By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
The Quietest Elections—and the Least Understood
Most voters can name their governor. Some can name their state delegate. Fewer can name their county councilmember.
But ask the average voter to name a sitting Circuit Court judge—and the room goes silent.
That silence is not accidental. It is structural.
Judicial elections in Maryland, particularly at the Circuit Court level, are among the least understood—and least scrutinized—contests on the ballot. Candidates rarely campaign publicly in the way traditional politicians do. Debates are limited. Media coverage is sparse. And the public’s ability to evaluate a judge’s actual performance on the bench is, in practice, extremely limited.
Yet behind the scenes, campaign finance records tell a very different story.
In Montgomery County, those records reveal a tightly connected financial ecosystem involving sitting judges, judicial candidates, law firms, political committees, and local elected officials—all participating in a system that, while legal, raises serious questions about transparency, impartiality, and public trust.
This is not a story about proven corruption.
It is a story about appearance, structure, and confidence—specifically, whether a system built this way can sustain public confidence in the long run.
A Judicial Campaign Machine—Not a Neighborhood Effort
At the center of this network is the “Elect Sitting Judges Montgomery County Slate,” a coordinated campaign vehicle used to support incumbent Circuit Court judges.
According to campaign finance records reviewed by MDBayNews, the slate raised:
- $270,499.03 total
- 389 individual contributions
Breakdown of funding sources:
- Individuals: $134,688.46
- Businesses/Organizations: $130,973.57
- Candidate Committees: $2,565.00
- Labor Union: $1,000.00
- PAC: $1,000.00
- Political Club: $272.00
This is not a small-scale civic effort. It is a six-figure campaign operation.
And critically, a large portion of that funding originates from within the legal community itself.
When the Legal Community Funds the Bench
Among the most significant contributors to the judicial slate are law firms and law-related entities—many of which operate in the same court system the judges preside over.
Notable contributions include:
- Ethridge Quinn Kemp Rowan & Hartinger — $6,000
- Jezic & Moyse, LLC — $6,000
- Goiten Rosa, LLC — $6,000
- RLG Law — $6,000
- Stein Sperling Bennett De Jong Driscoll PC — $6,000
- Webb Soypher McGrath LLC — $6,000
- Miles & Stockbridge PC — $6,000
- Lerch Early & Brewer, Chartered — $6,000
- McCarthy Wilson LLP — $6,000
- Shadoan, Michael & Wells, LLP — $5,000
- Law Offices of Ronald S. Canter, LLC — $4,700
- Hostetter Strent LLC — $3,500
- Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A. — $3,000
- Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. — $3,000
- Law Office of Michael J. Bramnick, LLC — $3,000
In total, at least $97,000+ in contributions can be directly tied to law firms or legal entities.
That alone does not violate Maryland law.
But it raises a fundamental question:
What does it mean for public confidence when the same professional class that regularly appears before judges is also a major source of campaign funding for those judges?
Maryland judicial ethics rules do not automatically require recusal when a lawyer who has donated to a campaign appears before a judge. Instead, recusal decisions are left to the judge’s discretion, based on whether impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”
That standard may be legally sufficient.
But it does not resolve the perception problem.
A System That Funds Itself
The financial network becomes even more interconnected when examining contributions from within the judicial system itself.
Campaign records show that sitting judges or judicial candidates contributed directly to the slate, including:
- James J. Dietrich — $5,000
- Sharon V. Burrell — $5,000
- Catherine H. McQueen — $5,000
- Louis M. Leibowitz — $5,000
- Jennifer S. Fairfax — $5,000
- Marybeth E. Ayres — $5,000
- James B. McCullough — $5,000
Total: $35,000
In other words, the slate is not merely supported by outside donors. It is partially funded by the very judges it exists to promote.
Again, this is permitted.
But it reinforces the perception of a self-reinforcing system, where insiders collectively sustain the structure that keeps them in place.
The Money Doesn’t Just Come In—It Goes Out
The slate is not just a recipient of funds. It is also an active participant in broader political financial networks.
Records show outgoing transfers and expenditures tied to:
- Other judicial slates (e.g., Prince George’s County)
- The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee
- State and local political candidates
- Event participation tied to political and civic organizations
Examples include:
- $2,500 → Prince George’s County judicial slate
- $400 → Friends of Jeff Waldstreicher
- $325 → Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee
Additional expenditures include reimbursements tied to political and civic events.
This matters because it shows the judicial slate operating within a larger political ecosystem, not in isolation.
For voters, that blurs the line between judicial elections and traditional political activity.
Judges as Donors in the Political System
Separate campaign finance records show that at least some judges or judicial candidates have also donated to other political campaigns.
Contributions linked to James Dietrich:
- Vaughn Stewart — $150
- Lorig Charkoudian — $50
- Dawn Luedtke — $100
- Aaron Kaufman — $100
- Will Smith — $125
- Emily Shetty — $125
- Jared Solomon — $125
- Others
Contributions linked to Catherine McQueen:
- Teresa Woorman — $100
- Dawn Luedtke — $100
- Aaron Kaufman — $100
- Jared Solomon — $50
- Emily Shetty — $50
- Others
Individually, these contributions are modest.
Collectively, they show that judges and judicial candidates are not entirely separate from the broader political donor ecosystem.
Maryland’s judicial ethics framework places limits on partisan political activity, particularly once a judge is no longer a candidate. But the campaign phase itself allows participation that can bring judges into closer proximity with political actors than many voters may realize.
Again, the issue is not legality.
It is perception.
The Reimbursement Trail: Political and Civic Circuit Participation
Campaign expenditures also show payments and reimbursements tied to participation in political and civic events.
Examples include reimbursements associated with:
- Friends of Dawn Luedtke
- Friends of Aaron Kaufman
- Friends of Jared Solomon
- Friends of Emily Shetty
- Committee for Montgomery
- Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
- Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Totals include:
- James Dietrich: ~$1,524.55
- Catherine McQueen: ~$1,023.55
Combined: ~$2,548.10
These are not large sums.
But they demonstrate that judicial campaign activity includes engagement in the same political and civic circuits as traditional candidates.
That further reinforces the sense that judicial elections are not as insulated from politics as many voters might assume.
When Firms Appear on Both Sides of the Ledger
One of the more striking patterns in the data is the presence of certain law firms both as contributors and as recipients of funds.
Examples include:
- Miles & Stockbridge
- ~$6,000 contributed
- ~$5,200 received
- Stein Sperling Bennett De Jong Driscoll
- ~$6,000 contributed
- ~$4,000 received
There are legitimate explanations for this. A firm may donate to a campaign and separately provide legal services.
But from a public-trust perspective, this type of circular financial relationship is exactly the kind of structure that invites scrutiny.
Even when entirely lawful, it can create the perception of a system that is closed, interconnected, and difficult for outsiders to evaluate.
The Blind-Date Problem for Voters
All of this would be less concerning if voters had robust, accessible tools to evaluate judicial performance.
But in practice, they do not.
Unlike legislative voting records or executive policy decisions, a trial judge’s record is not easily summarized for public consumption.
Key challenges include:
- Limited public access to day-to-day courtroom decisions
- Family law and other sensitive matters often shielded or sealed
- Judicial discipline processes that are largely confidential until formal action is taken
Maryland does provide public access to certain judicial disciplinary outcomes. But that only captures a fraction of the underlying process.
For most voters, evaluating a judge becomes an exercise in guesswork.
Name recognition. Ballot position. Endorsements.
That is not informed decision-making.
That is, effectively, a blind date.
The Structural Question: Can This System Sustain Trust?
Taken together, the data reveals a system with several defining characteristics:
- Judges and judicial candidates contribute to shared campaign slates
- Law firms and legal professionals are major funding sources
- Slates operate within broader political networks
- Judges may also participate in the political donor ecosystem
- Voters have limited visibility into judicial performance
None of these elements, standing alone, necessarily indicate wrongdoing.
But collectively, they raise a larger question:
Can a system built this way maintain public confidence in judicial impartiality?
Courts rely on trust more than any other branch of government.
They do not command armies. They do not control budgets. Their authority rests on legitimacy.
And legitimacy depends on perception as much as reality.
What Voters Are Not Being Asked
When voters go to the ballot box, they are not asked:
- Which law firms funded this judicial campaign?
- Whether those firms appear regularly before these judges
- How often judges recuse themselves from cases involving donors
- What patterns exist in a judge’s rulings
- Whether any complaints or concerns have ever been raised
Instead, they are asked a much simpler question:
Do you want to retain this judge?
Without meaningful context, that question becomes almost symbolic.
Where This Story Goes Next
This investigation opens the door to deeper reporting.
Key next steps include:
- Mapping donor law firms to courtroom appearances
- Comparing Montgomery County to other Maryland jurisdictions
- Examining recusal practices and disclosure standards
- Interviewing ethics experts on potential reforms
- Asking judges directly how they manage donor relationships
Because the issue is not whether judges are acting improperly.
The issue is whether the system is structured in a way that makes the public confident they are not.
Conclusion: Trust Requires Transparency
The judiciary depends on public trust.
But trust is not automatic. It is earned—and maintained—through transparency, accountability, and distance from political and financial influence.
In Montgomery County, the campaign finance records show a system where judges, lawyers, law firms, and political networks are financially and structurally intertwined.
At the same time, voters are given limited tools to evaluate the people they are asked to place on the bench.
That combination—limited visibility and dense internal networks—is not inherently corrupt.
But it is inherently fragile.
And in a system built on trust, fragility matters.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.