DC Council Chair Phil Mendelson has leaned into the label of progressive during this election season in which he faces challenger Erin Palmer. An ethics lawyer and Ward 4 advisory neighborhood commissioner, she also claims that political moniker.
The struggle over who is and isn’t a progressive may seem insignificant in a city where, according to the DC Board of Elections’ latest statistics, 76.49% of registered voters are Democrats — many of whom undoubtedly consider themselves liberals. However, over the past decade, there have been organized attempts in the District to eject elected officials unwilling to move farther to the left. It’s not dissimilar to moves by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad; they have recently gone after Democratic leaders in the House for supporting centrist candidates during this midterm election cycle.
The leader of the DC legislative branch since 2012, Mendelson has pushed back against progressives’ efforts to cast him as an out-of-step political relic. He has asserted that he was there before many of them and that he continues to be on the right side of progressive or liberal issues.
“I have done a good job as a council member and chairman. I have delivered on progressive values over and over again,” he said during an April 29 candidates forum sponsored by WAMU 88.5; a version of that self-assessment has been made at other events over the past several months.
A member of the political action committee DC for Democracy, Palmer has been among the progressives advocating and organizing for change. She has asserted that her goal is high-quality, equitable government services for DC residents.
Ahead of the 2020 elections, Palmer was one of several individuals whom DC for Democracy leaders considered to run against incumbent Ward 4 Council member Brandon Todd; organizers opted instead for Janeese Lewis George. She handily defeated the two-term legislator.
Sources told me that initially in this current election cycle folks wanted Palmer to challenge incumbent at-large Council member Anita Bonds; there were concerns, however, about the racial dynamic since Bonds is Black and Palmer is white. They ultimately settled on Mendelson.
It isn’t the first time these same forces have come for him. In 2018, he faced Ed Lazere, a policy wonk who was the darling, if not the titular head, of the local progressive movement.
When Palmer was asked during the candidates forum on WAMU’s Politics Hour about whether she is, as observers have said, similar to Lazere, she countered that she is her “own person” and a neighborhood-level official.
Still, that comparison may be ominous. Progressives were certain that Lazere could unseat Mendelson. After all, Lazere had a solid record and reputation for standing up to the government on behalf of poor and working-class residents in the District.
A sizable number of organizations rallied around Lazere: He was endorsed by groups such as Jews United for Justice Campaign Fund, the Washington Teachers’ Union, the DC chapter of the National Organization for Women, Democracy for America and DC for Democracy. Currently, some of those same organizations along with Greater Greater Washington, DC Women in Politics, DC Working Families Party, Capital Stonewall Democrats, The Georgetown Voice and a host of advisory neighborhood commissioners are backing Palmer.
Obviously, like Palmer herself, they hope her fate won’t be the same as Lazere’s. Mendelson crushed him, winning 63.02% (48,848) of the votes cast in the 2018 primary; Lazere walked away with only 36.48% (28,280). Mendelson went on to win the general election with 89.13% (198,639); his only opposition was Libertarian Ethan Bishop-Henchman, who received 18,708 votes.
It’s not 2018, however. Progressives have learned a thing or two about organizing, as was clear in 2020 when they swept out Todd, despite his strong ties to Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Working through DC for Democracy among other groups, they have galvanized support around a slate of candidates in several wards — 1, 3, 5 and 6; that means they have a solid, competitive foundation in key areas of the city. They also have stepped in behind at-large Council member Robert White, who is hoping to stop Bowser from winning a third term as mayor. In other words, after Lazere’s loss, progressives like Palmer have refused to just go home. Instead, they have returned big and hard.
Mendelson may seem an easy mark, but he is a smart, shrewd politician. That is one reason he has refused to cede the title of progressive to Palmer — just as he did in 2018. During this year’s campaign he has ticked off policies and legislation he has ushered through the council to serve as evidence of that status: marriage equality; gun reform; paid leave, which he shaped into a form that he could support and that could pass; an increase in the city’s minimum wage; the Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results (NEAR) Act, which introduced violence interrupters to DC residents; the Police Reform Commission; and the Tax Revision Commission, among others.
Elected to the council in 1998 as an at-large member, Mendelson has been adept at growing and maintaining his voter base while neutralizing the opposition without revealing any doubts he may have about his odds for victory. He has been endorsed by a host of organizations including the Sierra Club’s DC chapter; the Metropolitan Washington Labor Council, AFL-CIO; AFSCME District Council 20; 32BJ SEIU; the DC Association of Realtors; and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1975, among others. The Washington Post editorial board called him a “steady hand for the council in tumultuous times.” Smartly, Mendelson hasn’t underestimated his opponent.
Palmer may not be able to match his name recognition or his record, but she has shown herself to be a thoughtful, serious politician who will stand and defend her strong ideas. Equally important, she signaled very early in the race that she intended to play the entire field, organizing a series of door-knocking and face-to-face meetings with voters in neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River where the incumbent has repeatedly demonstrated his strength.
While the two politicos have identified many of the same top issues — affordable housing, education and public safety, for example — their analyses of those problems and their suggested approaches to solving them are light-years apart. Palmer supports removing police from the city’s public schools. Mendelson does not. He did, however, initially embrace the recommendation to do so made by the Police Reform Commission, which was established by the council under his watch just after the uprising over the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.
Palmer has accused Mendelson of walking away from the commission’s recommendations. He has said he changed his position after the union that represents principals sent a letter to the council asking that the school resource officers be allowed to stay in the buildings. Last month, despite receiving that written request and Mendelson’s opposition, the council voted to continue the plan to draw down the police officers until they have all been removed.
Palmer also has said she supports expanding rent control so that it covers more buildings. She said she doesn’t support the removal of homeless encampments as Mayor Muriel Bowser’s administration has attempted over several months. The majority of council members didn’t share her view, however. When legislation was proposed that would have halted the mayor, they did not support that bill. Palmer also said she supported an earlier tax increase on upper-income residents based on what it funded, including housing vouchers; in that case, her position aligns with a narrow council majority
Mendelson, who opposed the tax hike, countered that last year the city ended up with a $1 billion surplus, partially because of that increase. He persuaded the council to reinstate the DC Tax Revision Commission to “take a holistic look” at the city’s tax structure.
In debates, Palmer has argued that the decline of the city’s downtown because of the emerging telework trend may be an opportunity to create “neighborhood-centric communities.” She called it an “appealing way to invest” in areas of DC that have seen chronic disinvestment and to “grow neighborhood-centered hubs.”
That proposal ignores the reality, however, that the pandemic harmed downtown so severely that the injuries affected the entire city. What’s more, investments in neighborhood restaurants and retail establishments can’t fully compensate for the District’s multilayered economic loss, which is denying the city commercial property tax revenues while also limiting the stream from sales taxes.
Palmer has also slammed Mendelson on affordable housing, specifically insufficient sustained support for public housing. He has countered that under his leadership the council put a sizable amount of money to help finance renovation of various DC Housing Authority properties. In 2019, Mendelson and the city’s then-Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey DeWitt battled over Mendelson’s decision to take money from Events DC’s reserve account to fund public housing repairs; they eventually agreed on moving $25 million for that purpose.
“These are federal properties [but] we are putting in local money,” Mendelson said during a debate last month.
He and Palmer have also clashed around whether the council should have a separate committee on education. She thinks it should, along with allocating it additional resources, including extra staff. As for current school governance, Palmer and others have pushed for change. “There is a whole spectrum of alternatives; we haven’t been able to have that conversation,” she said.
“I am singularly focused on improving the quality of education,” said Mendelson during a forum sponsored by the Ward 3 and Ward 4 Democrats. He said he supports “keeping the status quo” in governance. “Changing [it] will set us back.”
At-large Council member David Grosso chaired the most recent incarnation of a separate committee on education. Parents and advocates complained often about his lax oversight and unwillingness to address key issues, like transparency, in the charter sector. Instead of removing Grosso, Mendelson made the Committee of the Whole (COW) jointly responsible for public education. Then when Grosso decided not to run for reelection, education was placed completely under the COW.
In the most recent budget cycle, Mendelson may have provided a compelling rationale for keeping education under his oversight. He pushed through $41 million, spread over several years, in additional spending for at-risk students. That maneuver won him praise from various parts of the city, including residents east of the Anacostia River who have complained for years about their schools being shortchanged. Critics dismissed it, however, as a Band-Aid rather than the substantial reform that was needed.
Throughout the campaign, Palmer has offered interesting proposals while presenting a steady stream of complaints about Mendelson’s shortcomings. However, he has seemed to be one step ahead, anticipating the assaults with ready solutions or proposals, some of which he has helped get approved this budget cycle. Will that be enough to beat back another progressive effort to show him the door? The Democratic primary is June 21. We’ll know soon enough.
jonetta rose barras is an author and freelance journalist, covering national and local issues including politics, childhood trauma, public education, economic development and urban public policies. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.
Comments are closed.