The second of two cases involving the eligibility requirements for a candidate for Maryland Attorney General. The first case, Abrams v. Lamone, discussed in this post, considered a petition challenging the eligibility of Thomas E. Perez to hold the office. The Court found that Perez had not been a member of the Maryland Bar for the requisite period and thus was not eligible. This case challenged the eligibility of Doug Gansler, based on the argument that Gansler had not practiced law in Maryland for at least ten years. The Court did not reach that question. Addressing a threshold issue, the Court determined that the appellant had waited too long to bring the action. The challenge was filed more than three months after a similar action, almost 2 months after the Court’s Order in that case, and just 18 days before the general election. Hence, the Court held it was barred by laches.
The opinion is available in PDF.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Fritszche v. Maryland State Board of Elections (Ct. of Appeals)
Filed February 12, 2007. Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell.
From the opinion's headnote:
The petitioner is a Maryland resident and student living in New York who had, in mid-August 2006, requested an absentee ballot from the County Board of Elections in Catonsville. The absentee ballot sent to her was postmarked on November 1, 2006 but did not arrive in New York until November 6, 2006, the day before the election. The returned ballot was postmarked November 7, 2006, and was not counted in the final tally since it was not "completed and mailed before election day," as required by the relevant section of COMAR.
The petitioner filed suit, asserting a violation of the "right to vote" provisions of Article I, Sections 1 and 3 of the Maryland Constitution and Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights, the "equal protection" guarantees of Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights and the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution, and the provisions of Section 9-304 of the Election Law Article of the Maryland Code, and asking that all absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day be accepted. The petitioner noted the extraordinary number of absentee ballots requested in this election, prompted in part by concerns over use of the new electronic voting machines, as expressed by Governor Ehrlich and others, and a number of examples of very late mailing of many of those ballots.
The respondents noted that there is no constitutional right to an absentee ballot, and argued that the regulations were reasonable restraints designed to protect the integrity of the voting process. Moreover, the petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated harm, in that the ballot could have been hand-delivered to the polling place and counted on election day. The judge agreed, and denied the petitioner's request for a TRO.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the respondent, by failing to answer the overwhelming call for absentee ballots in a timely fashion, had denied the petitioner the right to vote, or at least had imposed a severe burden on that right, and that the COMAR provision was only a discretionary exercise of the respondent's regulatory powers and was not required by statute. The respondent countered that it was impossible to determine the actual reason for the late mailings, since a number of factors were simply unknown. The Court agreed, noting that the skimpy record below gave little reason to overturn the judge's decision below in denying the TRO, given the petitioner's burden to prove 1) the likelihood that the petitioner would succeed on the merits, 2) the 'balance of inconvenience' between granting or denying the TRO, 3) the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury, and 4) the public interest.
The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that Lamb v. Hammond required that state election statutes be strictly applied notwithstanding the negligence of state officials, instead finding that, in a absence of any clear evidence of the opposite conclusion, Lamb compels the exclusion of the noncompliant votes in order to safeguard the election process.
From the opinion's headnote:
ELECTIONS - ABSENTEE VOTING - DEADLINESIn an interlocutory appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the petitioner asked the Court to overturn the decision below, which had denied a temporary restraining order against election officials stemming from the alleged late delivery of some absentee ballots.
The mere occurrence and/or experiencing of processing problems with absentee ballots does not justify an extension of time for the filing of such ballots, absent proof that those problems were the direct cause for voters not voting.
The petitioner is a Maryland resident and student living in New York who had, in mid-August 2006, requested an absentee ballot from the County Board of Elections in Catonsville. The absentee ballot sent to her was postmarked on November 1, 2006 but did not arrive in New York until November 6, 2006, the day before the election. The returned ballot was postmarked November 7, 2006, and was not counted in the final tally since it was not "completed and mailed before election day," as required by the relevant section of COMAR.
The petitioner filed suit, asserting a violation of the "right to vote" provisions of Article I, Sections 1 and 3 of the Maryland Constitution and Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights, the "equal protection" guarantees of Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights and the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution, and the provisions of Section 9-304 of the Election Law Article of the Maryland Code, and asking that all absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day be accepted. The petitioner noted the extraordinary number of absentee ballots requested in this election, prompted in part by concerns over use of the new electronic voting machines, as expressed by Governor Ehrlich and others, and a number of examples of very late mailing of many of those ballots.
The respondents noted that there is no constitutional right to an absentee ballot, and argued that the regulations were reasonable restraints designed to protect the integrity of the voting process. Moreover, the petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated harm, in that the ballot could have been hand-delivered to the polling place and counted on election day. The judge agreed, and denied the petitioner's request for a TRO.
On appeal, the petitioner argued that the respondent, by failing to answer the overwhelming call for absentee ballots in a timely fashion, had denied the petitioner the right to vote, or at least had imposed a severe burden on that right, and that the COMAR provision was only a discretionary exercise of the respondent's regulatory powers and was not required by statute. The respondent countered that it was impossible to determine the actual reason for the late mailings, since a number of factors were simply unknown. The Court agreed, noting that the skimpy record below gave little reason to overturn the judge's decision below in denying the TRO, given the petitioner's burden to prove 1) the likelihood that the petitioner would succeed on the merits, 2) the 'balance of inconvenience' between granting or denying the TRO, 3) the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury, and 4) the public interest.
The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that Lamb v. Hammond required that state election statutes be strictly applied notwithstanding the negligence of state officials, instead finding that, in a absence of any clear evidence of the opposite conclusion, Lamb compels the exclusion of the noncompliant votes in order to safeguard the election process.
The full opinion is available in PDF.
The case was a "highlighted case." Thus, the briefs and other material are posted online by the Court of Appeals and are available here.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Lamone v. Capozzi (Ct. of Appeals)
Filed December 11, 2006--Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell.
This is the second of two cases involving early voting in Maryland. In the first case, Roskelly v. Lamone, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which had dismissed the action because it was not timely filed. In this case, the Court we addressed the constitutionality of early voting, probing whether the acts establishing the process are inconsistent with, and, thus, in derogation of, the Maryland Constitution.
The Court determined that the acts authorizing Maryland Code (2003, 2006 Cum. Supp.) §10-301.1 are inconsistent with and in derogation of certain provisions of the Maryland Constitution, in particular, Article XV, §7, and Article I, §1, and are not constitutionally supported by Article I, §3; therefore, these acts are unconstitutional and void.
The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
This is the second of two cases involving early voting in Maryland. In the first case, Roskelly v. Lamone, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which had dismissed the action because it was not timely filed. In this case, the Court we addressed the constitutionality of early voting, probing whether the acts establishing the process are inconsistent with, and, thus, in derogation of, the Maryland Constitution.
The Court determined that the acts authorizing Maryland Code (2003, 2006 Cum. Supp.) §10-301.1 are inconsistent with and in derogation of certain provisions of the Maryland Constitution, in particular, Article XV, §7, and Article I, §1, and are not constitutionally supported by Article I, §3; therefore, these acts are unconstitutional and void.
The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
