GCAAR to GOP Candidates: Disavow Party if You Want Endorsement
A dispute between the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Greater Capital Area Association of REALTORS® has erupted over a question GCAAR is asking Republican candidates seeking its endorsement, with the county GOP accusing the association of pressuring candidates to disavow their own party.
The dispute began after Reardon “Sully” Sullivan, a Montgomery County Council District 1 candidate and vice chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Central Committee, received GCAAR’s general election candidate questionnaire.
One question in the questionnaire states that “The Montgomery County Republican Party has spent many years speaking out against county equity policies and using objectionable language towards members of the LGBTQ community.”
The questionnaire then asks candidates whether they disavow statements that “disparage and/or question the existence of members of the LGBTQ community.”
Sullivan objected.
Excerpt from the GCAAR Republican candidate questionnaire, provided to Montgomery Fix by Reardon Sullivan
“This is not a neutral policy question,” Sullivan wrote to GCAAR on Aug. 31. He called the characterization of the Republican Party a “sweeping and highly damaging accusation” that was presented “without identifying a single statement, speaker, date, policy, platform, publication, or source supporting it.”
Sullivan said that, as a former chairman and current vice chairman of MCGOP, he was unaware of any party policy or official action supporting GCAAR’s characterization. “MCGOP has not adopted a position expressing wholesale hostility toward the LGBTQ community, questioning the existence of its members, or denying the inherent dignity of any person,” he wrote.
Sullivan further accused GCAAR of using its endorsement process to “pressure Republican candidates to condemn their own party based on allegations GCAAR has not substantiated.”
Sullivan demanded that GCAAR withdraw the question, identify the factual sources behind it, and identify the specific words or policies at issue. He also asked GCAAR to identify “the individuals who drafted, reviewed, approved, and authorized the distribution of this question.”
The controversy raises a broader question for Republican candidates: Is GCAAR asking them to agree to a non-discrimination standard, or to disavow positions and statements made by the political organization they are seeking to represent?
GCAAR: Article 10 Applies to Everyone
In a Sept. 2 response to Montgomery Fix, Christine Barnhart, GCAAR’s vice president of strategic communications, said the association is following a policy adopted by its board of directors. “GCAAR is one of many REALTOR® associations that has adopted a policy resolution stating that all candidates GCAAR chooses to endorse must be able to surpass a professional standards metric aligning with the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) Code of Ethics Article 10,” Barnhart wrote. She added, “In practice, this policy would refuse endorsement to any candidate whose actions, words, or positions would be deemed a violation of Article 10 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics.”
GCAAR’s board adopted a motion in early 2023 stating that “all future endorsed or RPAC-supported candidates shall adhere to and uphold the NAR Code of Ethics: Article 10.” GCAAR describes the policy as part of its broader commitment to nondiscrimination and inclusion. NAR’s Article 10 prohibits REALTORS® from denying equal professional services or employment opportunities based on characteristics including race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity. NAR’s current Standard of Practice 10-5 also prohibits REALTORS®, when acting in their professional capacity or in connection with their real estate businesses or activities, from harassing people based on those characteristics.
Sullivan isn’t challenging Article 10. He is asking what prompted GCAAR to tell candidates that the Montgomery County Republican Party has used “objectionable language” toward LGBTQ people and that candidates should disavow statements that “disparage and/or question the existence” of LGBTQ people. It is a reasonable question. If GCAAR is going to make such a broad, condemning assertion, the organization should at least back it up. So far, it won’t.
In her response, Barnhart told Montgomery Fix, “The information the Montgomery County GOP has published in its newsletters, on its website and in its public comments has used intolerant language in reference to the transgender community, which contradicts GCAAR’s policy.” Montgomery Fix replied asking GCAAR for one example from each of the three categories it had identified: an MCGOP newsletter, the MCGOP website and a public comment. The request was intended to give readers a way to evaluate GCAAR’s characterization for themselves.
Barnhart did not provide the requested examples. Instead, she replied, “As an advocacy organization in Montgomery County, GCAAR regularly monitors the press releases, newsletters and other communications of all political parties. Through the course of this process, we have found language on several occasions that can be perceived as intolerant based on GCAAR’s policy, hence the reason we brought this up on our questionnaire.”
The omission is significant because the original questionnaire did not merely ask Republican candidates whether they personally support nondiscrimination. It attributed a history of conduct to an entire political organization and then asked candidates about disavowing statements made by that organization.
The Material GCAAR Could Single Out
A review of MCGOP’s publicly available material turns up numerous examples of rhetoric concerning transgender issues that a person could reasonably regard as hostile, inflammatory or inconsistent with GCAAR’s approach to inclusion.
For example, an MCGOP newsletter published in August 2024 was headlined “THE ‘TRANSGENDER’ INDUSTRY AND YOUR KIDS.” The item stated that “a big industry” was “set up to transgender our children” and accused the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League of targeting vulnerable children “to lure them into the transgender money machine.”
In December 2025, MCGOP Chairman Dennis Melby published an article titled “Boys, Girls… or To Be Determined?” The article stated, “If you don’t know what sex you are, the Democrats want you as their leader,” and referred to people identifying as transgender or nonbinary in language that critics could reasonably regard as disparaging under the Article 10 standard.
Additional examples exist of MCGOP publishing controversial material concerning transgender issues. None of the material reviewed by Montgomery Fix, however, establishes that MCGOP, as an organization, has adopted a policy of denying the dignity or existence of LGBTQ people. The existence of rhetoric that some readers may consider offensive does not automatically establish a violation of NAR Article 10. There is also the question of applicability. Article 10-5 applies to REALTORS® “in their capacity as real estate professionals, in association with their real estate businesses, or in their real estate-related activities.” An endorsement criterion is different from a Code provision, but at least when NAR members are charged with violating the Code, they receive a detailed list of allegations and the right to respond before judgment is rendered. MCGOP gets no such opportunity.
The Question Republican Candidates Must Answer
GCAAR’s questionnaire creates an unusual political dilemma for Republican candidates seeking its endorsement. For a Republican candidate, answering “yes” to a question asking whether he or she disavows statements made by the Montgomery County Republican Party could be understood as condemnation of the party as a whole. Sullivan put the issue bluntly in his Aug. 31 letter.
“GCAAR’s unsupported accusation is extraordinarily serious,” he wrote. “By distributing it to candidates seeking GCAAR’s endorsement, the association appears to be using its endorsement process to publish a damaging characterization of MCGOP and pressure Republican candidates to condemn their own party based on allegations GCAAR has not substantiated.”
GCAAR disputes the implication that Republicans are being treated differently. “We hold all candidates to the same criteria, regardless of political affiliation,” Barnhart wrote.
While the wrong answer to the question appears to be a deal-breaker, Barnhart left a little wiggle room. Although its invitation to Republicans stated that candidates seeking GCAAR’s endorsement “may not receive an interview without a completed questionnaire,” Barnhart subsequently told Montgomery Fix that “refusal to fill out the questionnaire is not a disqualification from further participation in GCAAR’s endorsement process,” implying Republican candidates could leave that question blank and still be considered. That seems implausible, and still leaves the central issue unresolved. What exactly does a Republican candidate have to agree to, or disavow, to satisfy GCAAR?
Sullivan Responds
Sullivan responded to GCAAR’s refusal to provide specific examples, telling Montgomery Fix, “It is very unfortunate that GCAAR has chosen to completely misinterpret and mischaracterize the Montgomery County Republican Party (MCGOP). GCAAR promotes itself as a ‘local voice for real estate’ whose mission is to promote and protect private property rights, not to act as a political arm of a local political party with the dues of their more than 12,000 members.”
Sullivan said GCAAR is entitled to establish standards for its endorsements. “However, it does a disservice to its members and the broader community when it uses member-funded communications to make serious, unsupported claims about the Montgomery County Republican Party,” he wrote. “If GCAAR believes its characterization is accurate, it should provide the specific statements, dates, and sources on which it relied.”
For now, the evidence GCAAR says led to the question remains unspecified, leaving candidates, party officials and voters to decide how much weight to give an accusation whose underlying examples have not been publicly identified.
