Secret Letter Sent to House Judiciary Chairman by Judge Karen Abrams Heated Up 2006 Race for Judge Mike Stamm

BULLITIN: St. Mary’s Circuit Court Judge Michael Stamm died on October 2, 2024. More details soon

Secret Letter Sent to House Judiciary Chairman
by Judge Abrams Heated Up 2006 Race for Judge Mike Stamm

Judge violated rules of conduct for judges by entering the political fray to block the ability of more than 9,000 independent voters from taking part in the non-partisan election of the circuit court judge.
(This article was initially published in 2006 in ST. MARY’S TODAY)
LEONARDTOWN — It seems some people in black robes want to get their $2 million, 15-year jobs without affording full play to the popular choice of the voters.

Judge Abrams on Wednesday denied she acted inappropriately as a judge when in a secret letter to the chairman of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee, dated March 31, 2006, she called for keeping unaffiliated voters out of the primaries, arguing this would be counter-productive to Judge Stamm’s already devised election strategy.

Abrams also denies Stamm is her protégé, and Stamm says he is not the one who wrote the March 31 letter, although in her letter to Del. Joseph Vallario, she represented that Stamm concurred with her views.

Two other candidates contesting the elections for St. Mary’s Circuit Court Judge, George Sparling and Shane Mattingly believe Judge Abrams acted inappropriately because judges are supposed to stay out of electoral politics and also questioned Stamm’s misjudgment of placing his personal interests ahead of the public interest.

Del. Vallario, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, is himself a practicing lawyer who occasionally appears before Judge Abrams at the St. Mary’s Circuit Court.

Judge Abrams confirmed to ST. MARY’S TODAY, she sees Del. Vallario at her court. “I see him once in a while. I don’t see him very frequently. I think he is in the district court most of the time,” Abrams said.

She insisted her position as a judge and Vallario’s position as a lawyer should not give rise to suggestions of mutual paybacks in the backdrop of their exchange of letters.

Senator Roy Dyson’s bill to reform the election process of the circuit court to make it more competitive, broad-based, comprehensive and non-partisan, much like the Board of Education elections, passed in the Senate 33-0 on March 30. 

A day later, Abrams wrote her secret letter in support of Stamm to lawyer Vallario.

Likewise, a similar bill last year on reforming judicial elections passed in the House of Delegates, died in the Senate Committee after the judiciary’s opposition.

Dyson’s bill called for the judge’s selection to be decided with the inclusion of the entire electorate, not only those voters who decided to become either Republicans or Democrats.

While the merits of Dyson’s bill to provide for all voters to have a say in the election of a judge provoked much of this year’s current debate since the disclosure of Judge Abrams’s secret letter in last week’s edition of ST. MARY’S TODAY, the suddenly heated election now has drawn in the additional issue of a judge who is not on the ballot taking an active role in the election despite prohibitions against Judges being involved in politics.

 “There’s no question that a sitting judge is not supposed to be involved in an election between candidates,” said former States Attorney George Sparling. “More importantly, it’s the position that Mike Stamm has taken that I take exception to,” he said.

Sparling said it’s apparent from Abram’s letter that Mike Stamm had opposed Senate Bill 324. “I differ on that. I supported giving independent voters a voice in the primaries,” he said, adding he had offered to express his support to Senator Dyson’s bill as he thought it broadened popular participation in the process.

He said he has two problems with what has come up now. “First, I don’t think that Judge Abrams and Stamm have been completely forthcoming with the public about reasons for the positions they took,” Sparling said, explaining that the two judges were primarily attempting to promote Stamm’s election strategy.

Secondly, he said, Mike Stamm was cited in a Press report that he believes the other two candidates would be taking the same stand. “Well we don’t,” he said.

Sparling said Judge Abrams was reported to have said she was speaking on behalf of all candidates running for judge, which was not true. “In fact, she never discussed the matter with me and never sought out my position. I just don’t think they are being completely open with the public.”

He said, “One of the most important things is that it is apparent to me that Mike Stamm chose to put his political interests ahead of the public interest. I am disappointed that someone who aspires to become a judge would see things that way.”

Sparling said the fact that one may have to contest both the primary and general elections might not be in the interest of a particular candidate, but was in the larger interest of the public.

He said conducting judge’s elections on the same lines as the Board of Education elections, which Dyson’s bill sought, was a good idea. “It would have gone a long way to taking more politics out of it (judges election),” he said.

Sparling said it would have been better for Judge Abrams to remain neutral, but he would rather not make it a point of ego. “After the elections, I would do whatever is in the greater public interest without letting personalities getting involved,” he held out an olive branch to Judge Abrams.

Judge Abrams, denying Stamm was her protégé, pointed out he was appointed by Governor Bob Ehrlich, “whom I do not know.” Judge Stamm, however, makes no secret he looks upon Judge Abrams as his mentor.

Judge Abrams said she felt the bill came very late in this election. “Many, many candidates felt that way,” she said. “When I wrote my letter, Judge Raley was on vacation, and as administrative judge, I could only speak on behalf of a judge who was already appointed. It just happened to be Judge Stamm,” Abrams said, adding she was in no position to speak on behalf of other judges.

 “It certainly seems to me to be an inappropriate position of Judge Abrams,” said lawyer Shane Mattingly. “It’s always been my understanding that sitting judges had to stay out of electoral politics. And it’s inferred from the letter that she’s involved with Judge Stamm’s campaign strategy,” Mattingly regretted.

“This is a non-partisan campaign, and it should be about including everyone and not excluding a class of voters, a class which exceeds 15 percent of all registered voters in St. Mary’s County,” Mattingly said in support of Dyson’s bill.

He said that the position of the two judges, Abrams and Stamm, shows a lack of trust in the voters. “What they are essentially saying is that the voters can’t be relied upon to get it right,” Mattingly said.

Mattingly felt amazed over Judge Abram’s position on elections. “She is adamantly opposed to election of judges,” Mattingly said. “This is a 15-year position. The salary for those 15 years would approximate two million dollars. That person (elected judge) will make decisions that affect people’s lives daily. Voters have an absolute right to sign off on that person,” he argued.

Mattingly said a judge’s position should transcend partisan politics. “I agree with any bill or any process that includes all the voters, not just some of the voters,” he said.

Mattingly offered no comments on exactly what might have transpired between Vallario and Judge Abrams. “That’s between Vallario and Judge Abrams. It’s a very, sort of, uncomfortable situation.”

Abrams said all judges are presently appointed by the governor and still have to face contested elections. She said what was in place was a dual system that makes incumbent judges appointed by the governor run elections like any other contestants. “I don’t think that’s a reasonable system,” she said. “They should only have to face a retention election. Or there should be no appointments at all and everyone should contest in elections like other candidates,” she contended.

Abrams said what she is saying that the system as it stands now is not fair with an appointed judge, who has to leave a prior job, go to schools and then take part in a popularity contest. “This bill was introduced very late. None of the judges knew about it,” Abrams said. “The major flaw in the bill was that there was no opportunity for public input.”

Abrams said the Dyson bill, with inputs from the judges, may become an excellent solution to the partisan slash non-partisan issue. “There are some conditions that need to be addressed to make the bill workable,” Abrams said.

The record of the General Assembly is clear in that despite Abram’s assertion of no opportunity for the views of the judges to be given to the legislators, that just the opposite is true.

The Conference of the Circuit Court Judges participated in a forum on the issue of the election of judges and representatives of the group testified before both Senate and House committees during the General Assembly as the reform bills were considered.

Judge Stamm repeated Judge Abrams logic that the bill had come very late in the day, though pointing out he is not the person who authored the March 31 letter. He said, “After they (candidates) have filed for elections, a change in the rules for the elections, that I think is not fair with the candidates.” He said he might not have had any problem with the bill had it been in place at the very outset, not in the middle of the game.

Judge Stamm said many of his friends who are independents can not vote for him. “At no place did I say the independents do not have the right to vote,” he said.

He felt that if the bill had been adopted, independents would have been left out of the race at the level of the primaries.

Judge Stamm said he does not wish to make comments on the merits of the cross-filing system which has been in place since 1941. “That’s the way it was being done. It was a long time before I became an attorney and probably even before I was born.”

Asked if he, too, supports retention elections, Judge Stamm honestly conceded there should be no guessing about his answer as he said he was just returning home after putting up his election billboards.

“While realizing that all efforts at eliminating contested judicial elections over the years have failed, some acknowledgment should be paid to the fact that candidates who are not vetted and found qualified by their peers should not be able to mount a popularity contest to unseat a sitting judge who has been determined to be qualified and given up his or her prior employment to accept a judgeship,” Judge Abrams argued in her March 31 letter to lawyer Vallario.

This is the second time in as many months that the name of Judge Abrams, who is the first-ever woman to become an elected judge in St. Mary’s history, has surfaced in news reports about inappropriate support of her subordinates. Little over a month ago, she sent a request for an out-of-step promotion of a circuit court employee in a secret meeting of St. Mary’s Board of County Commissioners. Abram’s backroom attempt to get special funding for a single county employee, out of line with the same treatment for other county employees, left the Judge wishing she had not made the request the same time that one was being made by States Attorney Richard Fritz. 

Judge Abrams was herself handpicked by Governor Parris Glendening in October 2002. In the 2004 primaries, Judge Abrams won election as Judge with only 7,500 votes out of the more than 50,000 registered voters eligible.  The independent and unaffiliated voters never got a chance to take part.