There Are Alternatives to Andy Harris in this Year’s Primary
George Shivers • May 12, 2020
(An earlier version of this article included erroneous information about Mr. Delgado’s positions on a number of issues. We are mortified, and apologize to Mr. Delgado and our readers.)
Andy Harris has been our representative in Congress in District 1 since 2011. Because of his opposition to virtually all legislation that doesn’t conform to his ultra-conservative ideology, including legislation in the best interests of his constituents, Harris has been nicknamed “Dr. No.” A future article in this publication will focus on Harris’s voting record. Our purpose here is to introduce three individuals — one Republican and two Democrats — who are opposing Harris in the primary election on June 2.
Jennifer Pingley
One of two Democrats running in the primary, Jennifer Pingley is a registered nurse from Cecil County. Her campaign website can be found at: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=466172
She has a wide range of experience in the field, having worked in pediatrics, adult ICU, critical care transport, school nursing and occupational health. She states on her website that her background as a nurse will influence her positions on legislation, saying: “I will fight to preserve the basic human rights to clean air and clean water. I will fight to keep and strengthen institutions that protect the average person such as the EPA and trade unions. I vow never to put the wants of business over the health or safety of people.”
In an article by Laetitia Sands in the Dorchester Banner published on March 3, Pingley stated her belief that universal health care is the ultimate goal, but because of Republican opposition, it may be currently out of reach; as a start she suggests primary care for all, which she sees as a right of citizenship. She also supports government intervention to reverse the rising costs of medications. She stated that she would like to see a scientist at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and added that, “Around here, the water is going to rise. We need to re-evaluate local measures: Are we doing things that contribute to putting us under water faster?”
Jorge Delgado
Jorge Delgado, from Ocean City, is opposing Harris in the Republican primary. On his campaign website (https://www.delgado4maryland.com/) he characterizes himself as a “true conservative.”
He holds a B.S. in international business from Auburn University. Most recently he was the economic policy advisor for U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner, focusing on taxation, affordable housing, and the challenges faced by small businesses and rural communities. He says he’s a strong supporter of President Trump’s policies. In a communication with this writer, he stated that he supports Governor Hogan’s actions with regard to covid-19 and has refrained from holding public campaign events, unlike Harris, who recently spoke at a demonstration in Salisbury protesting the shut-down.
Mr. Delgado believes “in less government, not more,” and therefore does not support publicly supported healthcare and in the elimination of private insurance. On education, he has never stated that publicly supported education should extend through college. With regard to gay rights, while he is against any form of discrimination, he has never stated that he supports adding sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression as protected classes in non-discrimination laws. He states that in his campaign he is a strong supporter of the Free Enterprise System.
Mia Mason, the second Democratic candidate, is a 20-year military veteran who has served in the Navy, Army and D.C. National Guard. She is a member of the LGBT community and lives in Frederick County. Her campaign website can be found at: https://miadmason.us/
She served on board the USS Kitty Hawk for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. She also participated in relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina. She completed five combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and was decorated for her service. She retired from the military in 2018, and has since worked to advance civil rights and oppose Trump’s discriminatory practices. She was a speaker at the 2018 Women’s March. Her positions include support for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, bringing back the federal ban on assault weapons, the CARE Act to end the opioid crisis, and restoring Obama-era environmental protections. She states that she would seek passage of legislation to ensure meeting 2030 and 2040 environmental goals. She strongly supports the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
In response to a question regarding the impact of the covid-19 virus on her campaign, she stated that she strongly supports the actions taken by Governor Hogan to protect Marylanders. As a result of the epidemic, she stopped door-to-door canvassing and went to a completely digital, online campaign. She noted that there are weekly town halls for District 1 communities. Her campaign is available online to answer any questions or voters can phone her staff at 410-946-2766.
A native of Wicomico County, George Shivers holds a doctorate from the University of Maryland and taught in the Foreign Language Dept. of Washington College for 38 years before retiring in 2007. He is also very interested in the history and culture of the Eastern Shore, African American history in particular.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
