Neverdon Election Signatures Ruling

8/11/2019 Neverdon Election Signatures Ruling

1/15

i,

RUSSELL

A. NE\IERDON.

e1 a1.

Plainfiffs,

B.{LTI}IORI

CITY

BO..\RD

ELECTIONS,

e/ a/.

Defendants-

OF

n\;THE

CIRCI,IT

COTIRT

roR

B.{,LTI}IOR.E

CITI'

Case

No: 2+-C-11-00J915

IIX

MORATYD

LDI

O Ptril O'\-

This

case

comes

before

rhe

Cou-t

as a request

tbr

a

declaratory

iudsrrent.

In

the

complaint.

iiled

b-.;

Russell

A.

\evercon.

Sr.

(hereinafter

'\er-erdon'')

aed ihe

Neve;eon

tbr

Bakimore

Q:,miraiEl

(herehafter

"canpaig:l'

).

the

Plaintitrs

sougit

a

declaratory

iudg:::err

asai$1

the

Bairimore

ciry Board

oiElecrions

(hereinafter

"ciw Board") and

rhe

l,.Ianland

Sute

tsoaid.

of Electioas

(hereii3rter

"Sa:

Boa:d'').

fre

Deitldanis.l

The

dispute a.ises

rror

ihe

Cir-

3o:;;'s

::j--l::::

o: s;:a:-r:s

s::

ee:.::c:s.

'.iLic:

]1e P-a,-

jfs

;ubi::d.1:_

i

j3---ji:.

lr.,

l-

:d

place

Neverdon's name

on the November

201-l

.qeneral

election ballot

as a candidate

for rhe

Oftice

of the

Sare's Attome.,-

for Baltlniore

Ciw. The

Plaimiffs

har,e

requesied:

-

-1

ceciararoq;

iuog:i',ent

as io .he

rights

ald

duries

of

the

panres

wirh

respect

to

the

verillcatioa

of

the

Plaindffs' peritions,

I ne

PLaulnfts

hled

ii'irs

complalnr prrlsueri

ro

i [d. coce .{ -8.

EI-l6-]09rb).

j6-209ft)

afforos

a

-persoo

assieved

bl, a

dererm-marton[,]"

made b-'"

rhe

eleclon

cfficia]

as ro

''whe'k er

the

pedrion

sarisf;ed

all other

requirenelrs

required

by

law

[,]"

ludicial

review ir an

"expediteC"

ma.:ner

"ro

rhe

extent

necessary

in consideration

of

the

ceadl.ines

estabiished

b,v

la';

'

6-l09cc)

tu-.oris

"a ri

regisieied votei-'rc

obeinludicial

rcview

pursuni

to

he

llarlrlald

Decla--ator, Iudgrenl

Act.

The ennry Neverdon

tbr

Balrunore

Campaig

is ncr

a

"regisiered vorei,"

atrd

i:erefore

it

is

not eligible io

seekjudicial ielrew pursuant

to

a

Cor:plai-rt for Drcla:aiorv

Judemeu.

RusseilA.

]iererdoa.

Sr. is

a

legi*ered.

voier'

ir.

Baltj;lore

Ciiv ar6

1r

r5.r.ro.. eligibLe

forjuciciat r;view.

[n

rhe

abrrdaxce

oi cautioa

and

due

Io

the

expediled

nar-re of irese prcceedirzi,

Lire

Coun

'rill

nevenheless

ma-ke r-.s

filduqs

a.s

ro

a,1o:the

pani


2/15

J.

The

CoLrn

to i-rnd

that the

Ciw Board

illegall.'-

applied

disquaiitling

l-actors

rvb.ich

deprived

the

Plainiifrs ofsigaarures

necessai]

to

place

Neverdon's

name

on

the

baliot as

an

independent

candidnre

tbr

the Office e-rf

rhe

State's .{ttome-v for Baltimore

Ciry'.

The Coun

to ar,r,

ard rhem

tuhe

costs

ofthese

proceedings.

The

parties

ha,,'e

asreed that

the

deadline

for

the

Stare

Board to

prepare

and mail

ballots

tbr

rniliury

r-orers

statioaed outside

of

the

Unired

States

is September

19.

2014. Panies have also

asreed

that

Sepiember

10. 20

t.l is

rhe

Ceadiine for rhe

Defendants

to

prepare the

general

electior

ballor. Neverdon

made

publ.ic

commeffs as eaily as August 15. 201.1 of h-is

iltent

ro

challenee

rhe

Defendana'

determ.r:rarion

that

his

"oeution

effolcs rvere

deficient."

Tb:s Coun

rvas

made

a,'vare

of

the

pendencl'of

this htigatioo on or

about

-\ug+i

1-i. 201.1.

The

Plain,itrs tlled a

Conepla-hr tor Decla:atory

Judq::ent

on

-{ugust

25,2.011.

Recogrlzing

the

etigelt

circu:nstalces

of

rhs

dislure.

rhe

Co'.rit held

a pre-t.-ia1

confeience

on

Augtr$

26.

201-1.

Or rhe

sane dal:. ii-e D+:eld.::rts

tlled

a \Io:iol

to

Disrlss

-.re

Con:pld-nt or for

S'.rr::::--

Jui-=en,.

The

Piailtiirs

ilieci

a

veirled

ans',;el

ro

De,.-ir,J;-,.ii"

;iodon;

on

-\ugust

29.

l0lr.

Tte

Coui:

conducred

a

hearhg

oa

Defendants'

\Iotion

to Disniss

the

Complaint or for Sunma-'l Judg:lent

on

-{uflrsr

29.

20

i4

ard

held its n:L,irg cn

tirose

moriors

s4,

czirla.

Ba>ed.,:oon

rhe tria.l

held

'..rrhou:

.

j]4.

rne

r-r.rlg

o:

rhose

r-otiors i-. no'r'noot.

The

Rules

oi Discover-l

lvere

nor

strictl,v

adhered

to b,v

the

parties.

The

Cor.rn

requued

ihe

Plalr.irfs.

beiore

noon

on September

4. 2014,

ro

provide'.ire

Defendants

wi&

docunents rhel'

nterded

to

produce ai ihe

tnai

to

pror':

their

case.

Counsel

ior

P

lar-ntil?s

v,-rrhdrew

from

Lhe

case

when

Plai,rtiffs failed ro

produce those documents

b.v"

the

deadhne

and PlainriffNeverdon, a

member

of

the la-n]a-rd Ber, represerted

hinsell

a-nd

the

Camrargn at

rial. Ol

September

5.

101:1. the

Cor:n

cclducteC a Etal

Mtirour

a

juq/.


3/15

Factual

Background

),ieverdon

seeks to become qualii-ierl

ro

ha.,e his name appear as a

caadidare lor the

Office

oithe

Sraie

s

Attomey

for

Baltimore

Ciry-.

Neverdon

and the

Campaim soiicited

siq'latures

and

submlted

5.686

sisranr.es

ro

ihe

Ci+'Board

on.Auqrst

4.201.1

On Aususr

1_i.

1014.

ihe

Sare

Board nodtred

Plaintiffs thar

2.,i37 sioarures

rvere

rejected and thus.

Plaintirrl

iacked

the

necessail.

number

of, sig:rarures

to

have Neverdon's

narne aopear

on the

ballot,

,\ithough

ihere

r,veie

discrepancies

as ro

the

number

of signaures invohed

during rhe

earll

sraees

ofrhe proceedings.

the

parties

have

subsequentl.v aereed

rhar

rhe

number

ofrequired

voter

siqiarures

is

-l.l60.

Silce

the

Srate

Board

accepted

-1.099

sisnatues.

rhe

pedtions

iell

shon or the

iequisile:l

160

siglarures

bv

1.061.The

qravamen

of

rhe

Plarnriffs'

Complarat is rhe

allegarion

ihat

the Defenca::is

misapphed

the ilreni

of the lar.v il its

Lnvalidarion

of

rrre 1 .i

2

7

sistaiures

in

.he

tJ:::ee

coniesed

sra-'id:-iCs

-

ib.e'\:re

S'i.l&,-d"

rl.'S),

rhe

,.Dare

Issue''

lDD.

a::d

rle

'-Circula:oi

Issue''

(Ci).

Iirhe

Plainiifii

DJe

corect. rhen

rhev

rvould

have the necessan

nuilber

of

slglatures

ro piace

\everion

s

naire

on rhe

baiioi,

Relevant

NIaryland

Law

Undei the Declararoiv

Judqnenr

Acr. this

Cor.r:t

has rhe

jurisdiction

to

,.declare

nghts.

star.rs. ::rd

orhei

Ieeal

relarions

r,r'heiher

or nor

i.:.r-ner reLrei

is

or

co,rlc

be

cl:imed.'.

\ld.

Cooe

-i.rLn.

C.J P.

$3-10a(a).

"\ hen

a

declaratory

iudgrneni

action

is brought. and the conrovers'

is

aporopriate

tbr resolurion

b,v

declaratory

judgmenr.

rne tnal

coun r:ust

render a decia:atoir.

j

udgarerr

[rn

r'":rtrng]."

L'nion

L'nired 7 erhociisr Ch",;rch

Inc.

v

Burion.40-l

],{d.

j42.

550

(2008).

Di:missal

is

rarelv

appropriare

in

a

ceclaratorv

judgrnenr

action

if

the

"compla.ur

shorvs

a

sub_i3ct

mater

rhar

is

lvirbia

rhe

colten:rlation

oldre

relief

a-fo:ded br,.&e . .

stat-ne'' and

siaies

sr-:fircienr

facts

to

demonsuate'Lhe

exisrence

oia

conrrorers)'.

shapiro

t.

Bd.

ofCotLzq


4/15

Com rsfor

Prrnce

George

s Cnn.).19

\ld. 29E.

-:02

(19j9)-plaimiffs

har-e the

burciea

oioroof

in estabiishing

that:

i

rhe

Defendants

r,rolared

ihe r-otine

rishrs

ofNe'erdon

and

"all

persons

luho',ere

decenified

on the petirion

circulated

b1

\ererdon''

pursuanr

to

.{rticie

One

of the

Unire,j

Saies

consdrurion

a,ed

Ardcre

7 and

2-l of

the

rvla-.rra-eci

Deciaration

of

fughts:

l.

The Cin

Boaid's

retusal

ro

pertbrm

a

prelrrninary

rev-ierv

of

submined peritions.

rvhile

ihev

r,vere

being

garhered

and pnor

ro either

rhe

subm.rssion

of rhe

.1.160

sisraaues

and/or

before

rhe

Aueu$

-1.

201.1

deadhne.

shoulC

sene as

esroppel

of

the

Ciq*

Board.s

decer:ificarion

oisiq.ut,.es

and

refusar

ro

approve Neverdon,s

petition

ibr

candiciacy:

and

3.

The

Defendanrs

nusappriei

rhe

r-.rienr

of the

larv

m Ln'alidating

r.i27

siq:arures

-

ihe

:hree

conreste..i

ca::go

jes.

fiile

5

of

the

Eiecilon

.{rzicie

sovens

the

requlrenenrs

and

procedLnes

of

rhe petuiomne

orocess.

-lea

generall;.

\ro.

coce.

--,.-ti

EL

s6-rar -

6-21r.

S;eciiicailr'.

$6-rc,:

and

j6-iJr

ser

ionh

a

nvo-step

process

tbr

(1)

r,'alidari.g

signanires

and

(2)

verifi-ing.rhat

the

name

of

the

rerson

sigrjng

is

listec

as a

reds:ered. 1

oie

t.

See Doe v.

trIonrgomery

CotLnr;

Bcl.

o1

Eieciions

.

+06

\ld

5c7 7ir n

rf

ror l

,,

,.-..

l) A

sisnarure

wiit

be validated

only

if al1

of the

recuiremenis

':rder

,i6-203(a)

haie

been

sa{sfred.

}{d

Coce,

-i,,-:

EL

)6-10i(b)f

i).

g6_20_:(a)

requires:.

petition

signer

to

provrde

a

signature,

a

pmred

naile,

date

of

sigm-'lg.

and

address.

-{

srgner

may.

;ier

his or

her nazre

ir:

one

of

r,io foias

-

b,.,.

eivire

eirner (1)

rhe

nar:e

as

ii

appears on the

scate-r'vide

-oter

resisuaiion

list

or

(2)

rhe

signei

s

sunarce

and at

leas-t

one

fir1l

givea

naii.re

aad

the

inirials

ci a:rl;

other

na:res.

\ld.

Code

_f-u.

EL

.,r6-203(a)i

l).

$5-20jft)f5) addiiionail;


5/15

requfes

that

the'date

accompanrine

the

sisnaru,-e'must

"not

[be]

larer

than ihe

date

ofthe

aitdavit

on

the

page."

EL

S6-201(bX5).

5i6-207

governs

the

second

step an eiection

board

must

follorv

il

verifir.,rg

the

signatLues.

\ld

Code. Ann.

EL

g6-207.96-207(a)(1)

provides

rhar

ifa petition

meets

all of rhe

oiher

reouirements

il Title 6.

a,r election

board's

seff

'shali

venfl-the

siqrarures" and

''counr

rhe

validated

signatures contailed

in

the petitior.."

N{ore

specificall1-. the veritication

process

invohes

deteiminag

r,r'hether

ihe

ildividuai

is

a

resisrer

voter.

EL

$6-207(a)(2).

As

to

Title

6

of

the

Elecdon

Anicle. rle

S-rare

Boaro

"shali

adopr

ree,:larions.

coasrsteni

with

this

tiile.

to

carr]'oui

rhe

provisions

of

this

trrle."

NId.

code.

.Ann.

EL

$6-103(a)(1). Further,

ihose

regulauons

must

'prescnbe

tle

ferrm

and

conrent

of the petitions:"

"specir,\'

procedu..-es

for

'Ie

r

enicaiion

a-ri

co,.:a-i"e

ol

si=aruies:"

aac

"pio'ide

ar1-

orher

procecurai

or

rechmcal

ieeuirements

rhai the

[Srare

Boerd]

consrders

aopropriate.''

\{o. cooe.

-tu.

EL

f6-10jra)(2)ii)

-

iiv).

l\'ith

resDect

to rhe

crculators

oipeiirions.

"each

siglatuie page

shall

Lnciude

aa affidar,

ir to

be sigaed

alri

dated

b:'-rhe

ciiculaior.'See

NId.

Code

Rees.

33.05.0j.03.

The

S'are

Boa"-o

has

also

issueC

re'lulatiols

iec-uirilg

rhe

ci-rcul:ro:

to

orovid.e rhai

ilciri,:r.:ei':

pr,nlcci

oi

tr:ea.

rarrla.

adoress.

od

telephone

lumber.

See \ld.

Coce

Regs.33.06.0i.07.

If

the

chief elec-uon

official

determnes

that

the

petitions

are

det'icient.

rhen

he or

she

shali

''rm::reoiatell'

noti

rhe

sponsor

of

dre deter-mination.

includi:ie

any'

specihc

det'iciencies

iounC.''

\{d.

Coce.

.^Lr .

EL

:i6-208ia)r'2).

A

person

asqieved

b1. detenrrilatiors

nade

under

,"c6-10g

ma."-

seek

judicia.l

revie,,r'as

to

an)-

other

petiiions

ir

tie

cucuit

coun

fcr

i.tre

countl/-

in

which

fte

petition

is

filed. Mci.

code. An:r

EL

g6-209(a)(

1)(iD.

g6-209(b)

also

provides

rhe asqieved

cerson

the

riq.rt to

seek

declararory

reiief pursr:a:rt

rc the

\Iary.land

Declararory Judorent

{cr_

VId.

Code..Ar:n.

EL

$5-209r'b).


6/15


7/15

i.

Petirion .\cceptance

and

Yent-ication

Procedures:

-{.

Peririon

-erifi;;rion

F.l.Q.

i.

-{ffrdavit

ol.{ureila Jones.

Elecrion

Supen'isor II of

Cin.

Board:

6.

Petition

Sisaature

Gatherins:

7

Form

Petition Page:

8. Esample

Petition

Pase:

9.

-Affidavit

of

-{rrostead

B.

Crawlev

Jones.

Sr.. Elecdon Director

oi Ciw Board:

I

0 .

.{-ffidarit

of {bigail

Goldram. Depul

Diiecior

of Ciq'

Board:

and

11. Cooies

olthe

5.636

Signa:uies

end

Pedions

Submned

b.v-

the

Campaig:r:

A.

Ha:dcoov

-

labeled

stacks I through

50: and

B. Electro::c

Copy

-

CD-ROll

t'ormar

.{aa\ris

The

Defendants

Properl;-

Rejected

1j27

Signarures

Under the,.Name

Standard.'-

''Circulator

[ssue,"

and

the

-Date

Issue',

Error

Codes.

The

Court

finds

that the

Defendalts

correctly

aiplied

the maadatorv

requirenens

set

fonh

il

j6-203r'ar.

Plai:itifa

cortend

thar rhe

Dei-enda:rts

',,,rongf.rlly

rqlected

738

sigaarures under

ihe

''-\.-a:re

Sra.rdard" calegoi-;.

-139

siga:ires

undei rle

''Dare

Issue"

code. ano

250

siqjta res

under

the'Circularoi

Issue" code

because

the

Defendants

farleC

to

use the

"sufficient

cumulatir..e

inion:-ration''

s-randard il

reviet-viag

rhe

Plaintiiis'

peririons.

la

other

rvords.

Lhe

Plaiatiffs

argue

rhat

despite

tie

si

a.arures

deficiencies

under

$6-203(a).

-,he

Defendanis

should

have

vaj.idared

rhe

siqarures

if there

is

sufficient

ir:fomtarion

(i.e.

phone

number.

birthdav,

address) rhat

the

election

slaff can use

ro idenu-fl".he

sig:rer on the

state-wide voter

regstation

list,

Defendalrs

cLaim

thar

rhe

Cirv

Board

complied

,rith

ihe

law.b}

rejecting

slgnaiures rhar

iailed

to

mee:

ne

"mandatory"

requiremerr

of

$

6-201(a).


8/15

le rer-ierirng

the

staruton

lurguage

a-qd

the

relevanr

case

Ia*.

this

Court fr-qds

that

the

Defendane

conecdy

rejected

rhe

7i8

sietatures

rhat

failed

ro

satist'the

"mandatory'"

reouiren:ent

set fofth

in

Tirle

6

of

the

Elecrion

Larv

.A,rticle.

.s6-20j(a)(1)

provides that

"an

individual

sftal/

siga

[his

or hed

name as ir appears

on

the

srate-lvide

voter

registiation iist

or

the

individual's

sumairle

of registrarion

and at leas one full

given

name

and

ihe

irurials

of

anl

oiher

na.r:es.

'

Graphasis

added).

Nloreo','er.

Lhe

locai

eiection

board mal

validate

a

siqramre

"if

the

reqlirerxents

ofsubsection

(a)"

ha'e

been satisfied.

EL

S6-203(bXI)

(Emphasis

added).

-{s

the

Coun

of

Apoeals

explaued ir:

Doe

v.

)Ion:gomer.,

Counry

Board

of

Election-r. the

"plain

mea:ring

of

the

rvords

'shall'

and'reouiremelu"'i:rdicates

that

rhe

l:formarion

called

lor i:r

l6-

2al(a)(I)

are

mandatory

a:rd nor

sugeestive. 106

lvld.

697.

728-9

(2008).

The Coun

h Doe

also

rqected

the ars',rmenr

rhat trecause

the

purpose

of

'rhe

validarion

and

r,erificalon

process

ls ro ensure

that rhe

peiirion

siqrer's

name

aDDears

on

te Srare's

voter

regi;aa:ioi

[_st. a siglatr:re

ne1

'ae

coum:J

iiue:e

is suficienr

il-brnatioa

,o icer:rlr

ue

iiici-"'iCual

fs ai

iegtnerec

voiei.

Id.

ai

7j

I

-1.

Raiher-

-,re

Co.ln

e:


9/15

the

sole

basrs of

itlegtbitiry.

Id.

at

177

-E.

The

Fire-ResctLe Coun

erplained

thar

che

orinted or

ryped

name

is

jusr

'-one

piece

of

evidence

L'r

addition to

voier

address

aild

i'oier

'orecinct

or

lisirict

rhet

woul,l

be used to ensure rhat onll

qualitied

perscls

have

sisnec."

iC eiltE

(quotrng

Barzues

v.

State ex

rel.

Pink-nev.236 \ld.

561. 5'll-2

(196-+) (intena.t

citations

ard

quoralions

omitted).

As

such.

the Coun

oiAppeals

concluded that an illeeLbie sigratre

"is

nor

,iispositive

wirhrn

rhe

validation

process,

but should

be considered

es

par

olthe

en:ire

petirion

enu)-.

that.:rust

be used

io identi the

Lndividual

signer.'

1d.

Pla:ntiffs

arsue that

because

iileeibiliry- is sponlrous

uith

missing

$6-20-1(a)

requirernenis.

the

Der-eadaurs should have

r,'alidated the

738

sig:ratres

liai lailed

to sarisfi

dre

signarure reou.ireraenr

oiri6-203(a\.InBurruss

v.

Boa-rci

of Ca

unr,,- Commissiorers or'Freierick

Cottnn,.

ho'never.

,he

Coun of

Lppeais cianied thar

Lhe

''sufircie

curulatire ir,-foraration"

sta.'rdard did

nor

modirv rhe

"mandatory"

staldard

as

set tbnh m Dos.

a27

."-ld.

2

-11

215(1012).

Thele.

rhe

Peritioners un-ruccessr=,r1il chall--lee,1

&ai

i:e

Boe.-d of Co.:l'.l'

Coiii-rrissiciers

"t.rLjnsrl.l.j

raj:CIa;

l.=-a:Ies:"]ai

:.ii:::J aace:::c

jF,--U:

a,:-'.:Li;,':l:::i. iL,:l:i ajji::

nrddle

nanes and

irltials. Id. ar.2JJ.

Le rejectLne

rhe

Petitioners'

arsLmlent.

rhe

Cour exclaineo

ta:

the

"suficienr

cumuiative

ir:fo raario n" standald is applicabie onlf in cases

',vhere

sig:rarures

,:e

i--reclec

cn rhe

so-e basis oi

leeblLrrl

.

Id.

ar):6-7'.

Because

tl:e

Fire-Resctie case coes::oi

modil"' the

Doe holding. the

Deitndarrs correcril

:pplied

the

"ma .darory"

requrenems

oi$6-

20-:(a)

L:

rejectins the

7-18

signarures under

the Name StandarC error.

Eren

ii

rhe

Piainiids

ale correcr

rr'r ccecludLng

Lhar

ue

''suficieat

ci::rularive

infoimaliol"

standard

is

rle

contolir.ng leeal

tesr. uhe

Pla:ntif,s

farled to

pioduce

anv e-,idence

to

suDport rheir argument

At

tdal,

the

Plaintitrs

profrered an

airav

oi

iegal argumenrs

wirh

resoect

.o

ihe

appropizate

leeal

sarda.rd

rhat the

Defendanis sloulC

hai

e

applled

ir

rejectLng

rle

73

3


10/15

signatures.

f{o*ever.

rhe

Piaintilfs

failed

to

iniioduce

a.'r}'

specit-ic instences

ofa

mi*alie

in

processing

or

a

misrake

in

the application

of

the

lar,v.

Because the

Plai:rdffs

failed ro

intioduce

e1'en

one

ircorectlv

rejecieci

siq-rature

to

overcome the

1.061

s

iglatures

that

ir

needed

to pia.-e

NeverCoa's

on the

ballot. the

Plaintifis

failed to

neet their

burden

ofproofto

sucport

their

leeal

claim,

-1s

tbr rhe

renaLmng

589

siglar,r::es

hvalided

under

rhe

''Circulalor

lssue'e-ad.

tle

''Dare

Issue."

thrs

Coun finds that

the

Plaintiffs

farled to produce

a;rv

t-actual

er-id.ence

ro

sulpon

its

clarm

that

the

Detendants

illeeallv

rejecied

rhe

a-ibreo.,eedonec

sisnarures

$5_203(b)(5)

requues

'rhe

dare

accompan,vin-e

the

siqature

fto

be

no Iater]

ihal the

date

of the

a,fidaiit

ol

rhe

-oage[.]'.

see

also

col,t{R

33.06.03.08

(requirieg

each

sigrarure paee

ro

be dareci

and

si$ed

by' rhe

circularor).

As

erplahed

b1

-.le

cour:

of

-{opeals

r:,

Bu,,ss.-ihe

iequrenenis

uncer

$6-20-:

are

"mandatory"

and

not

"suegestive"

because

the

orovisioa provides

addirional

mea:rs

to

pr.eveai

iaud

i-n

-de

peiiiio

:rg process.

-.12i

\ri. ar

ri

L

Il

rie pr:selt

case.

the

c:r;

Boa:c

rejecrec

-:_:9

sig::ati:,-es

ul,ler

the

''Dare

Issue''

code.

,,-,

hich appLed

ro

r.ctet

sisaar;res

tli:.t we:e

ei-iei

T

'rcared

or

catec

alier

Lhe

dare

on rhe

crc',rlator's afficarjr.

The

cin

Boaid

also

rejected

250

sigean::es

under

lhe

"c,cularor

Issue"

code

for

peririon

pes

submlneci

.,,.ui:h

an

uldaied

circuiarol's

affrdavir-

-\t

tnaj.

rhe

P iai,riiiTs

did

not

iltroduce

ao)

tactual

evid.ence

to

show

that

te

Cir;

Boa--d

r-,ionqiJily'

rejected

st

grar,:ies

uld.ei

rhe

..ma:rda:ory.,,

requiren-rents

of

S6_

203(b)(5)

Therefore,

tlls

Coun

finds

that the

Citr

Board

correcrly

rqecteti

the

5g9

sigatr:ses

under

t\e

"Crculaiot

Issue"

:*ld

"Date

Issue"

erroi codes.

IO


11/15

[.

The

Plaintiffs'

Constitutional

.\rguments

are

l\'ithout

N{erit.

TLrs

court finds

thar the

requiiemeas

set ftrfih in

$6-20i(a)

did

not

r.iolate

eirher

Ner,'erdon's

rights

or the

voting

dshrs

of

his

supponers.

The

Plaintiffs allese

that the

mandatorv

signanre

requiremenrs

vioiated

Articie One

of

the

Unired Stares

Constirurion

as

rvell

as

,{:iicles

Seven

and

rrvenn

Four

oi

the

\ta-1land

Declararion

of

fue,hts.

\tr'hen

a state election

larv

irnooses

reuonabie

and

non-Ciscrimilarorr

;estrictions

upon

rhe

riehts

of

the voters.

rhe

Srat3's

imootent

inrerests

are

eeneralll-

suticient

to

uphold

the consriruiionalin

olrhe

larr.

BttrCick.,.

Takushi.504

u.s. 428

13+

(.1992).

see

.iai,er

v.

.L[aryland

Srate

Btt. o-f

Etectiots.399

\,Id.631.

699

oa)T,

see

aiso

Burrttss.l2i

ud. at

2i

l.

In

reviewins

the relevanr

case

larv. rhe

Cours

have

upheld

the

con$irudona.lir}-

of

rhe

$6-203(a)

siglature

requirements

on

numerous

occesions-

SeeKendcllv.

Balcer:ak.650

F.jdSlj

526

(4ih

Cir.2011)

r}oldrng

thar

fre

staiure,s

ileihod

of

oio',-idi1g

t'oren

rrita

fori.,-

r,;a-'-s

ro

valiiill-

sigr a

perhion

is

..both

conteni-neutal,,

and

no:rdiscri-:rira:c

t):

see

cko

Brirr:i.ss.

-ll:

\lj. a:26-i-5 (rejec-rLae

a

claim

rhai

Sb-201(a)

vioiarec

-ticles

S

e.,-;n a::d

T,,;en,_-,.Four

oirae

\la:-;l:.-:,1

declaiatioa

oir5:s_r.

The

Plelntiffs'

constituiional

a:sunent

relies

primarilv

or.,.liader.

tuhere

ihe Coun

oi

-\ppeals

struck

do,,,,

the

''counry-r::atch"

reouirement

of

$6-20i

(b)(2)

because

the

provision

i,mposed

a-,r

aedtional

quaiir'rcal1on

requirement

on the voters

ro

be

regisrered

].,r rhe coutrry

',vhose

ceririoc the,'oters

sigr:ed-

\-ader.399

\Id. at 704.

Gralted-

bor.h

dre,\.acar

raLrng

and rhe

-nresent

case

deal

,,virh

rhe

oedriol

olplacn,l

a candidare

on

the elecdon

bai.lor.

-[1.

ati()i- .

However.

ute

Co,,*t

ofAopeals

has erclicitiv

Cechned

to

errend

the:Vader

ruli"g ro rhe

sig::arore

requirements

set

fbnh

in

6-203

(a)-

Burruss.,L27

\,1.d.

at26g

-269.

b

Buryus-..

tle

petiioners

unsuccessfullv

challenged

ihe consritulionaliqv

ofrhe

6-203(a)

reouirements

1'

the

contert

oi a

referendum

peiirion.

Id. Il declLnilg

ro exrend

the

:\ader

rulLng.

the

Coun of

Appeais

noted

thar

11


12/15

:he

language

of

:\6-203(a)

aDplies to

both

referendum

a,rd

nomrnaring

leritions. but

neverthel.ss.

the

Coun

upheld

the

consrirudonalitv

oi,s6-293iu1

because

the pror.ision

prorides

additiolal

means

of

identilins

r-orers

and

prevendne

fraud. Id. at

269.

Nforeover.

the

reasoning behind

the

lhder

ruling is

rnappos'ite

to

the

present

case

betbre

thrs

Coun.

bt ,Yader.

the

Couc oi

Appeals

struck

down the

-count-v-match"

requirement

paniali1.

because

-\'cCer

dealt

wrth

a

Presideoiial

Election.

r,,-hich

the

Coun noted

ftat a,.state

has

a

less

imponani

inieres

Ln rezulati:re

. .

-

than

siaiewiCe

or

local

elections.

becau;e

the

lrurcome

oirhe

[Presidential

Elecrionl

r,-,iII

be large[l

detemrined

b\,' .oters

be1-ond the

State,s

boundanes..-Id_

3r

705 (intemal

ciuiion:

omitted).

Here. the

Sra:e's

futeiest

in

oreventinE

fraud

rn rhe

oerition,g

process

is

suffrcienrlv

rmoonant

to

uphold

the

constrruticnalin

of

the

siglarure

requgement

because

the

election

for

-rhe

BaltLmore

ciry'

State's

.\tTome -is

a

local eiecrion

decided

exclusivel-;

bi Nfaqlanc

residents.

As

such.

tre

l?dez

n ling

is nor applicable

i. the presenr

case.

Basec

on

Lhese

ibreeorng

reasons.

dls

coun

fircs

no

,,ioiarion

of

ei-,rer

Ner.erdon's

nsh6

or

-&e

vorri:g

nehts

oi

hs supponers.

m.

Plairriffs'Estoppel

Challenge

is

w-ithout

}Ierit.

TLis

Cou.-

iuds

thar the

Piainiif;'

estoppel

clrjnr

is

-"irhout

nenr.

The

plarniifs

cotienc

'oai

'-ne

C

il; Boa:d's

rerusal ro

conducl

a

prelin::ha-ir

re.,;ieri.

oi

a

group

of

sig:ra:i.:les

less

,ia:

the

required

nuncer

of

siqraL:-res

of

.L-

1

60

prior

ro

-l,ueusr

:1,

201,r

ailor:nted.

ro

ar

estoppel

o:

the

Cii.v

Boa:d's

reiection

of

the

siglanres.

$

6-202ra)

orovides

rhat

tbe

..tormat

oi

rhe

pedtior

prepared

b.-v the

sponsor

may

be

subm-Ltied

ro

Lhe clrief

election

official

of the

arpropriate

election

aulhoriry'.

in

advance

of fiiing

rhe

pediion.

for

a detennination

of

its

sufficienc,v.,'

iemphasis

added).

Here.

l,Ir.

warker

attemptec

to

submit

a

group

of

s.iomr-.res

for

a prerini,an:

rer

iew

on iu.'re

1

6- 2

0

14.

Horvever.

as

rhe

p

lain

laneuase

of

$

6-2

02

(a)

provides.

or,Jv

the

forrnat

t2


13/15

ofthepetitionpages.notrheSignaruresthemselr.es.maybesubmirtedlorarradr-anced

derermination,

.A.s

such.

this

Coun

finds

tlrat

rhere

is no

larv

requinng

the

Ciry

Board

to accepi

\Ir.Wallier.ssubm,issionofsignaturespnortoAugust4.20I4deadlineforasufftciencl

determination.

Nloreover.

the Citl

Board

is

prohlbited

b.v

lau

from

accepting

petlrions

that

lack

an

informarion

paee indicacing

that

the

petition satrst'ies

all

of

the

legal

requirements

t\ith

respect

to

tJ:e

required

number

of

sigracures

EL

:\6-205(c)

ln

the

present

case' because

N{r'

wall


14/15

RUSSELL

A.

NEIiERDON,

er a/.

PlaintifJs,

BALTIMORE

CITY

BOAR.D

OF

ELECTIONS, el

a/.

DeJendants.

+

l.

*+*+t++,t +

*

++++:l +

+++t+

+

TNTHE

CIRCUIT

COURT

FOR

BALTIMORE CITY

+

cAsE No.

24-C-14-00.1915

+

+

*

+ +,*

+

+

tf

* ++ + *

*

+ +

*

+

t++*

+ * +

*

OR,DER

This case comes before

the Court as

a request

for a declaratory

judgment.

In

the

complaint, filed by Russell

A. Neverdon. Sr.

(hereinafter

''Neverdon")

and the

Neverdon For

Baltirnore

Campaign

(hereinafter

"Campaigl").

the Plaintiffs

sought

a

declaratory

judgment

against

the

Maryland

State

Board

of

Elections

(hereinafter

"State

Board") and the Baltimore

Cit,v"

Board ofElections

(hereinafter

"Ci v

Board"), the

Defendants.

The

dispute

arises

from

the

City

Board's rejection of

signatures and

petitions, which

the

Plaintiffs

submitted

on

August

4.

2014

to

place

Neverdon's name on the November 2014

general

election ballot as a candidate

for

thb

Offlce of

State's

Attomey for Baltimore City.

The

case was tried without

a

jury

on

September

5,

20t4.

For the

reasons

stated

il

the

attendant

Memorandum

Opin-ron. on

tt is

?t

day of

September.

2014.

with

respect

to

the

Plaintiffs'

Complaint for Declaratory Judgrnent.

the

Coun

DECLARXS,

that

the Defendants

applied

the

appropriate

srandard in invalidating

1,327

signatures; that

there has

been

no

violation

ofeither the

Defendants'

constitutional

rights

or the

rights

of

Neverdon's

supporte$;

that

there

is

no estoppel

as

to

the

Defendants'

actions;

and

that

the

Defendants

properly invalidated

the i,327

signatures and the Plaintiffs failed to

produce

the


15/15

4,160

signarures

needed

to

prace

Neverdon's

name

on

the

ballor

as

a

candidate

for

the

offrce

of

the

State's

Attomey

for Balt.imore

Ciry;

and

it

is

'RDERED,

that

the

judgment

shall

be

enrered

for

the

Defendants,

with

respect

to

those

claims

raised

by

the

praintiffs'

compraint

for

Declaratory

Judgment;

and

it

is

further

ORDERED,

that

the

praintiffs'

request

for

the

coun

to

award

them

costs

of

these

proceedings

is

DENIED.

-,^..Ee-

Martin P. Welch

d

Judge's Signature

Apears

-

On

Original

Document

l

Court

File

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ian-duncan
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Neverdon Election Signatures Ruling

Documents