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<s, ijtcludu:s rhc Campaiga.
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/.
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.
$3-10a(a).
"\!hen a declaratory
iudgrneni
action is brought. and the conrovers'
is
aporopriate tbr resolurion b,v declaratory
judgmenr.
rne tnal coun r:ust render a decia:atoir.
j
udgarerr
[rn
r'":rtrng]."
L'nion L'nired 7!erhociisr Ch",;rch Inc. v Burion.40-l ],{d.
j42.
550
(2008).
Di:missal is rarelv appropriare in a ceclaratorv
judgrnenr
action if the
"compla.ur
shorvs
a sub_i3ct mater rhar is
lvirbia
rhe colten:rlation oldre relief a-fo:ded br,.&e . . stat-ne'' and
siaies sr-:fircienr facts to demonsuate'Lhe exisrence oia conrrorers)'. shapiro t. Bd. ofCotLzq
Com rsfor
Prrnce George s Cnn.).19 \ld. 29E.
-:02
(19j9)-plaimiffs
har-e the burciea oioroof
in estabiishing
that:
i rhe Defendants
r,rolared
ihe r-otine rishrs ofNe'erdon and "all persons luho',ere
decenified on the petirion circulated b1 \ererdon'' pursuanr to .{rticie One of the Unire,j
Saies consdrurion a,ed Ardcre 7 and 2-l of the rvla-.rra-eci Deciaration of fughts:
l. The Cin Boaid's retusal ro pertbrm a prelrrninary
rev-ierv of submined peritions. rvhile
ihev
r,vere
being garhered
and pnor ro either rhe subm.rssion of rhe
.1.160
sisraaues and/or
before rhe Aueu$ -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;
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).
Irial Facts
At rial. Plamriffs called Stephan \tr alker. a campaiql consultart for the Campaign. to
testiry. that he w.as in chaige of gathedng a-'id
.,
erifline signatures tbr Neverdon's
petidon
efilfi.
He met
,,vith
ciry'Board s Eleciion Director-
-lrmstead
B. crarvle.v Jones. sr.. on June 16. l0I +
ro ask !v[grh31
pediion signatuies could be subrdtted early- tbr revierv. As a resu]t of that
meeting. Walker rvas informed that he could not submit sisnatues of less thaa the required
.r.
1 60
lbr earlv revlelv. Consequenrll.. \\'alker te:,iried rhat the Ca.r::paig:r conri::ued ro collecr
sislatrues ald upon information received from Crarvlel-. trhe campaign needed to coilect
acpioxrmarei-,-
8.000 sigaaruies . See also Plaintrffs' Eshibit B:
PlairriiTs also called Desmond L. Srimie. Vice
presidert
ol
political
Boost. LLC. The
Campargr eegaged NIr Sdrue's firm ro prol'ide propne'iary
sotrr,,;are, klor.,l as 'Toter \.erin..,,
to assis: the cainpaign ia its sisnaiue sa'-herns rrocess. He testiiei thar the voi'er \rerrf.;
Sy-stein dererm:-neC siglarues of regrsr:red Balrrmore C.q'r.oreis. but noL as to r,;helher Lho_-e
ij:,jivi,j,:ai
sig::a-r*es c;''r-.lied v,-,-o
-oe
specrfic iec'airen en:s oi Eiecrion L-ricie 6-10
j
iar
oi
co\L\R
-13.06.03.06. NIr Str-nnie iesdfied fiai lxs fimr emered idonriarior torr approstaareLr
3.00i1 sig::.an:ies and provrdecl *Le Ca-'r:pai= rviih rhe lis of aopiorimaielv 5.6g 6 siqraues of
those Stin:r-ie cerermrned to be Balumore cit".regrsered vorers. see a/so
plaintrrfs'
Ex-LbLt c.
,\: u:ai. Deienda-lis calied no ;viEesses,
but il-roducec hard coores a-rd a CD-Ro\l oiall
5.685 signatures or petitions
subriuned by the
plainriffs.
Tre Defendarrs also relied upon rhe
affidavits and e<irbirs ar'ached to thery !{o:ion ro Dismiss ihe Conplarnt or t-or Su:r'nar
Judgment.
iricludurg:
i. Petiticir Piocesshg Statisrics R-econ;
2. Sum_nar-v- Resulr of Verification
Report;
:
The Cout nor.-s thar !t. lvalker's
affidarn rs not in rhe rroDer fomr of an afficavir
o
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).
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:<pla:iiec rla:
-,
ejica-.iol a*rd.
validatioir
serle tlvo different puiposes. Id. a.i32. \'ahdatior as sovemed b'I6-20_:. orovides
safeguards to deteci iiaudu.lent sienauies in
tJre
petrrronine process. 1d. on the o-r.her hald.
$6-
207 ser-,-es ihe purpose oi ensurus thar the petitioner signer is a regisrered voter. 1d. Because rhe
idida:ion
Drocess sen'es the pu:pose of cie;eruhg rraudulenr conciuct and nor ro e sure ihar dle
siener is a reqisterec voter. the re,iuiremen:s oi
$6-20-;ta)
are raandaicry. Ici. et7j2-,1.
Plarrriffs ercaeouslv relv o1
-l161yro^ery. Corinry VoltLnreer Fire-Resczte
-7ss,n
,;
,\[ontgomery Coun4; Bd. o,f EIecrlon-. i:r contendils rhat fie reo.uirements se: fonh in
$5-203(a)
are suzgesTive rarher than mandatoq;
,+18
l,{d.
r+61
,20\l)
("
Fire-Resczre"). There. ne cou-i ol
Appeals held
t-hat
rhe \{onrgomen Co uni-v Board of Electior wrongfullv
reiected siglarures on
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
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
[. 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
: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
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<er
attempred to submir a cenatn number of signarures
thar thiied to rneet the -l'160 threshold oi
required signatures. the C ir.,- Board could not Iegall-v accept rhe petirions on June 16.201'1.
Therefore. tlus Cowt finds that the Plairrtitls' esroppel claim is vnthout ment.
Conclusion
Ha.tvLrg constdereci rhe evicience a:rd arqumens of Lhe paiiies. rtre Coun iuds thai rhe
Deiind:-n,s appiied rhe appropriare srard-d ir in" alidaring i.327 simal-ries tu6alag'd tiv the
Piainriffs. The Court f,lis that thele ha\ been no !iolati!-rn of either Ue Plair:tiffs' riehE or Lhe
constirudona.t nghts of Neverdon's sulponers. The Cou-'t also tllds that
-here
is no estoppel as ic
the Det'endanis acrion;. The Coun denLes rhe Plain-,rit!' reque.-t to arvarc them
-the
coss anrj
e\penses of rhese proceedLngs, Frnalil -
rhe coun deciares thai the Deitndants
properil
Lnvalidaied 1.-127 srg::arures and the Piaintfis faiieC to produce the
't,160
siglatu:es needed ie'
place Neverdon's narne Lrn the balloi as a ca:rdidate ibr the Office olrhe Staie's Artome-v- ior
Ba.hrmore Ciry'.
-
'.
}IId:EFFftELCH
.trDc{
il
September 9. 20 1.1
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
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