It’s 1996 and Philip Pannell is fighting with his fellow Democrats. It’s 2006 and Philip Pannell is fighting with his fellow Democrats. It’s 2012 and Philip Pannell is fighting with his fellow Democrats. It’s 2024 and Philip Pannell is fighting with his fellow Democrats. Some things just never change.
Pannell simply has a knack for interpersonal conflict, even as he approaches his fourth decade working in Ward 8 politics, and he recently called up Loose Lips to detail his latest bit of beef with party activists. This time around, he told longtime Ward 8 leaders (and representatives on the Democratic State Committee) Wanda Lockridge and David Meadows that if they ever speak to him again, he’ll pursue a restraining order against them. His flair for the dramatic remains unmatched in D.C. politics.
“Some people may think it’s small on my part,” Pannell says. “But I just don’t want to have anything to do with them anymore.”
Pannell says he delivered this warning via text message not long after he was barred from speaking at a meeting of the Ward 8 Democrats a few weeks ago as part of his advocacy for Initiative 83, which aims to reform local elections by implementing ranked-choice voting and open primaries.
He was incensed that Meadows, in particular, led a vote to keep him from delivering a rebuttal to a presentation from former Ward 3 Council candidate Deirdre Brown—one of the organizers against I-83—after she spoke at length about the dangers of the initiative. As a whole, the D.C. Democratic Party has strongly opposed I-83, going so far as to file a lawsuit to stop its inclusion on the November ballot. Meadows reasoned during the Ward 8 Dems meeting on Feb. 17 that “if there are things that we are not in favor of, we should not waste our time and energy to have people convince us to be in favor of them.”
“I was hurt and humiliated,” Pannell says, noting that he was one of the founding members of the Ward 8 Dems years ago, and he recently delivered a pro-I-83 address to the Ward 7 Democrats without incident. “I think any organization should be governed by common courtesy and common sense, and this shows a total lack of that.”
Hence, his decision to cut off all communication with Meadows and Lockridge, two of the longest tenured figures in ward politics aside from Pannell himself. The final vote shutting Pannell out was 6-5 among the meeting’s attendees, but he says he targeted those two because of their leading roles in the efforts to deny him a chance to speak. Troy Prestwood, the president of the Ward 8 Democrats, confirmed Pannell’s general account of events at the meeting but didn’t respond to requests for additional comment.
When LL first reached out to Meadows for his take on things, he simply sent along a link to this 1996 City Paper story detailing Pannell’s long history of feuds around the ward (and the rest of the city). After LL asked for more detail, Meadows wrote in a message that the Ward 8 Dems have decided to oppose I-83 and that “sadly, if you disagree with Mr. Pannell politically, he takes it personally when it is not.”
“I appreciate his advocacy on many issues,” Meadows added. Lockridge, who also serves as Ward 8 Councilmember Trayon White’s chief of staff, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Pannell tells LL that neither Meadows nor Lockridge have since replied to his text, however unlikely it may be that Pannell could actually secure a restraining order against them over such a small matter. “After all this, I just don’t want them responding to me anymore,” he says.
Fundamentally, Pannell believes that this dustup is representative of the Democratic Party’s larger antagonism toward I-83, and he may have a point. The city’s establishment politicians have long criticized the initiative’s proposed move to ranked-choice voting for local elections, arguing it would confuse and disenfranchise many voters. Skeptics like Pannell suspect they’re a bit more worried about seeing entrenched incumbents lose their seats, as RCV can make it much more difficult for established politicians with lots of name recognition to coast to victory in crowded, multicandidate fields.
Even some ranked-choice supporters fret that the initiative’s move to open primaries to independent voters would allow meddling from non-Democrats in the Democratic primary election (though there is little evidence to suggest such crossover voting happens at particularly high rates in other states with open primaries). The issue has proven to be a divisive one within the party, prompting all manner of internecine fights over the past few months.
“It’s just unfortunate to see what some Democrats are doing to oppose this,” Pannell says. “I find it really unsettling.”
However, other Ward 8 Democrats to speak with LL say it’s difficult to pin this whole dispute simply on differences of opinion over I-83, considering Pannell’s (perhaps unsurprisingly) caustic approach to the issue. Stuart Anderson, the organization’s second vice president, observes that Pannell was essentially asking for an item to be added to the group’s agenda when he demanded a chance to respond to the anti-I-83 organizers. Anderson expects Pannell wouldn’t let similar behavior fly as he was running a meeting of his Anacostia Coordinating Council. And, as Prestwood said at the Dems’ meeting where all this drama played out, there’s nothing preventing Pannell from speaking in favor of I-83 during the public comment section of their future meetings.
“Can we go kick it in Players Lounge for lunch and talk about it? Sure, we can do that,” Anderson says, stressing that he still views Pannell as a friend. “But we’re not going to disrupt the meeting.”
What’s more, Anderson notes that Pannell resigned his seat on the Democratic state committee (which governs the local party) in part over his advocacy for I-83. (As it happens, resigning in a huff is another staple of the Pannell playbook.) If he’d wanted a say in setting the agendas for local party organizations, that would’ve been a pretty good way to get one, Anderson says.
“It makes me think of the guy currently representing the Republican Party,” Anderson adds, steadfastly refusing to utter former President Donald Trump’s name. “Because you were outvoted, you have this vendetta and anybody who doesn’t agree with you, now they’re the bad guys.”
Pannell counters that the Dems’ move to deny him a chance to speak shows a level of disrespect that goes beyond simple adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order. He feels he should’ve at least been allowed to present his case, and the close vote shows that at least some attendees agreed. Prestwood expressed some apprehension about the vote during the meeting, saying he’s “always for more information.” And Pannell believes, as a general rule, that the party shouldn’t be trying so hard to crack down on dissent in its ranks over I-83, a measure that certainly has some support among local Democrats, if its robust fundraising reports are any indication.
It seems unlikely Pannell will have much success bringing the party’s establishment around, however, considering how forcefully it has pushed back against I-83 over the past year. There are still many long months of fighting over the initiative ahead—a judge won’t hold a hearing on the Dems’ lawsuit until the end of the month, and organizers still have several months to collect signatures to try and get it on the November ballot. So perhaps the real question is: How many more friends will Pannell lose this is all over?