About

The JUFJ Campaign Fund (JUFJCF) works in coalition with trusted partners that are made up of and led by the people who are most impacted by the issues we work on. This scorecard calculates how councilmembers did on key bills and budget items that the JUFJ Campaign Fund and our partners took positions on to advance social, racial, and economic justice in Montgomery County during the 2019–2022 Council period

Unlike many legislative bodies, the Montgomery County Council votes unanimously on most bills. That doesn’t mean that councilmembers are all the same—it means that legislators often make their impact before the final vote. That’s why the JUFJ Campaign Fund scorecard also rates councilmembers on amendment votes and sponsorships.

While every member of the Montgomery County Council has a role to play in moving Montgomery County forward (or holding us back), councilmembers serve on different committees and have different frequencies of sponsoring bills and amendments. Because of these differences, each councilmember has a different number of scored actions and their scores have different denominators. All actions scored (bill sponsorships, amendment sponsorships, budget item sponsorships, final bill votes, amendment votes, and budget item votes) are weighted equally for all councilmembers.

Scoring Method

Final vote scores are measured as the percentage of final votes on the JUFJCF’s key bills and budget items where the councilmember’s votes match the position of the JUFJCF.

Amendment vote scores are measured as the percentage of amendment votes on the JUFJCF’s key bills and budget items where the councilmember’s votes match the position of the JUFJCF.

Sponsorship rankings are calculated according to how often each councilmember is the lead sponsor, co-sponsor, or amendment sponsor for the JUFJCF’s key bills and budget items. Sponsorships that match the JUFJCF’s position are counted favorably and sponsorships that do not match the JUFJCF’s position are counted unfavorably. Lack of sponsorship is not counted in this ranking.

Score summaries for each key bill and budget item are represented by a colored dot. The denominator counts all actions taken by the councilmember and the numerator indicates how many of those actions match the JUFJCF’s position. If a councilmember isn’t on the relevant committee, the committee actions don’t count toward the councilmember’s number of actions.

As an example, a bill with two amendments can create up to six actions: 

1. Sponsorship of the bill

2. Final vote on the bill

3. Sponsorship of amendment #1

4. Vote on amendment #1

5. Sponsorship of amendment #2

6. Vote on amendment #2

In this example, a councilmember who sponsored the bill, sponsored amendment #1, voted on both amendments, and voted on the final bill, would have a denominator of five. Another councilmember who voted all three times, but didn’t sponsor the bill or any amendments, would have a denominator of three.

Dot colors indicate frequency of alignment with the JUFJCF. The darker the green, the more the councilmember’s positions are aligned with the JUFJCF. Actions that do not align with the JUFJCF are shown on a scale of increasing misalignment, from yellow to orange to red. If a councilmember took no action on a bill (for instance, if it never came up for a final vote), then the dot color is gray.

Questions?

Please contact Laura Wallace at laura@jufjcampaignfund.org for more information about the scoring method or a more in-depth analysis of any of the scored actions.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the JUFJ Campaign Fund members and staff who contributed to this project, and especially to Dan Klingessrow and Eric Shansby for the design and coding of this website.