County Manager to serve at the Council’s discretion. A new County Charter was adopted in 1968 that provided for an elected County Executive who would first be elected in 1970 and who would hold the same administrative and executive responsibilities and powers as a city mayor, including veto power over some Council actions.
Montgomery County elected its first County Executive in 1970. Since then, there have been 7 county executives. Only 2 of the previous executives have served three terms (Ike Leggett and Doug Duncan): 2 executives served two terms, and 2 served just one term. The current executive is in his second term.
Term limits have been the subject of a proposed Charter amendment by petition three times: in 2000, 2004, and 2016:
● In 2000, a proposed Charter amendment by petition that sought to limit the Executive and members of the County Council to two consecutive terms in office was defeated. The Charter Review Commission issued a Statement urging voters to vote against it.
● In 2004, a proposed Charter Amendment by petition to limit the Executive and members of the Council to three consecutive terms in office was also defeated. The Charter Review Commission’s 2004 Report recommended that “county voters cast their votes
against this proposal. 2024
● In 2016, a proposed Charter Amendment by petition to limit the Executive and Council members to three c onsecutive terms was approved by a significant margin. Voters favored the amendment by a vote of 69.8% to 30.2%. The amendment became effective with the 2018 election.
As amended in 2016, Montgomery County’s Charter only limits the number of consecutive terms that the Executive can serve. Consequently, someone could serve three consecutive terms, then leave office, wait four years, and then seek a fourth or fifth term.
Other Maryland Jurisdictions
Maryland has twenty-three counties in addition to Baltimore City. There are only nine counties that have County Executives; in the other fourteen counties the highest elected official is the President of the Board of County Commissioners or County Council. In the nine counties with a County Executive, a limit of two consecutive terms applies to 6 County Executives (and Baltimore’s Mayor) while 2 counties have no term limits for their executive and Montgomery County limits its executive to three consecutive terms. In the 14 counties without a County Executive, 12 counties have no term limits for its highest elected official, 1 county has a two[1]term limit and 1 county has a three-term limit.
Reasons to support County Question A
These assertions have been made or could be made in support of the Republican supported Charter amendment to reduce the term limit for the County Executive from three to two consecutive terms:
● The amendment would apply the same two-term limit to the County Executive as applies to the President and Governor.
● The amendment is based on the belief that 8 years is enough time for County Executives to accomplish their objectives even though they would serve as “lame ducks” for 4 of those years.
● Some might assert that replacing the three-term limit with a two-term limit lessens the chance that the County Executive will be a “career politician.” Some might assert that career politicians are focused more on their own reelection and less on the public interest. They might also assert that increasing turnover and replacing “career politicians” improves the quality and accountability of public servants.
● A shorter term limit can create more frequent turnover in the office. Because voters tend to return incumbents to office, mandating turnover can lead to policy changes that otherwise would be delayed if the incumbent stayed in office longer.
● Incumbents have an advantage in elections due to name recognition and history of fundraising. If that is deemed to be an unfair advantage, it would be better to let incumbents run for reelection only once.
● A limit of two consecutive terms would be consistent with the term limit for Baltimore City’s Mayor and 6 counties of the 9 counties in Maryland that have an Executive. (Although In the 14 counties without a County Executive, only 1 county has a two-term limit for its highest elected official.)
Reasons to oppose County Question A
There are multiple reasons to oppose term limits generally and to oppose reducing the existing three-term limit because that would exacerbate the problems term limits create:
● Montgomery County already has term limits, passed by the voters. The existing three [1]term (12-year) limit only went into effect in 2018 (6 years ago). The current County Executive – as well as the County Council – are the first officials to serve in office under our current term limits and it is premature to reduce them so soon after passage. This further limits voters’ choice without any reason or necessity.
● Some Democrats argue that term limits are “Anti-Choice” laws that take power out of the hands of voters. Term limits reduce the choices voters have on Election Day. Term limits are unnecessary because voters can use the electoral process to replace office holders whom they believe should not serve for a longer period. Term limits also reduce or eliminate voters’ ability to evaluate individual candidates and instead, impose an arbitrary amount of time that an official may serve.
● Republicans are seeking to make Democratic County Executives less effective in their job by ensuring that all of them become lame ducks after their fourth year in office if they are elected to a second term. We need to uphold our commitment to the democratic values that are increasingly under attack by defeating Republican Party efforts to diminish the role of elections and voters’ ability to choose who they want to represent them in public office.
● The campaign to arbitrarily reduce the term limit from three to two consecutive terms was initiated by those who disagree with the sitting Executive’s policies but do not want to let the voters decide if he deserves a third and final term. This is a partisan exercise by the Republican Party whose effort is being aided and funded by several prominent and
political real estate development and management company interests who have already spent several hundred thousand dollars trying to defeat the current county executive and other candidates in 2018 and 2022.
● It might take a new Executive from 12 to 24 four months after taking office to set up their administration which requires selection and confirmation of key appointees, establishing policy objectives and strategies, and implementing those policies. If the Executive can
only run for reelection one time, they would have just 24 more months in their first term before they become a lame duck, which could lessen their effectiveness.
● Term limits can result in a reduction of institutional knowledge, expertise on particular subjects and issues, and political acumen. Inexperienced officials are less efficient because they must learn how to navigate the system and the bureaucracy. It’s unwise to deny voters the opportunity to retain an experienced and popular incumbent when voters approve of his or her performance and the incumbent is willing to seek another term.
● Incumbents who seek reelection have not gone unchallenged, and in fact, have been defeated in elections. The option of public financing now makes such challenges easier, and voters can choose whether they’re ready to replace an incumbent whose performance they disapprove with a challenger who offers better qualifications or more appealing programs.
● A term limited incumbent becomes a “lame duck” who might be less responsive to the public and less accountable, as well as less effective. Accordingly, term limits might increase the influence of lobbyists and staffers who are not accountable to the voters. Reducing the term limit from three to two terms would exacerbate this issue and would arise after four years instead of eight.
● The Executive should be subject to the same term limit as Council members. The proposed amendment to reduce the limit from three to two terms would apply only to the County Executive.
Reasons to be neutral on County Question A
● Voters approved the existing three-term limit in the 2016 election by a significant margin (69.8% to 30.2%), reflecting support for term limits in general among many Democratic Party voters. Deciding whether or not to reduce the limit from three to two consecutive terms could be viewed as a simple issue that voters can easily understand and decide for themselves without advice from Party officials and activists.