Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 1866_001

1866_001

1866_001

Page 1: 1866_001

Category:General

Number of Pages:12

Date Created:August 29, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:1866


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

NEIL PARROTT, INTHE 
P.O. Box 
Funkstown, Maryland 21734, CIRCUIT COURT 

and FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 
MDPETITIONS.COM, Case No.: 
P.O. Box 
Funkstown, Maryland 21734 

Plaint!ffs, 
JOHN MCDONOUGH his 
official capacity 

Secretary State Maryland 
Jeffrey Building Francis Street 
Annapolis, Maryland 21401, 

and 
STATE BOARD ELECTIONS 
151 West Street, Suite 200 
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

and 
LINDA LAMONE, her 
official capacity 
State Administrator Elections 
151 West Street, Suite 200 
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

cDefendants. 
C-..J 
VERIFIED COMPLAINT 
Plaintiffs, and through the undersigned counsel, bring this action challenge the 
language the ballot question for the upcoming referendum Senate Bill Chapter the 
2011 Special Session the Maryland General Assembly, also known the Congressional 
Districting Plan ("Senate Bil1 1"),to held November 2012. Specifically, Plaintiff Neil Parrott files this verified complaint for judicial relief and judicial review pursuant Sections 12-202 and 9-209 the Elections Law Article the Maryland Code Annotated. addition, 
Plaintiffs Parrott and Petitions.corn file this verified complaint for declarative and injunctive 
relief under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Section 3-401 the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article the Maryland Code Annotated. grounds therefor, Plaintiffs allege follows: 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant Sections -501 and 3-406 the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article the Maryland Code Annotated and Sections 12202 and 9-209 the Elections Law Article the Maryland Code Annotated. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant Sections 6-102 
and 6-103 the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article the Maryland Code Annotated. Venue proper this Court pursuant Section 6-201 the Courts and Judicial 
Proceedings Article the Maryland Code Annotated and Section 9-209 the Elections Law 
Article the Maryland Code Annotated. 
PARTIES Plaintiff Neil Parrott citizen and resident ofthe State Maryland and 
registered vote the State Maryland. Plaintiff Parrott also rnem ber the House 
Delegates (District 2B, Washington County) and the Chainnan MDPetitions.com, entity 
that, 2012, organized and sponsored successful campaign petition Senate Bill 
referendum. PlaintiffMDPetitions.com entity that, 2012, organized and sponsored 
successful campaign petition Senate Bill referendum. the petition sponsor, Plaintiff MDPetitions.com represents not only its own interests and the interests the organizers and volunteers who worked make the petition success, but also the interests the 59,201 con finned registered voters who signed the petition the exercise their rights under Article XVI, Section the Maryland Constitution. Plaintiff Petitions.com therefore has unique 
and compelling interest ensuring that voters across the State Maryland are apprised the 
true nature the referendum when they cast their ballots the November 2012 election. 
Defendant John McDonough the Secretary") the Secretary State Maryland and charged law with the duty preparing and certifying the State Board Elections the language all statewide ballot questions and all questions relating enactments the General Assembly that are petitioned referenda. Md. Const., art. XVl, 5(b); Md. Code Ann-> Elec. Law 7-103(c)(l). The Secretary also the public official who prepared and certified the State Board Elections the ballot question challenged Plaintiffs. 
Defendant State Board Elections {"the State Board Elections") state agency that charged law with the duty certifying the content and the arrangement ballots used general elections, including the language ballot questions petitioned referenda, well publicly displaying and printing certified ballots. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 9-207(a). The State Board Elections also the state agency that will certify the content and arrangement the ballots containing the language the ballot question challenged Plaintiff, well publicly display and print the ballots containing the language the ballot question challenged. Defendant Linda Lamone (''the Administrator") the State Administrator 
Elections and charged law with the duty employing and supervising the staff the State Board Elections and performing all duties and exercising all powers assigned law the State Administrator delegated the State Board Elections. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  2-103(b). 
BACKGROUND October 20, 2011, the Maryland General Assembly, sitting special session, enacted Senate Bill emergency measure and Governor Martin O'Malley signed into law later that day. Senate Bill specifically establishes the districts that will used for the election Maryland's eight representatives the United States House Representatives following the census. The legislation describes each district identifying the counties, election districts, precincts, and/or census designations for the areas that are included each district. 

10. 
Plaintiff MDPetitions.com, the sponsor, and Plaintiff Parrott, his capacity Chairman PlaintiffMDPetitions.com, subsequently organized and led successful campaign petition Senate Bill referendum the November 2012 general election. 

11. July 20, 2012, the Administrator certified that the petition had qualified Senate Bill placed the November 2012 general election ballot. 

12. 
Plaintiff MDPetitions.com subsequently intervened and successfully defended litigation challenging the Administrator's certification the referendum petition. August 10, 2012, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County entered judgment the matter captioned Whitley, al. Maryland State Board Elections, al., Case No. 02-C-12-171365, declaring that the petition was legally sufficient refer Senate Bill referendum and ordering that the 

enactment placed the November 2012 general election ballot. August 17, 2012, the 
Court Appeals Maryland issued per curiam order the matter captioned Whitley, al. Maryland State Board Elections, al., 133 (September Tenn, 2011 affinning the lower court's judgment. 
13. Because Senate Bill was enacted emergency measure, took effect immediately. For this same reason, Senate Bill remains force notwithstanding the fact that subject referendum the November 2012 general election. result, Maryland voters will voting the districts created Senate Bill November 2012. 
14. mere sixty words, the short title and purpose paragraph the legislative title Senate Bill succinctly describes the purpose the forty-two page enactment follows: ACT concerning Congressional Districting Plan FOR the purpose establishing the composition the eight districts the State Maryland for the election members the United States House Representatives; specifying certain ward, election district, and precinct boundaries; making this Act emergency measure; and generally relating the reconfiguration congressional districts the State. 
15. law, the text enactment subject referendum contains more than 200 words, the Secretary must prepare and certify the language ballot question such fonn present the purpose the enactment concisely and intelligently. Md. Const., art. XVI, 5(b); Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  7-103. addition, the language ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary may distinct from the legislative title the enactment, but any case, the legislative title sufficient. Md. Const., art. XVI,  S(b). Moreover, the Secretary must prepare and certify the language ballot question the State Board Elections not later than the third Monday August. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 7-103(c){l). This year, the Secretary was required act August 20, 2012. 

16. August 20, 2012, one business day after the Court Appeals Maryland affirmed the referral Senate Bill referendum, the Secretary prepared and certified the State Board Elections the following language for the ballot question for Senate Bill 

Establishes the boundaries for the State's eight United States Congressional 
Districts based recent census figures, required the United States 
Constitution. 
Instead using the sixty word shott title and purpose paragraph the legislative title, the language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary mere twenty-three words and omits any reference the fact that Senate Bill makes material changes existing congressional districts that was enacted emergency measure and consequently had immediate effect, among other substantial omissions. 
18. law, the State Board Elections must prepare and certify the content and arrangement the general election ballot least days before the November 2012 election, September 11, 2012. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  9-207(a)(2)(i). 

19. about August 22, 2012, Plaintiff Parrott spoke with representatives both the Secretary and the State Board Elections. Although the representative for the Secretary indicated that Plaintiff Parrott could write letter the Secretary requesting that the language the ballot question revised, the representative also indicated, that since the date for certification the language the ballot question had passed, the Secretary would not able revise the language the ballot question already certified. The representative the State Board Elections indicated that the State Board Elections could not change the language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012. Consequently, both representatives effectively confirmed Plaintiff Parrott that changes would made the language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012 and 

that the State Board Elections would ce11ify the content and a1Tangement the general 
election ballot before September 11, 2012 using the language prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012. 
20. According analysis conducted The Washington Post using data obtained from the U.S. Census and the Maryland Department Planning, Senate Bill removed approximately 1.6 million Marylanders from their previous congressional district and placed them different district. According this same analysis, percent Marylanders the Sixth Congressional District were removed from their previous congressional district and placed different congressional district, were percent Marylanders the Fourth Congressional District, percent Marylanders the Eighth Congressional District, and percent Marylanders the Third Congressional District. total, percent Marylanders were removed from their previous congressional district and placed different congressional district. 
21. 1962, fifty-four word ballot question was used for referendum 
enactment the General Assembly that created new congressional district and made ce11ain 
changes two existing congressional districts the State Maryland. The language the 
1962 ballot question was: act relating the Congressional Districts the State Maryland which provides that the State divided into eight districts instead seven and that the Eighth Congressional District shall composed Howard and Prince George's Counties and making ce1tain changes the Third and Fifth Congressional Districts this State. 
22. contrast, the language the ballot question for Senate Bill makes reference any changes the boundaries the congressional districts made the enactment. Nor does contain any readily understandable geographic references the new boundaries 

created Senate Bill any reference the map prepared the Governor and approved 
the General Assembly depicting these new boundaries. 
COUNT -JUDICIAL RELIEF 
Plaintiff Parrott hereby refers and incorporates reference the allegations contained paragraphs 1-22 above fully stated herein. 
24. 
The language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012 does not concisely intelligently present the purpose Senate Bill and inconsistent with and contrary Maryland law, including but not limited Article XVI, Section 5(b) the Maryland Constitution and Sections 7-103(b)(4) and 9-203 the Elections Law Article the Maryland Constitution. 

25. the Secretary not ordered revise and recertify the language the ballot question, the outcome the referendum may different, the language the ballot question not posed accurate and non-misleading manner, does not provide the clarity and objectivity required pennit average voter exercise intelligent choice meaningful way, does not present clear, unambiguous and understandable statement the full and complete nature the issue, and otherwise does not apprise voters the true nature the legislation upon which they are voting. 

26.  Plaintiff Parrott has other timely and adequate remedy.  
COUNT -JUDICIAL REVIEW  
27.  Plaintiff Parrott hereby refers and incorporates reference the allegations  

contained paragraphs 1-26 fully stated herein. 
28. The content and arrangement the ballot, which the State Board Elections and the Administrator are required certify before September 11, 2012 and subsequently 
publicly display and print, erroneous insofar contains the unlawful language the ballot 
question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012. Judicial review the content and arrangement the ballot necessary correct the erroneous ballot. 
COUNT III -DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 
30. 
Plaintiffs hereby refer and incorporate reference the allegations contained paragraphs 1-29 fully stated herein. 

31. registered voter and chairman Plaintiff MDPetitions.com and Plaintiff MDPetitions.com, the petition sponsor, Plaintiffs have unique and specific interest the language the ballot question being sufficient ensure that voters across the State Maryland are apprised the true nature the referendum when they cast their ballots the November 2012 election. 

32. 
Plaintiffs assert that the language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012 does not concisely intelligently present the purpose Senate Bill and inconsistent with and contrary Maryland Law. 

33. information and belief, Defendants believe the language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012 does not concisely intelligently present the purpose Senate Bill and inconsistent with and contrary Maryland law. 

34. 
There exists actual controversy justiciable nature between Plaintiffs and Defendants, within the jurisdiction this Court, involving the rights and liabilities the parties. 

35. the language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012 not declared inconsistent with and contrary Maryland law and the State Board Elections and the Administrator are not enjoined from certifying, displaying, printing 

any ballot containing the language the ballot question certified the Secretary August 20, 
2012, voters across the State ofMaryland will not apprised the true nature the referendum when they cast their ballots the November 2012 election. 
36. declaratory judgment will terminate this controversy. 
37. order enjoining the State Board Elections and the Administrator necessary prevent them from certifying, displaying, printing any ballot containing the language the ballot question certified the Secretary August 20, 2012, which does not concisely intelligently present the purpose Senate Bill and inconsistent with and contrary Maryland law. 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: Order the Secretary prepare and certify the Administrator and the State 
Board Elections revised language the ballot question that complies with the requirements 
the law; Order that the State Board Elections and the Administrator prohibited from 
certifying, displaying, printing any ballot containing the language the ballot question 
certified the Secretary August 20, 2012; Order the State Board Elections and the Administrator certify, display, and 
print revised ballot after the Secretary has prepared and certified revised language the ballot 
question that complies with the requirements the law; Declare the language the ballot question prepared and certified the Secretary August 20, 2012 inconsistent with and contrary toMaryland law and enjoin the State Board Elections and the Administrator from certifying, displaying, printing any ballot containing the language the ballot question certified the Secretary August 20, 2012; and Grant such other relief this Court may deem just and proper. 
Dated: August 29, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
Paul Orfanedes Md. Bar No. 9112190026 
Chris Fedeli Md. Bar No. 0012120179 425 Third Street, SW, Ste. 800 Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 646-5199 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
VERIFICATION solemnly affirm under the penalties perjury that the contents the paper are true 
the best knowledge, information, and belief. Executed August -----> 2012 
Hagerstown, Maryland. 
Neil Panott Grant such other relief this Court may deem just and proper. 
Dated: 	August 29, 2012 Respectfully Submitted) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 9112190026
Chris Fedeli Md. Bar No. 0012120179 425 Third Street, SW, Ste. 800 Washington, 20024 Tel: {202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 646-5199 
Attorneys.for Plaintiff 
VERIFICATION solemnly affirm under the penalties perjury that the contents the paper are true 
the best knowledge, information) and belief. Executed August2'1) 2012 
Hagerstown, Maryland.