Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Brief of Appellee Intervener May 30 2012

Brief of Appellee Intervener May 30 2012

Brief of Appellee Intervener May 30 2012

Page 1: Brief of Appellee Intervener May 30 2012

Category:General

Number of Pages:58

Date Created:May 30, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Intervener, Appellee, 2012


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE COURT APPEALS MARYLAND 

September Term, 2011 
No. 131 
JOHN DOE, al., Appellants, 
MARYLAND STATE BOARD ELECTIONS, al., 
Appellees. 

BRIEF APPELLEE-INTERVENER MDPETITIONS.COM WRIT CERTIORARI THE 
COURT SPECIAL APPEALS MARYLAND 

Trial Court: 
Circuit Court Anne Arundel County, Case No. 02-C-11-163050 The Honorable Ronald Silkworth 
Paul Orfanedes Chris Fedeli 
nJDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street, S.W., Ste. 800 Washington, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Fax: (202) 646-5199 
Email: porfanedes@judicialwatch.org cfedeli@judicialwatch.org 
Attorneys for Appellee-Jntervener '.MDPetitions.com 

TABLE CONTENTS 

STATEMENT 1HE CASE
............................................................................................ 

RESTATEMENT THE QUESTION PRESENTED .....................................................2 

COUNTERSTATEMENT THE FACTS ............. .......................................................... 

STANDARD REVIEW ................ ...................................... ........................................... 

ARGN1' .................................................................................................... ................... 	
The People Maryland Are Sovereign, and Their Longstanding Right Referendum Was Properly Protected the Circuit Court .......... .................................................. .................................................. 

II. 167 Does Not Direct Spending for Maintaining State 
Government Otherwise
............................................................................ 167 Does Not Direct Spending Conjunction With the Cade Funding onnula Future Bills .............................. "Mandated Appropriation" Not "Spending," Whether 167 "Affects'' "Mandated 
Appropriation" Irrelevant ........... .................................................. 167 Does Not Cause Spending Under Maryland Law .......................................................... ......................................... 
The Legislative History 167 Does Not Demonstrate That the Enactment Directs Future Spending ................................... 167 Was Not Enacted for the Purpose Maintaining 
State Government .............................................................................23 

III. 167 Does Not Regulate Tuition Public Four-Year Institutions ......... 

IV. 	
The Court Should Affirm the Judgment the Circuit Court Without 
Reaching the Complex Constitutional Question Raised 
Appellants ......................................................... .................... ...................... 
Appellants John Doe and Casa Maryland Failed 
Properly Plead Substantiate Their Claims ...........................

......... 
The "Registered Voters Appellants" Failed Properly 
Plead Substantiate their Claims 
.................................... .............. 

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 

CERTIFICA1E SERVICE ................................. .............................. ........... ................ 
TABLE AUTHORITIES 
Cases 
Bickel Nice, 173 Md. (1937) ........................................................................................ 

Board Supervisors Elections Smallwood, 
327 Md. 220 (1992) ........... ..................................................................... ................. 

Boyds Civic Ass Montgomery Cnty. Council, 
309 Md. 683 (1987) ............................................................................................... 

Colie State, 193 Md. 608, 612 (1949) ..................................................................... 28, 

Doe Montgomery County Board Elections, 
406 Md. 697 (2008) ......................................................................... ............4, 29, 

Dorsey Petrott, 178 Md. 230 (1940) ............. ........ ..............1, 20, 

................................ 

Hatt Anderson, 297 Md. (1983) ................................................................... 34, 35, 

Jordan Towing, Inc. Hebbville Auto Repair, Inc., 
369 Md. 439 (2002) ............................................................................................... 

Kadderly Portland, Ore. 118 (1903) .......................................................................... 

Kelly Marylanders for Sports Sanity, Inc., 310 Md. 347 (1987) ....................................................................................... passim 
Maryland State Bd. Elec. Libertarian Party, 
2012 Md. LEXIS 287 (May 21, 2012 Md.) ..................................................... 28, 

Michigan State Dental Society Secretary State, 
294 Mich. 503 (1940) .............................................................................................. 

................................

Montgomery County Butler, 417 271 (2010) ........................ 

Ross State Board Elections, 389 Md. 649 (2005) ...................................................... 

State rel. Marco/in Smith, 105 Ohio St. 570 (1922) ................................................... 

Sugarloaf Citizens' Assoc. Dep Env 't, 
344 Md. 271 (1996) ............................................................................................... 

United Parcel Serv. People's Counsel, 336 Md. 569 (1994) .....................................29 

Vanhook 
Merchants Mutual Ins. Co., Md. App. (1974) .............................. 29, 

Winebrenner 
Salmon, 155 Md. 563 (1928) ................................................... .........passim 

Federal Statutes 
U.S.C.  1324a ............................................................................................................ u.s.c. 453 ........................... ....................................................................................... u.s.c. 454 .................................................................................................................. 

Constitutional and 
Md. Const. art. XVI, ................................................................................ ......................5 

................................................. ............. .............................

Md. Const. art. XVI, passim 
Md. Const. art. III,  52(11) .......................................................................................... 

Md. Const. art. Ill, 52(12) .................................................... ............................. ...............4 

Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc. 3-409(a) .................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc. 3-409(a)(l) ...............................................................34 

Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc.  3-409(a)(2) .............................................................. .34 

Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc.  3-409(a)(3) ...............................................................34 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 10-208 .......................................................................................25 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  10-208(6) ........................................................................ .3, 25, 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  12-102(a)(3) ............................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 12-102(b) ...................................................................................25 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  12-104 ........................................... ................... ..........................25 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 12-104(c)(3) ............................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  12-lOS(c) .................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  12-109(e)(7) ........................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  14-10l(a)(3) ............................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 14-102 ........................................................................................ 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 14-104 ........................................................................................ 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 14-104(a)(2) ............................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  14-1040)(1) ...................................................................... 25, 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 14-402 ........................................................................................25 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  14-404 ........................................................................................25 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  14-404(a) .......................................................................... 25, 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 14-404(b)(2) ............................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 14-405(d) ...................................................................................25 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 15-106.8(b)(l) ............................................................................ 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  15-106.8(b)(5) ............................................................................ 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 15-106.8(b)(6) ............................................................................ 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-101 ........................................................................................24 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-103( .................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-103(j) ................................................................................ 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-104(b)(4) ............................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-301 ........................................................................................ 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-301(a) ....................................................................................24 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-30l(e) ....................................................................................24 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-302(d) ................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-304 .................................... .................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-304(a) .................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-305 .............................................................................. 12, 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-305(b)(4) ..................................................................... 14, 

Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-3 S(b )(7) ...............................................................................15 

Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305(b)(12) .............................................................................15 

Md. 
Code Ann., Educ.  16-305(c)(l)(i) Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-202 ................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-206 ................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-208(a)(2) .................................................................... 30, 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209 ...................................................................................29 

Md. 
Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(a) passim.............. .......................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(b) ....................................................................... 29, 

Md. Code Ann., State Gov't  2-1501(d) .................................................................... .4, 

Md. Code Ann., State Gov't  2-1505(e)(3) .....................................................................17 

2009 Laws Maryland, ch. 487,  ............................................... ................................ 

2010 Laws Maryland, ch. 484,  ..................................................................... ..........
.12 
2011 Laws ofMaryland, ch. 497, I ............................................................................... 

Md. Rule 2-322(c) ............................................................................................................. 
COMAR 13B.07 .02.03 .................................................................................................. 

Other Authorities 
Citizens Charge Foundation, State Voting Rights, 
http://www.citizensincharge.org/states ..................................................................... 
Thomas Cronin, Direct Democracy: The Politics Initiative, 
Referendum, and Recall, (Harvard University Press 1999) ................................. 

Jack Benoit Gohn, Interaction and Interpretation the Budget and Referendum Amendments the Maryland Constitution
Bayne Secretary State, Md. Rev. 558 (1980) ..................................... 

Irvin Molotsky, Gun Control Backers Say Maryland Victory Will 
Spread Other States, New York Times (Nov. 13, 1988) 
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/l l/13/us/gun-control-backers
say-mary land-victory-will-spread-to-other-states .html ?page 

wanted=allsrc=pm .................................................................................................. Op. Md. Att'y Gen. 228 (1927) ............................................................................. 23, 

Public Institutions Higher Education -Tuition Rates-Exemptions: 
Debate S.B. 167, March 2011, Session (Md. 2011) 
http ://mlis .state.rod. us/mgaweb/pyaudio.aspx ........................................................ 

Sean Sedam, The ruling, the referendum, the controversy: Approaching the 35th 
anniversary Roe Wade, Maryland remembers the 1992 vote that changed the 
argument here, Maryland Community Newspapers Online (Jan. 18, 2008) 

http ://ww2.gazette.net/stories/011808/po linew203 59. shtml ..................... Dane Waters, The Initiative and Referendum Almanac, pp. 487-490 (Carolina 
Academic Press 2003) .............................................................................................. 

STATEMENT THE CASE 
Appellants are asking this Court drastically limit the Constitutional right the people Maryland hold referenda policy legislation. Since least early 1940, the Court has held that bill enacted the General Assembly and signed the Governor "appropriation" for purposes exception the right the referendum set forth Article XVI, Section only the "primary object" the legislation "is authorize the withdrawal from the state treasury certain sum money for specified public objective purpose which such swn applied." Kelly Marylanders for Sports Sanity, Inc., 310 Md. 437, 459 (1987), quoting Dorsey Petrott, 178 Md. 230, 245 (1940). Appellants ask this Court redefine the people's right referendum Article XVI, Section exclude new and potentially enormous categories legislation, thereby substantially diminishing the rights self-governance the citizens Maryland. 
This Court should deny Appellants' request. Not only are Appellants wrong about the proper scope the exception set forth Article XVI, Section but they also fundamentally misread the policy legislation that the subject the pending referendum, Senate Bill 167 ("SB 167"). Appellants' effort prevent referendum 167 also suffers from several other fundamental flaws, including complete lack evidence substantiating Appellants' claims. 
Appellee State Board Elections determined that Appellee-Intervener MDPetitions.com had satisfied all the requirements for submitting 167 referendum and certified the new policy legislation for placement the November 2012 
ballot. The Circuit Court reviewed the State Board Election's actions and properly 
found that those actions were correct. time for Maryland's voters have their say. 
RESTATEMENT THE QUESTION PRESENTED 
This Court need only answer "no" any one the following four questions order affinn the judgment the Circuit Court: 167 "appropriation'' for purposes the referendum exception set forth Article XVI, Section the Maryland Constitution? Does 167 constitute "direct spending" when considered pari materia 
with the Cade Funding Formula and future Budget Bills? having potential, unknown impact future state spending decisions 
sufficient grounds keep legislation from referendum under the Maryland Constitution? Did Appellants plead and substantiate their claims sufficiently withstand 
Appellee-Intervener's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Dismissal? 
COUNTERSTATEMENT THE FACTS 
Appellants use their Statement Pacts miscast what 167 does and how 
State support for community colleges Maryland determined. See Brief for 
Appellants ("Br.") 6-9. Accordingly, brief counterstatement the facts order. 167 (referred Appellants the "Maryland Dream Act") changes the 
policy the State Maryland make certain unlawfully present aliens eligible pay 
reduced rates tuition community colleges and public four-year colleges and 
universities Maryland. Joint Record Extract ("JRE") 24. 167 neither increases 
the monies Maryland provides community colleges nor alters the revenues received 
public four-year institutions. The General Assembly and Governor make decisions State support for community colleges and four-year institutions each year, during the annual budget process. Id. Decisions rates tuition and tuition revenues are made the Presidents and the Boards Regents and Boards Trustees each Maryland 
institution. Md. Code Ann., Educ.  10-208(6), 12-109(e)(7); 14-1040); 14-404(a);
103(j). 
Maryland uses formula ensure that the State's support for community colleges remains proportional the State's support for public four-year institutions. Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305(c)(l)(i). This formula, known the Cade Funding Formula, requires the Governor's proposed State support for community colleges equal certain percentage the proposed State support for public four-year institutions. See generally Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-305. The Governor's proposed State support for four-year 
institutions without restriction. After receiving the Governor's proposed budget, the 

General Assembly can reduce the Governor's proposed State support for community colleges can increase the proposed amount through supplemental spending measures. Furthermore, the General Assembly and Governor routinely enact legislation revising the percentage which the Governor's proposed level State support for community 
colleges based. After State support for community colleges finalized the budget reconciliation process, each community college receives portion that final amount based the number eligible students enrolled the community college. Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305(b)(4). "mandated appropriation" term art referring item that the General Assembly requires the Governor include the proposed budget submitted the General Assembly each year. Md. Const., art. Ill, 52(11) and (12); Md. Code Ann., State Gov't  2-150l(d). There requirement that mandated appropriation included the final budget bill enacted the General Assembly that the General Assembly adopt the amount spending proposed the Governor for mandated 
appropriation. Id. The General Assembly can reduce the Governor's proposed spending mandated appropriation can increase the amount proposed the Governor 
through supplemental spending measure. The Cade Funding Formula "mandated 
appropriation" because requires the Governor propose certain level State support 
for community colleges initial budget bill. Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305(c)(l)(i). 
The General Assembly retains the discretion reduce that amount increase through supplemental appropriation deems fit. 
STANDARD REVIEW 
The Court Appeals reviews order granting summary judgment novo, Ross 
State Board Elections, Md. 649, 658 (2005), and must determine whether the Circuit Court ruled correctly matters law. Doe Montgomery County Board Elections,406 Md. 697, 711 (2008). questions mixed law and fact, such what 167 does, how the Maryland budget process works, and how the Cade Funding Formula works, the Court conducts "substantial evidence review" only and does not substitute its judgment for that the fact finder (in this case, the Circuit Court). Montgomery County 
Butler,417 Md. 271, 285 (2010). 

ARGUMENT 	The People Maryland Are Sovereign, and Their Longstanding Right Referendum Was Properly Protected the Circuit Court. 
Appellants argue that, under the Maryland Constitution and the decisions this 
Court, the people ofMaryland retain only very limited right referendum, and they 
ask this Court limit that right even further. Br. 10-12. Appellants' attack the 
constitutional rights the people ofMaryland misplaced. Control over government 
the people one the founding principles ofAmerican democracy and has been 
recognized Maryland courts right paramount importance: 
Limitations imposed the people their government are fundamental elements constitution. See, e.g., Marbury Madison, Cranch 176-177, L.Ed. 60, (1803); The Federalist, Nos. 78, 81, (1788) (Alexander Hamilton). The Maryland Declaration Rights and the Bill Rights the United States Constitution largely represent limitations governmental power. fact, the desire the people limit the government's ability tax was major cause the American Revolution. "There was colony English America, which the claim the inhabitants, exemption from all taxation not sanctioned their assent, was more familiar than inMaryland." The Constitution the United 
States, the Constitution Maryland, and the charters Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties, are replete with provisions limiting the power governments raise and appropriate revenue. Thus, limitation the power legislative body raise revenue the heart the form and structure our government and thus proper charter material. 
Board Supervisors Elections Smallwood, 327Md. 220, 237-238 (1992) (footnotes 
omitted). that Article XVI the Maryland Constitution preserves for the citizens Maryland the right approve reject the polls laws passed the General 
Assembly and signed the Governor: "The people reserve themselves power known The Referendum." Md. Const. art. XVI,  
Maryland not exception this regard. Br. 10. one twenty-six 
States which citizens have taken varying amounts direct legislative rights for 
themselves, including Massachusetts, California, Maine, Oregon, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and Washington.1 three those states, citizens have only reserved for 
themselves the right propose Constitutional amendments, not the right propose 
legislative initiatives take legislation referendum the people Maryland do. The 
citizens the twenty-four other states have not reserved any direct legislative rights for 
themselves all. The level direct citizen participation Maryland almost exactly the middle this spectrum. 
Nor does the fact that the General Assembly intended craft tuition policy 
benefit some students weigh favor denying all Marylanders their right 
referendum. Br. 11-12. Matters statewide education policy have' been subject 
referendum and initiative the states routinely since the early 1900s, issues varied funding for charter schools, banning religious uniforms public schools, and 
allocating state lottery revenue school construction.2 Even earlier, Maryland's first 
foray into direct citizen legislation concerned education. 1826 law gave Maryland 
county residents the power vote down whether establish elementary schools their districts.3 Each those cases allowed citizens directly decide policy questions 

See Citizens Charge Foundation, State Voting Rights, http://www.citizensin charge.org/states (visited May 17, 2012). Dane Waters, The Initiative and Referendum Almanac, pp. 487-490 (Carolina 
Academic Press 2003). 
Recall, (Harvard University Press 1999) ("Cronin"). how various educational needs and advantages should awarded. The present case different Contrary Appellants' claims, the decision Maryland citizens put 167 popular vote does not constitute "interruption government" contemplated the Maryland constitution this Court's rulings. Br. 12. First, the intent the referendum provision written the Constitution indicates that the interruptions contemplated would have serious ones. Maryland's Constitutional amendment recognizing the people's right referendum was passed against the backdrop the populist progressive movement the time, which aimed increase the accountability legislative bodies the best interests their constituents: The period during which the [Maryland] referendum amendment was being formulated and ratified, 1914 1915, was the heyday the Progressive movement. One the principal programs the Progressives was socalled direct legislation, lawmaking the electorate. The theory -and indeed the reality those times -was that laws passed legislatures were likely reflect the will political bosses rather than that the electorate. The vehicles direct legislation, the initiative and the referendum, were designed wrest control the processes legislation from the distrusted legislatures .... Only the referendum was adopted Maryland. 
Forged progressives, the intent the limited exception Maryland's referendum 
provision was therefore merely prevent the people from using their power stop the 
State from functioning entirely, otherwise attempt gradually bring about its 
demise: 
Jack Benoit Gohn, Interaction and Interpretation the Budget and Referendum Amendments the Maryland Constitution -Bayne Secretary State, Md. Rev. 558, 572 (1980). was arguably necessary check the referendum power providing that not used revoke appropriations absolutely necessary the survival government, and this rationale would completely explain the "maintaining the State Government" exception. But would hardly consonant with the goal popular check upon the legislative will that every appropriation government agency, for whatever purpose, matter how unnecessary the subsistence even the convenience government, should excepted well. This reading would exclude direct popular input from the budgeting process, far wider exclusion than necessary protect the state government from devastation referendum. 
Appellants, however, read the referendum exception way that would 
"exclude direct popular input from the budgeting process," well as, apparently, from 
most other legislative processes. Br. 11-12. Appellants mistakenly claim that this 
Court's decisions Kelly and Bickel Nice, 173 Md. (1937) support their argument 
for limiting the right referendum. Br. 11. They don't. Bickel, the Court 
exempted from referendum the State's decision raise and spend million construct office building Annapolis house state officers and employees. Kelly, the Court 
found that the General Assembly's decision raise and spend $420 million sports 
complex also was exempt from referendum. Kelly, 310 Md. 442. Neither these 
cases suggests that legislation like 167, which raises nothing and spends nothing, 
should also exempt from the right referendum. 
Appellants also err claiming that referenda Maryland are "concession 
organized minority," thus rendering them somehow disfavored less legitimate. Br. 
10, quoting Michigan State Dental Society Secretary State, 294 Mich. 503, 511 
(1940). the contrary, the right referendum the right all Marylanders check 
Id. 
the broad powers organized, temporary minority -their elected representatives. 
retaining the right referendum, Marylanders have chosen reserve themselves 
"larger share legislative power" republican form government. Kadderly 
Portland, Ore. 118, 145 (1903). invoking their right referendum, the people 
Maryland function ''third house" the legislature with the power reject 
approve controversial legislation.6 Over the past years, the people Maryland have 
used this power give their Hthird house" approval the General Assembly's expansion abortion rights and imposition strict gun control measures.8 Referenda these 
measures increased the measures' democratic legitimacy State with "organized" 
and politically conservative minority. This Court should decline Appellants' invitation 
Cronin 34-35; see also State rel. Marco/in Smith, 105 Ohio St. 570, 581
582 (1922) ("The policy stopping the enactment proposed law upon the ground 
conflict with the constitution never occurred the versatility and resourcefulness [the 
legal profession], long the general assembly had the sole power lawmaking. 
was too absurd proposition urge any respectable court; but after the people became 
the third house, and declared and safeguarded the constitution their right referendum 
upon those laws, the ingenuity counsel suggested that some way other 
injunction should issue prevent the sovereign people from exercising their sovereign 
right the constitution adopt reject proposed law, upon the ground that such law, 
when adopted, would conflict with the constitution, state federal. That is, 
nobody ever thought enjoining the servants. That was preposterous, but now 
ferfectly legal enjoin their masters, the sovereign people."). 
Sean Sedam, The ruling, the referendum, the controversy: Approaching the 
35th anniversary Roe Wade, Maryland remembers the 1992 vote that changed the 
argument here, Maryland Community Newspapers Online (Jan. 18, 2008) available 
Irvin Molotsky, Gun Control Backers Say Maryland Victory Will Spread Other 
States, New York Times (Nov. 13, 1988) available http://www.nytimes.com/1988 
I11113/us/ gun-control-backers-say-maryland-victory-will-spread-to-other
states 

use the present case limit Maryland citizens' right approve reject controversial 
legislation expanding the exception referrability legislation referenda. 
II. 167 Does Not Direct Spending for Maintaining State Government Otherwise. 
Appellants devote the overwhelming majority their brief advancing several 
theories why 167 directs spending and therefore constitutes "appropriation" 
for purposes the referendum exception. Br. 12-22, 24-25. However, 
demonstrated below, each these attempts fails when examined closely. 167 Does Not Direct Spending Conjunction with the order claim that 167 spending measure, Appellants paint distorted 
picture Maryland law and the legislative processes which provides support 
higher education. Appellants' argument rests heavily the assertion that 167 
mandates State spending because previously enacted legislation known the Cade 
Funding Formula. These claims include: 
 
"The Maryland DREAM Act thus increases the number student credit hours that count for purposes determining the number "full time equivalent students" under the Cade Funding onnula. Thus, long some number individuals qualifies for the reduced tuition, the law directly requires and mandates increase the amounts appropriated for the community colleges, under the Cade Funding Formula, future fiscal years." Br. 
 	"As noted, the Fiscal Note prepared the Department explains that, with respect State expenditure, the DREAM Act would, operating through and tandem with the Cade Funding onnula for state aid community colleges, directly require increase future appropriations .... Br. 
15. 
 
"In this case, the change tuition eligibility requirements will directly require increased spending for aid community colleges, under the Cade Formula beginning Fiscal Year 2014, even though the precise amount unknown." Br. 16. 
 
"The Maryland DREAM Act literally. directly and specifically "assign[ public monies particular use purpose," Kelly, 310 Md. 456, mandating specific increases the appropriations for comm.unity colleges under the Cade Funding Formula." Br. 
 
''Thus, the Maryland DREAM Act was understood, the General Assembly, measure that would directly result increases future appropriations, future Budget Bills, changing the value certain variables used calculating aid community colleges under the Cade Funding Formula." Br. 19. 
 
"For these reasons, the Maryland DREAM Act must considered together, and construed effectively one measure, with the Cade Funding Formula and the future Budget Bills that will implement the increases spending mandated the DREAM Act explained the Fiscal Note considered the General Assembly when the measure was passed." Br. 
20. 
None these claims accurate. State support for higher education Maryland 
determined year-to-year basis the Governor and General Assembly through the 
annual budgetary process. Contrary Appellants' attempt portray otherwise, State 
support for community colleges not mandated such way convert general 
policy tuition eligibility into fixed spending measure. 
Appellants' argument rests misreading the Cade Funding Formula. The 
formula seeks ensure that community colleges are not forgotten during the annual 
budget process and that the support they receive from the State proportional the 
support received public four-year institutions. first step, the Cade Formula 
requires that annual budget bill presented the Governor the General Assembly 
include State support for community colleges based upon percentage the State 
support included for public four-year institutions.9 Md. Code Ann., Educ.
305(cXI)(i) (hereinafter, "Cade Step l"). Cade Step represents only the "first draft" 
the State's annual budget. 
Importantly, Cade Step does not require the Governor propose any specific 
dollar amount for community college spending. Rather, the proposed amount 
spending for community colleges -even the first draft the budget bill -is tied the 
proposed amount spending for public four-year institutions. The proposed amount 
spending for four-year institutions left the Governor's discretion.10 example, the Governor initially proposes million for four-year institutions, the Cade Formula 
would require the Governor propose $240,000 for community colleges the initial 
budget bill, assuming the Cade onnula was set for that particular year. the 
The Cade Step percentages can elastic from year year. For example, 
before 2009, the Cade Step corrununity college guideline percentage for 2013 was 30%. 
Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305 note (Effect Amendments); see also 2009 Laws 
Maryland, ch. 487,  2009, the General Assembly reduced this figure 27%. Id. 2010, was reduced again and 2011, was further reduced 19%. Id.; 
see also20 Laws Maryland, ch. 484,  2011 Laws Maryland, ch. 497,  Not 
only the Cade Step percentages change substantially even after they have been set, 
but the legislature can eliminate them entirely any given year. For example, 
enacting the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of2010, the Governor and the 
General Assembly abandoned percentage formula altogether and instead set state 
funding for community colleges flat amount for both Fiscal Year 2011 and Fiscal 
Year 2012. 2010 Laws ofMaryland, ch. 484,  See State Maryland's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 
22, 2011, 23, fn. ("For example, the Cade Funding Formula allocates funding for 
community colleges full-time equivalent student basis fraction the amount 
funding allocated for students four-year institutions. Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305. 
Thus, any appropriation necessarily dependent hypothetical increase the amount the General Fund appropriation the Governor decides appropriate request for 
those institutions under the executive budget system."). 
Governor wishes, the Governor can increase this proposed support for community colleges increasing proposed support for four-year institutions million (in which case, State support for community colleges would double). Similarly, the Governor can decrease the proposed amount State support for community colleges decreasing the proposed amount State support for four-year institutions $500,000 (in which case, State support for the community college would halved). So, even Cade Step the Governor retains substantial discretion detennine how much State support propose 

for community colleges any given year. Rather than mandating actual spending, the Cade Funding Formula merely acts means ensuring that some level support for community colleges proposed this stage the budget process and that the proposed level proportionate the proposed level support for public four-year institutions. 
The General Assembly's consideration the Governor's budget proposal, which for the sake convenience can called "Cade Step 2," demonstrates how untethered actual State support for community colleges from the support proposed the Governor under the Cade Formula. The General Assembly has any number options Cade Step Among its various options, the General Assembly can accept both the Governor's proposal for State support for four-year institutions and the Cade Formula percentage for State support for community colleges. also can accept the Governor's proposal for State support for four-year institutions, but reduce the Cade Formula percentage, thereby reducing the Governor's proposed level State support for community colleges. can reduce the Governor's proposal for State support for four
year institutions and accept the Cade Formula percentage, thereby also reducing the 
Governor's proposed level State support for community colleges. can completely disregard the entire formula and independently set the level State support for community colleges long that level does not exceed the Governor's proposal for community college support. also can enact supplemental spending measure that provides greater support for community colleges than proposed the Governor long the supplemental measure includes equivalent revenue raising measure. The Governor and the General Assembly engage this decision-making process for State support for higher education every single year. short, Cade Step demonstrates how nothing the Cade Formula actually fixes the amount support the State ultimately 
provides community colleges any given year .11 
Finally, after all aspects Maryland's total higher education spending for given year have been debated, deliberated upon, revised, negotiated, passed into law, and then reconciled with expected revenue, the Cade Formula once again plays minor role the disbursement funds most the community colleges Maryland under what can called "Cade Step 3".11 this stage, the amount State support for community 
colleges ultimately settled upon the General Assembly Cade Step divided 
among the community colleges Maryland (Baltimore City Community 
Appellants' counsel acknowledged this fact when stated oral argument that the Governor's annual Budget Bill "can subject later adjustment the --downward the General Assembly." Transcript Proceedings, January 27, 2012, 20: 12-13. Counsel continued," ... obviously, the budget bill can adjusted the General Assembly, the --that's exactly what they did with the Cade funding formula last year and believe the year before." Id. 20:24-21 :2. this third stage, the Cade Formula does not affect funding for four-year institutions any way. Nor does affect funding for Baltimore City Community College. Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305(b)(4). 
College given separate consideration). Cade Step dictates that State support for these community colleges distributed proportion each community college's number "full time equivalent students," which calculated based upon the number "student credit hours" each community college produced the preceding two year period. Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-305(b)(7), 16-305(b)(l2). "Student credit hours," tum, means 
college credits awarded in-state students. Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-305(b)(l2); 
COMAR  13B.07 .02.03. 
Although not entirely clear from their briet Appellants appear assert that Cade Step where 167 transformed into spending bill. demonstrated 
above, however, 167, working conjunction with Cade Step would not direct 
require the State Maryland spend single dime more community colleges than 
does today. This because Cade Step occurs after the Governor and General 
Assembly have already decided how much money appropriate for community colleges any given year. The impact Cade Step spending even less than the impact 
Cade Step Cade Step 
Put another way, based the above-described processes, 167 causes 
additional 10, 100, 1,000 qualified, unlawfully present alien students enroll 
community college Maryland tomorrow, the Governor and General Assembly will 
continue have the exact same discretion that they have always had deciding how 
much State support provide community any given year. more fulltime 
students seek attend community college future years and the State wishes keep its 
support for community colleges the same level prior years, the Governor and the 
General Assembly retain the discretion maintain that same level support regardless 
ofthe policy change made 167. Or, the State wishes reduce its support for 
community colleges future years, could well regardless the Cade Formula 167. With without 167, the Governor retains discretion propose State 
support for community colleges whatever amount she believes appropriate 
based his her power propose State support for public four-year institutions, and 
the General Assembly retains the discretion adopt reduce the Governor's proposals. 167 does not directly indirectly require any particular level state support for 
community colleges. 
Indeed, the Circuit Court correctly found that, regardless the enactment 
167, State support for community colleges remains dependent number variables, 
including the discretion the Governor and the General Assembly: 
Assuming, arguendo, that the Court does fact need consider [Senate Bill 167 and the Cade Formula] together, future appropriation would dependent number variables, including there being increase eligible students, the Cade Formula remaining unaltered the General Assembly Governor, and any alteration the appropriation the General Assembly before the Budget Bill passed. 
JRE (emphasis added). "Mandated Appropriation" Not "Spending," Whether 167 "Affects" "Mandated Irrelevant. their brief, Appellants repeatedly use the words "mandated appropriation" 
describe 167, equating this label with actual spending. However, the term "mandated 
appropriation" does not mean what Appellants assert means. item "mandated 
appropriation," means that the Governor must propose funding for the item the first 
draft the annual budget presented the General Assembly -not that the Governor 
the General Assembly have discretion determine the actual level spending for the 
item any given year. 
The idea that 167 affects "mandated appropriation" and therefore causes 
spending key element Appellants' argument. They state: 
 
"The Fiscal Note for the bill, prepared the Department Legislative Services, concludes that 'This bill affects mandated appropriation.' (emphasis original)). For these reasons, the Maryland DREAM Act law 'making any appropriation for maintaining the State Government' ... Br. 
 
"The Fiscal Note prepared the Department Legislative Services for the Maryland DREAM Act 32) concludes that 'This bill affects mandated appropriation' 32} (emphasis original}}, thereby indicating that, under Md. Code Ann., State Gov't  2-1505(e)(3), the bill 'requires mandated appropriation.'" Br. 
 
"In the case now before the Court, the Department Legislative Services found that the Maryland DREAM Act 'affects mandated appropriation' 32)-specific language indicating that law 'requires mandated appropriation.' Md. Code Ann., State Gov't  2-1505(e)(3)." Br. 15. 
 
"Before the members the General Assembly, during their consideration 167, was the Fiscal Note for the bill, highlighting that this "bill affects mandated appropriation." 32)." Br. 17. 
But the phrase "mandated appropriation" actually term art Maryland 
legislative procedure. "Mandated appropriation" merely changes the dynamic between 
the Governor's and the General Assembly particular item during the budget process. does not actually "mandate" any spending; just means the first changes the amount 
budgeted for the item must made the General Assembly instead the Governor. 
The text the relevant statute reads: 
"Mandated appropriation" means requirement bill that the Governor provide certain level funding the annual budget bill for specific program the State. 
Md. Code Ann., State Gov't  2-ISOl(d). 
The Maryland Constitution explains that mandated appropriations are merely 
amounts that have included the initial budget bill the Governor submits the 
General Assembly. Md. Const. art. Ill, 52(11), (12). Appellants' counsel admitted the trial court below, once the Governor proposes amount the budget bill, the 
General Assembly can then revise it. Transcript Proceedings, January 27, 2012, 
20:24-25 ("...obviously, the budget bill can adjusted the General Assembly ... "). 167 Does Not Cause under Law. 
Appellants are wrong liken 167 the legislation issue Kelly and 
Winebrenner Salmon, 155 Md.563 (1928). Br. 13-15, 17. The legislation those 
cases was quite distinct, and those holdings support affirmance the Circuit Court's 
ruling, not its reversal. issue Winebrenner was the imposition new gasoline tax, the proceeds 
which were used build public wads the State. Appellants quote dicta from 
Winebrenner speculating whether the enactment issue was self-effectuating (Br. 
14), but the spending Winebrenner was assured: "[the bill] fulfills itself all the 
requirements supplemental appropriation act authorized the budget amendment." 
Winebrenner, 155 Md. 567. More importantly, Appellants ignore the facts that (1) the enactment also included tax that unquestionably was revenue raising measure, and (2) 
the petitioners had asked that the entire bill subject referendum, including all taxing 
and spending portions. Id. 571. The Court noted that the petitioners that case had 
sought take only the policy portions the bill referendum, those portions could 
have been subject referendum. Id. Winebrenner confirms that 167 not 
appropriation. 
Appellants' discussion Kelly (Br. 14-15) inapplicable the present case. 
Kelly held that spending and revenue bills are "appropriations" within the meaning the 
referendum exception. But unlike the present case, the Kelly court actually had 
spending and revenue bill before it. issue Kelly was "intricate financing 
mechanism" that permitted the State "receive and expend public monies" obtain 
site and construct Oriole Park Camden Yards and Bank Stadium. The key 
provision the enactment issue Kelly, Chapter 124, authorized the Maryland 
Stadium Authority ("the Authority"), State instrumentality, raise and expend specific 
amounts money: $85 million for site acquisition, $70 million for construction 
baseball stadium, $70 million for construction football stadium, and $195 million for construction multi-use stadium. Kelly, 310 Md. 442. This same provision also 
gave the Authority the power issue bonds for financing the project, created new sports 
lotteries raise funds for the project, and required annual payment from the City 
Baltimore, among other fund raising measures. Id. 442-44. concluding that Chapter 
124 constituted "appropriation," the Court found: authorizes the borrowing funds through the issuance bonds, the disbursement those funds through the Authority's Financing Fund, and the payment the Authority's bonded indebtedness through monies directed paid the State the Authority through annual 
appropriations the Budget Bill, the City Baltimore, and through the 
Authority's own revenues included its Financing Fund. 
Kelly, 310 Md. 460-61. Unlike Chapter 124, 167 does not authorize the 
expenditure receipt any public monies, much less any specific quantity public 
monies. Nor does create any "intricate financing mechanism." contains 
borrowing, funding, financing mechanism all. 167 nothing more than policy 
choice that extends eligibility pay reduced, in-state in-county tuition new 
category persons. not appropriation under Kelly. 
Importantly, the legislation both Winebrenner and Kelly raised and spent money their own terms, independent future budget decisions the General Assembly. 
bears repeating that the Court Kelly was considering legislation raise $420 million 
through bond issuances spend construction sports stadium, without regard 
any future actions the General Assembly. not difficult see why the legislation issue Kelly was not subject referendum. The Circuit Court correctly concluded 
that 167 does not remotely resemble bill raising $420 million for sports complex, 
and that 167 does not affect spending direct future spending, whether considered its own conjunction with future legislation. 167 has any effect spending all, both extremely tenuous and impossible predict. See JRE ("Any future 
impact the state's budget that could result from the Maryland Dream Act merely 
incidental result law aiming change policy."). 167 most analogous the enactment issue Dorsey. that case, the 
General Assembly enacted legislation creating new "Commission Fisheries" 
regulate the tidewater fisheries the State. The new legislation gave the new 
commission certain duties and powers, including the power hire employees whose 
salaries were appropriated the State's annual Budget Bill, and the power charge 
inspection fees and impose monetary fines, both which were paid the 
Comptroller the State Treasury. The Court Appeals rejected the argument that these 
"incidental" revenue raising and spending measures transformed general law into 
''appropriation" for purposes Article XVI, Section 
All the features appropriation are thus negatived, and cannot 
maintained that [the provision] regulates the manner which public funds 
are annually supplied and applied the conservation the tidewater 
fisheries the state. the contrary, the statute the kind clearly 
indicated the Referendum Amendment being within its purview. 
Dorsey, 178 Md. 248. 167 does not even contain the "incidental" spending 
revenue raising provisions contained the statute issue Dorsey. Again, 167 
contains provisions for spending raising public funds all. Like the statute issue Dorsey, 167 does not "regulate(] the manner which public funds are 
annually supplied and applied" post-secondary public education Maryland. Instead, mere policy choice that makes new category persons eligible pay reduced 
in-state and in-county tuition. 
The Legislative History 167 Does Not Demonstrate 

Appellants also incorrectly argue that the General Assembly either believed 
intended that 167 would direct future spending. Br. 18. First, they misread the 
Fiscal Note from the Department Legislative Services indicating 167 was 
"significant spending measure." Id. They then argue that the Senate debate whether send the bill the Senate Budget Taxation Committee ("Budget Committee") 
probative that claim. Id. 18-19. Neither assertion withstands scrutiny. During the 
recorded debate whether refer 167 the Budget Committee,13 Senators made 
the following points: 
 
Between 50% and 80% all bills have Fiscal Notes attached and usually not get sent the Budget Committee. the legislature were start 
doing each time, would "radically change" the way they conduct 
business. Session 9:08. 
 was specifically decided not send 167 the Budget Committee 
because there were "so many variables involved that referring [the Budget Committee] wouldn't any good terms getting any hard numbers." Session 9:39 10:12. 
 
There rule requiring that bills with Fiscal Notes must referred the Budget Committee any case. Session 10:50 11:00. 

Also, Delegate Neil Parrott testified affidavit, the Appropriations Committee the House Delegates did not consider 167 either, and that Committee would 
consider bills that make actual appropriations. JRE 98. lawmaker submitted 
sworn statement any kind contradicting this evidence the Circuit Court. 
Appellants' citations the Fiscal Note the Department Legislative Services 
(Br. 17) tell similarly incomplete story. Here what the Department ofLegislative 
Services said about whether 167 would have impact college funding 
revenues: 
Public Institutions Higher Education -Tuition Rates-Exemptions: Debate 
S.B. 167, March 2011, Session #1(Md.2011) available http://mlis.state.rnd.us/ mgaweb/pyaudio.aspx ("Session") (at 4:45 19:52). 

 	
"Therefore, despite the differences tuition levels for in-state and out-of
state students, tuition revenues most institutions will not materially 
affected." JRE 38. 

 	
''At most USM institutions, out-of-state students make more than 
10% undergraduates the impact the bill will not significant." 
JRE 39. 

 	
"However, the extent undocumented students would not have otherwise 
enrolled because they could not afford pay out-of-state tuition, the 
institutions increase undergraduate enrollment overall, the impact may 
minimal." JRE 39. 

 	
"There little information available the number additional students 
who might qualify for resident tuition, thus the general fund expenditure 
increase cannot reliably estimated." JRE 39. 

 	
"Overall, assumed that the bill has negligible net impact total 
community college tuition revenues." JRE 41. sum, the legislative history 167 does not demonstrate that the General 
Assembly believed the measure appropriation that directs future spending. 
anything, the opposite the case. 167 Was Not Enacted for the Purpose Maintaining State Government. addition not being "appropriation" for purposes Article XVI, Section 167 was not enacted for the purpose of"maintaining State government." its face, 
Article XVI, Section differentiates between "State government" and "public 
institutions." Kelly, the Court Appeals declared that public institutions "do not 
necessarily perform government functions and are largely supported private capital. 
Moreover, public institutions are not controlled the State, although the State may 
given voice their management." Kelly, 310 Md. 475 (quoting Op. Md. Att'y 
Gen. 228, 237 (1927)). has long been recognized that the tenn "public institution" 
referenced Article XVI, Section relates "educational and eleemosynary 
institutions, sometimes designated State-aided institutions." Id. 
Maryland community colleges and "public senior higher education institutions'' 
are the very picture the "public institutions" described Kelly. They are much more part of"County government" then they are part of''State government.'' See, e.g., Md. Code Ann., Educ. 16-101, 16-301, 16-304, and 16-305. They are created the county counties that they serve. Specifically, the governing body the county served community college appropriates money "pay the cost establishing and operating community college regional community college." Id. at 16-304(a); see also id. at 16-305. The community colleges themselves are governed boards 
trustees that "exercise general control over the community college" and appoint president who "responsible for the conduct the community college and for the administration and supervision its departments." Id. at 16-103(c) and 16-104(b)(4). Each year, community colleges prepare and submit budgets the connties they serve, not the General Assembly, and the counties, not the General Assembly, that approve the community colleges' budgets. Id. at 16-30l(a) and (e). Community colleges may borrow money, but any such borrowing does not "create constitute debt obligation the State" and does not "constitute debt obligation the General Assembly pledge the full faith and credit the State." Id. at 16-302(d). Rather than being "State government," community colleges are most "public institutions" 
"State-aided institutions." 
Maryland's "public senior higher education institutions," are "independent units" State government. Id. at 12-102(a)(3) (University System Maryland) and 14101(a)(3) (Morgan State University). Each governed its own Board Regents Board Trustees. Id. at 10-208, 12-102(b) and 12-104 (University System Maryland); 14-102 and 14-104 (Morgan State University); and 14-402 and 14-404 (St. Mary's College Maryland). law, the Board Regents the University System Maryland "may not superseded its authority any other State agency office managing the affairs the University System Maryland any constituent 
institutions and centers under the Board's jurisdiction." Id. at 12-104(c)(3). Likewise, the Board Regents Morgan State University "may not superseded its authority any other State agency office managing the affairs the University." Id. at 14-104(a)(2). similar provision applies the Board Trustees St. Mary's College Maryland. Id. at 14-404(bX2). Each institution sets its own tuition and fees. Id. at 10-208(6) (University System Maryland); 14-1040)(1) (Morgan State University); and 14-404(a) (granting the Board Trustees St. Mary's College "all the powers, rights, and privileges" for governance and management the College). Like community colleges, both the University System Maryland and St. Mary's College Maryland 
have authority borrow money, but such borrowing does not create constitute debt obligation the State debt obligation contracted the General Assembly. Id. at 12-105(c) (University System Maryland) and 14-405(d) (St. Mary's College Maryland). Nor does pledge the full faith and credit the State. Id. 
Nor are these public institutions postsecondary education "performing government functions." Postsecondary education Maryland also includes the great many private colleges and universities the State. Obviously, these private institutions are not "performing government functions." Unlike primary and secondary education, which more traditional, but not exclusive, "government function," postsecondary education not compulsory. purely voluntary and therefore further removed from typical "government function." Public community colleges and four-year institutions also receive substantial quantities of"private capital" -the tuition and fees paid the 
students who attend them. Kelly, 310 Md. 475. Moreover, the provision postsecondary education nothing all like the "government functions" issue the other cases applying Article XVI, Section 167 exactly the type policy change 
unrelated the maintenance State government that falls well within the people's right referendum. Because 167 concerns "public institutions/' not "State Government," the 
limitation the people's right referendum contained Article XVI, Section even 
narrower. The people retain the right vote for themselves enactments the 
General Assembly that increase State aid public institutions: 
The framers intended that the people should have check upon the amount money expended the legislature for the maintenance aid public institutions, not owned controlled the State is, therefore, not improper, when providing check upon legislative power, reserve the people the right control any extensions increases State aid such institutions. The reference such increases should not impair the State government the exercise its normal functions, whereas appropriations for the executive, legislative and judicial branches the Government must provided, accordance with the financial needs these departments, without hindrance delay. 
Kelly, 310 Md. 475. "That this now the law ofMaryland beyond all question." Id. 
Because Appellants expressly and specifically contend that 167 increases the amount State support for community colleges (Br. and 16), would not subject the limitation the right referendum contained Article XVI, Section even 167 were found "appropriation." Consequently, 167 subject referendum matter law for this additional reason well. 
III. 167 Does Not Regulate Tuition Public Four-Year Institutions. 
Appellants also are wrong when they argue that 167 "directly regulates the 
amount tuition revenue'' collected four-year institutions. Br. 22-23. fact, 
167 has bearing the level which four-year institutions set the rates they charge 
students for in-state and out-of-state tuition. Rather, 167 only affects students' 
eligibility for these different rates. Four-year institutions may also raise their tuition 
response their enrollments and costs. Md. Code Ann., Educ.  12-109( )(7). 
Nothing about 167 limits these institutions' discretion adjust tuition rates 
whatever level they deem necessary raise the revenue they require. See Md. Code 
Ann., Educ. 10-208(6), 14-1040)(1), and 14-404(a). Furthermore, four-year 
institutions can also decide how many in-state and out-of-state students admit, 
maintaining balance revenues. JRE 38. institution determines that needs 
increase overall tuition rates accommodate any students who qualify for in-state tuition 
rates under the new policy, nothing 167 prevents the institution from doing so. 
167 does not directly indirectly regulate the amount tuition collected any four14
year institution.
But all this academic. Appellants have already waived any argument that 167 revenue bill. oral argument the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, Appellants' counsel conceded that Senate Bill 167 was not revenue provision: 
[By Mr. Sandler] The issue whether - this --nobody arguing this has anything with raising revenue, the question here what type spending bill non-referable under Article 16. 
Transcript Proceedings, January 27, 2012, 15:16-19. The Circuit Court expressly noted this concession its ruling, HPlaintiffs conceded that [Senate Bill 167] does not raise revenue ... The Court will therefore focus its analysis whether [Senate Bill 167] spending measure within the meaning the Appropriation Exception." JRE 21. Accordingly, this Court does not need decide whether 167 exempt from referendum revenue measure because the lower court did not have the opportunity consider it. Maryland State Bd. Elec. Libertarian Party, 2012 Md. LEXIS 287 *4748 (May 21, 2012 Md.) ("Pursuant Maryland Rule 8-13/(a), appellate court ordinarily will not consider any point question unless plainly appears the record have been raised decided the trial court.") (internal quotations omitted); see 167 does not change the revenue received Maryland community colleges either. more students eligible for reduced, in-state in-county tuition enroll, community colleges may simply raise tuition obtain more support from the county counties they serve. Md. Code Ann., Educ.  16-1030). 
also Colie State, 193 Md. 608, 612 (1949) ("[W]ithout opportunity for the trial court pass upon the question, there nothing for this Court review."). 
IV. 	The Court Should Affirm the Judgment the Circuit Court Without Reaching the Complex Constitutional Question Raised Appellants. 
This Court may affinn the Circuit Court's judgment any grounds supported 
the record. United Parcel Serv. People's Counsel, 336 Md. 569, 585 (1994) ("It true 
that when appellate court reviews the judgment trial court direct appeal, the 
appellate court ordinarily will affirm the judgment any ground adequately shown 
the record even though the trial court may not have ruled upon such ground"). 
Under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209, two types judicial review are 
permitted for challenging State Board Elections decisions certifying legislation for 
popular referendum. Under Section 6-209(a), person aggrieved determination [of 
the Board Elections] ... may seek judicial review ... "and the reviewing court 
authorized grant relief"as considers appropriate." Doe Montgomery County 
Board Elections, 406 Md. 697, 715 (2008); Under Section 6-209(b), contrast, 
reviewing court authorized grant only declaratory relief "upon the complaint any 
registered voter." Doe, 406 Md. 715; Md. Code Ann., Blee. Law 6-209(b). 
Appellants neither pied their claims sufficiently avoid dismissal under Rule
322(c) nor supported their factual contentions with any evidence. fundamental rule trial practice that parties facing summary judgment must support their factual 
contentions with evidence that would admissible trial. Vanhook Merchants 
Mutual Ins. Co., Md. App. 22, (1974). also fundamental that "facts alleged 
pleadings are not, that means alone, before the court facts for summary judgment 
purposes." Id. 27. Appellants had ample opportunity substantiate their claims with 
evidence that would admissible trial, but they failed so. They did not present 
single declaration affidavit any other evidence demonstrating who they were how 
they were entitled any relief. 
Appellee-Intervener plainly raised these issues below. JRE 14-20; Transcript 
Proceedings, January 27, 2012, 28: 16-32-17. The Circuit Court could have dismissed 
Appellants' claims entered summary judgment against Appellants without considering 
whether 167 "appropriation" for purposes Article XVI, Section the 
Maryland Constitution. 
Given these failings, there reason for this Court consider the drastic and 
unprecedented limitation the people's constitutional right referendum advocated 
Appellants. See Maryland State Bd. Elec., 2012 Md. LEXIS 287, *51 n.12 (May 21, 
2012 Md.) ("Thus, decision constitutional question not necessary for proper 
disposition the case, will not reach it.")(internal quotations omitted). The "concept constitutional avoidance" counsels otherwise. Id. 	Appellants John Doe and Casa Maryland Failed Properly Plead Substantiate Their Claims. 
Appellants John Doe and Casa Maryland invoked the "aggrieved" persons 
provision Section 6-209(a) and alleged that they were aggrieved determination 
made the State Board Education pursuant Section 6-208(a). JRE 49, 50, 52, 
57, and 66. Appellant John Doe never pled facts nor offered any evidence substantiate claim that qualified for in-state in-county tuition under 167. Specifically, Appellant John Doe failed plead substantiate any claim that attended public non-public secondary school Maryland for least three years, required 167. See Md. Code Ann., Educ. 15-106.S(b)(l). Appellant John Doe also failed plead 
substantiate any claim that would could provide the affidavit required 167 condition receiving reduced in-state in-county tuition. See Md. Code Ann., Educ. 
 15-106.8(b)(5). Third, Appellant John Doe also failed plead substantiate any 
claim that had complied with his selective service registration obligation, required 167.15 See Md. Code Ann., Educ. 15-106.8(b)(6). Thus, Appellant John Doe's 
claims suffered from fatal lack both pleading and proof with respect establishing 
his eligibility for reduced tuition under 167, and summary judgment was properly 
entered against him. addition, order "aggrieved" for purposes Section 6-209( a), 
plaintiffs interests must personally and specifically affected way different from 
the public generally. Doe, 406 Md. 716 (quoting Sugarloaf Citizens' Assoc. Dep't 
Env 't, 344 Md. 271 (1996)). "aggrieved" person must suffer some "special damage" 
differing character and kind from that suffered member the general public. Id. 716-717 (quoting Jordan Towing, Inc. Hebbville Auto Repair, Inc., 369 Md. 439, 
433 (2002)). Moreover, that "special damage" must caused determination made 
See U.S.C.  453 and 454 (2011). the State Board Elections under one the three specific provisions listed Section 
6-209(a). Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209(a). 
Appellant John Doe's claim of"special damage" -harm his plans attend community college -was too remote, too speculative, and too far removed from any determination the State Board Elections. did not even attempt associate his alleged injury one the three provisions specifically listed Section 6-209(a), much less substantiate any such claim with actual evidence. addition, Appellant John Doe did not plead substantiate any claim that attends community college Maryland that has concrete, specific plans the near future, much less before the November 2012 election. Nor did plead substantiate any claim that had change delay specific, present plans may have had attend community college Maryland. merely alleged that had vague wish attend community college 
some indefinite time the future could save enough money from his part-time job. JRE 49-50. This itself legally dubious prospect, given that, under federal law, U.S. employers must check make sure that all employees are authorized work the United States and illegal knowingly employ unlawfully present alien. U.S.C.  1324a. Thus, Appellant John Doe could not claim and did not prove that was personally and specifically harmed determination made the State Board Elections under Section 6-202, 6-206, 6-208(a)(2) way that different from any other members the general public. did not claim prove that had any "special damage," and therefore that had standing bring suit. Doe, 406 Md. 716. Because Appellant John Doe also failed submit affidavit any other evidence 
substantiating any such allegations special damage, summary judgment was properly 
entered against him for this reason well. 
Appellant Casa Maryland also failed plead substantiate any claim 
"aggrieved" person under Section 6-209(a). Appellant Casa Maryland alleged that 
would have raise and expend additional funds because unlawfully present aliens would unable attend college without in-state tuition and therefore would earn less money, 
resulting greater demand for its services. JRE 52-53. That claim was too 
generalized, too remote, too speculative, and too far removed from any determination 
made the State Board Elections constitute the type "special damage" that 
would have entitle Appellant Casa Maryland any relief even had submitted any 
actual evidence support its factual contentions. Doe, 406 Md. 716. The fact that 
Appellant Casa Maryland failed submit any evidence whatsoever provides yet 
another reason why summary judgment was properly entered against it. 	The "Registered Voter Appellants" Failed Properly Plead Substantiate Their Claims. 
Appellants Jesus Alberto Martinez, Abby Hendrix, Katherine Ross-Keller, Kim 
Samele, Camden Douglas Lee, and Catherine Brennan ("the Registered Voter 
Appellants") invoked the "registered voter" provision Section 6-209(b) and sought 
declaratory relief only. IRE 51, 52, 57, and 69. The claims the Registered Voter 
Appellants also suffered from fundamental failure both pleading and proof. 
Section 6-209(b) authorizes reviewing court "grant declaratory relief any 
petition with respect the provision this title other provisions law" "[p ]ursuant the Maryland Unifonn Declaratory Judgments Act and upon the complaint any registered voter." Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(b). The existence justiciable controversy absolute prerequisite declaratory judgment action under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act ("UDJA"). Boyds Civic Ass Montgomery Cnty. Council, 309 Md. 683, 689 (1987); Hatt Anderson, 297 Md. 42, 1983 Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc.  3-409( a). controversy justiciable when 
interested parties assert adverse claims upon state facts that must have accrued and which legal decision sought demanded. Hatt, 297 Md. 45-46. The issue decided must present more than mere difference opinion between the parties. Hatt, 297 Md. 45. Moreover, the existence justiciable issue "is especially important principle cases seeking adjudicate constitutional rights; such instances ordinarily require concrete and specific issues raised actual cases, rather than theoretical abstract propositions." Hatt, 297 Md. 46. 
The Registered Voter Appellants fell far short pleading substantiating any 
claim about the existence justiciable controversy between themselves and Appellees. 
They neither alleged nor substantiated any facts demonstrating the existence "actual 
controversy" the presence "antagonistic claims" between the parties. Md. Code 
Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc. 3-409(a)(1) and (2). Nor did the Registered Voter Appellants 
plead substantiate any facts about ''legal relation, status, right, privilege" that was 
being "challenged denied" Appellees. Id. at 3-409(a)(3}. 
Because the Registered Voter Appellants' claims involve the Constitutional right 
ofMaryland citizens vote legislation referendum, was even more important 
that "concrete and specific issue[] raised [an] actual case[]." Hatt, 297 Md. 46. The Registered Voter Appellants clearly did not satisfy this exacting standard. The three paragraphs the Amended Complaint that identified Appellants Martinez, Lee, and Brerman did not even mention 167. Appellant Martinez alleged that was 
''undocumented immigrant" when entered the United States and became successful 
ophthalmic surgeon. JRE 51. Appellant Lee alleged that was University 
Maryland -College Park student who believes that policies that promote affordable 
access college for all srudents would have enhanced his university experience. JRE 
52. Appellant Brennan alleged was her belief that, immigrant students and veterans were able attend college Maryland's public institutions, would enhance her young children's K-12 and college experiences. JRE 52. The three paragraphs the Amended Complaint that identify Appellants Hendrix, Ross-Keller, and Samele contain only the vaguest references their beliefs about 167. Appellant Hendrix alleged that she believes every student should have the opportunity attend college and that 167 would promote college attendance. JRE 51. Appellant Ross-Keller alleged that she believes the statute would benefit the "citizens Maryland" providing for more educated population. IRE 51. Appellant Samele alleged that she believes 167 would benefit public school teachers providing hope for students. JRE 51. 
None the above assertions demonstrated how any the Registered Voter Appellants are being harmed any actions Appellees the referral 167 referendum. Any dispute the Registered Voter Appellants might have regarding 167 -and, again, justiciable dispute was evident below -is not dispute with Appellees. 
Rather, dispute with persons who not share the Registered Voter Appellants' 
opinions about the statute. difference opinion does not constitute justiciable 
controversy, however. Hatt, 297 Md. 45. Because the Registered Voter Appellants 
failed allege the existence justiciable controversy, they were not entitled relief 
under the UDJA and judgment was properly entered against them. Because the 
Registered Voter Appellants also failed submit any evidence substantiating the 
existence justiciable controversy between themselves and Appellees, summary 
judgment was properly entered against them for this additional reason, and the Court 
need not address the constitutional question whether 167 appropriation" for 
purposes Article XVI, Section 
CONCLUSION 
For all the foregoing reasons, the decision the Circuit Court should 
AFFIRMED. 
Dated: May 30, 2012 
Font: Times New Roman, point 
Respectfully Submitted, 
Paul Orfanedes 
Md. Bar No. 9112190026 Chris edeli 
Md. Bar No. 0012120179 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washing.ton, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Fax: (202) 646-5199 Email: porfanedes@judicialwatch.org 
cfedeli@judicialwatch.org 
Attorneys for Appellee-Intervener Petitions.com 

CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 301h day May, 2012, caused true and correct copy the foregoing BRIEF APPELLEEINTERVENER MDPETITIONS.COM served, via email and first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, the following: 
Joseph Sandler Elizabeth Getman 
SANDLER, REIFF, YOUNG LAMB, P.C. 1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, 20005 
Brett Marston 
Michael Harris 
Laura Cofer Taylor ARNOLD PORTER 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, 20004 
Matthew Fader 
Jeffrey Darsie 
Assistant Attorney Generals Beatrice Nunez-Bellamy Attorney 
OFFICE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor 
Baltimore, 21202-2021 
CITATION AND VERBATIM TEXT PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL 
PROVISIONS, STATUTES, ORDINANCES, RULES, 

AND REGULATIONS 

Md. Const. art. XVI,  (2012) 

Section Reservation power referendum people; article self-executing; additional legislation 
(a) 
The people reserve themselves power known The Referendum, petition have submitted the registered voters the State, approve reject the polls, any Act, part any Act the General Assembly, approved the Governor, or, passed the General Assembly over the veto the Governor; 

(b) 
The provisions this Article shall self-executing; provided that additional legislation furtherance thereof and not conflict therewith may enacted. 

Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann.  3409 (2012) 
 3-409. Discretionary relief 
(a) general. --Except provided subsection this section, cowt may grant declaratory judgment decree civil case, will serve tenninate the uncertainty controversy giving rise the proceeding, and if: 

(1) actual controversy exists between contending parties; 

(2) 
Antagonistic claims are present between the parties involved which indicate imminent and 
inevitable litigation; 

(3) party asserts legal relation, status, right, privilege and this challenged denied adversary party, who also has asserts concrete interest it. 

(b) 
Special form remedy provided statute. --Ifa statute provides special form remedy for specific type case, that statutory remedy shall followed lieu proceeding under this subtitle. Concurrent remedies not bar for declaratory relief. --A party may obtain declaratory judgment decree notwithstanding concWTent common-law, equitable, extraordinary legal remedy, whether not recognized regulated statute. Exception divorce annulment marriage. --Proceeding declaratory judgment not permitted any case which divorce annulment marriage sought. Speedy hearing. --A court may order speedy hearing action declaratory judgment and may advance the calendar. 

Md. Education Code Ann. 12-109 (2012) 
 12-109. Presidents constituent institutions; boards visitors 
(a) 
Presidents --Appointment. --In consultation with the Chancellor and after thorough search, the Board Regents shall appoint qualified person president each constituent institution. 

(b) 
Presidents --Compensation. --The president each constituent institution entitled the compensation established the Board Regents. 

(c) 
Presidents --Term.--The president each constituent institution serves the pleasure the Board Regents. 

(d) 
Presidents -Responsibilities generally. --The president each constituent institution shall: Serve the chief executive officer the institution; 

(2) responsible and accountable the Board for the discipline and successful conduct the institution and supervision each its departments; and 

(3) 
Talce every initiative in: 

(i) 
Implementing the policies the Board and the constituent institution; and 

(ii) 
Promoting the institution's development and efficiency. Presidents --Powers and duties. --Subject the authority and applicable regulations and 
policies the Board Regents, each president shall: 

(1) 
Develop plan institutional mission accordance with Title 11, Subtitle this article; 

(2) 
Have the authority develop new academic programs and curtail eliminate existing programs accordance with the procedures set forth in 11-206 and 11-206.1 this article; 

(3) 
Formulate operating and capital budget requests designed further the mission the 
institution; 

(4)Appoint, promote, fix salaries, grant tenure, assign duties, and terminate personnel; 
(5) 
Subject the provisions subsection (g) this section, have authority create any position within existing funds available the University, the extent the cost the position, including the cost any fringe benefits, funded from existing funds; 

(6) 
Establish admissions standards; 

(7) 
Set tuition and fees; 

(8) 
Administer financial aid; 

(9) 
Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements; 

(10) 
Have the authority accept gifts and grants and maintain and manage endowment income; 

(11) 
Have the authority recommend change the name status the institution; 

(12) 
Regulate and administer athletic and student activities; 

(13) compliance with State, federal, and Board mandates and policies, oversee affirmative action and equal employment opportunities; 

(14) 
Establish organizations for the administration campus alumni affairs; 

(15) responsible for all academic matters; 

(16) 
Have the authority establish and appoint institutional board to: 

(i) 
Provide advice the president; 

(ii) 
Assist community relations; 

(iii) Assist institutional development; 
(iv) 
Provide any other assistance requested the president; 

(17) 
Establish traffic regulations for the campus; 

(18) 
Designate one more representatives participate party collective bargaining 
behalf the institution accordance with Title the State Personnel and Pensions Article; 
and
19) Perform any other duties assigned the Board. 

(f) 
Boards visitors.

(1) 
The institutional boards established under subsection (e)(16) this section shall lmown boards visitors. Each board shall submit report October each year to: 

(i) 
The Governor; 

(ii) 
The Chairman the Board Regents the University System Maryland; 

(iii) The Secretary the Maryland Higher Education Commission; and 
(iv) 
The presiding officers the Maryland General Assembly. 

(2) 
Except provided paragraph (3) this subsection, each report submitted under paragraph 

(1) this subsection shall include the comments the appropriate board the institution's progress toward meeting its goals consistent with its mission. 

(3) 
The report the University Maryland, College Park Board Visitors shall include: 

(i) 
The Board Visitors' evaluation the status the effort the University System Maryland and the State meeting the requirements the Maryland Charter for Higher Education set forth in 10-209 this article which require the University System Maryland to: 
Provide the College Park campus with the level operating funding and facilities necessary place among the upper echelon its peer institutions; 
Maintain and enhance the College Park campus the State's flagship campus with programs and faculty nationally and internationally recognized for excellence research and the advancement knowledge; 
Admit freshmen the College Park campus highly qualified students who have academic 
profiles that suggest exceptional ability; and 
Provide access the upper division undergraduate level the College Park campus for 
students who have excelled completing lower division study; 

(ii) status report the University's effort achieve national eminence; 
(iii) status report success attaining federal research grants, private gifts, and other 
sources nonstate revenue; and 

(iv) 
Other matters support institutional priorities determined the Board sitars. 

(4) 
The institutional boards visitors are encouraged meet periodically with the Chancellor and Board Regents develop close working relationships. 

(g) 
Construction subsection (e)(5). --Subsection (e)(5) this section may not construed require any additional State General Fund support. 

Md. Education Code Ann. 15-106.8 (2012) 
 15-106.8. Exemption from nonresident tuition for qualified children undocumented 
immigrants [Contingent referendum}. 

(a) "Individual" defined. --In this section, 11individual": 
(1) 
Includes undocumented immigrant individual; and 

(2) Does not include nonimmigrant alien within the meaning U.S.C. 

(b) 
Community college tuition. --Notwithstanding any other provision this article, individual shall exempt from paying the out-of-state tuition rate community college the State, the individual: 

(1) 
Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, attended public nonpublic secondary school the State for least years; 

(2) 
Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, graduated from public nonpublic secondary school the State received the equivalent high school diploma the State; 

(3) 
Registers entering student community college the State not earlier than the 2011 fall semester; 

(4) 
Provides the conununity college documentation that the individual the individual's parent legal guardian has filed Maryland income tax return: 

(i) 
Annually for the years while the individual attended public nonpublic secondary school the State accordance with item this subsection; 

(ii) 
Armually during the period, any, between graduation from public nonpublic secondary school the State and registration community college the State; and 

(iii) Annually during the period attendance the conununity colle.ge; 
(5) the case individual who not permanent resident, provides the community 
college affidavit stating that the individual will file application become permanent 
resident within days after the individual becomes eligible so; 

(6) the case individual who required register with the Selective Service System, 
provides the community college documentation that the individual has complied with the 
registration requirement; and 

(7) 
Registers community college the State not later than years after graduating from public nonpublic secondary school the State receiving the equivalent high school diploma the State. Public senior higher education institution tuition. --Notwithstanding any other provision this article and subject subsection (h) this section, individual shall eligible pay rate that equivalent the resident tuition rate public senior higher education institution, the individual: 

(I) 
Attended commWlity college not earlier than the 2010 fall semester and met the requirements subsection (b) this section, except for the requirement set forth subsection (b)(3) this section; 

(2) 
Was awarded associate's degree achieved credits community college the State; 

(3) 
Provides the public senior higher education institution copy the affidavit submitted under subsection (b)(5) this section; Provides the public senior higher education institution documentation that the individual the individual's parent legal guardian has filed Maryland income tax return: 

(i) 
Annually while the individual attended community college the State; 

(ii) 
Annually during the period, any, between graduation from achieving credits community college the State and registration public senior higher education institution the State; and 

(iii) Annually during the period attendance the public senior higher education institution; 
and 

(5) 
Registers public senior higher education institution the State not later than years after graduating from achieving credits community college the State. Qualification pay in-county tuition 

rate community college. --Notwithstanding any other provision this article, individual shall eligible pay rate that equivalent the in-county tuition rate community college the State the individual: 
(I) 
Meets the requirements sbsection (b) this section; and 

(2) 
Attends community college supported the county which: 

(i) 
The secondary school from which the individual graduated located; 

(ii) the case individual who received the equivalent high school diploma the 
State, the secondary school most recently attended the individual located. Confidentiality inf orrnation. --Information collected under this section part 
student's registration shall remain confidential. 

(f) 
Records and reports.

(1) community

(i) 
Keep record the nwnber individuals who pay the tuition rate accordance with the requirements under subsection this section; and 

(ii) 
Report the information required item (i) this paragraph the Commission each year. 

(2) 
The Commission shall submit the General Assembly, accordance 

college public senior higher education institution that admits individual who qualifies for the tuition rate under this section shall: 

State Government annual report consisting compilation the reports submitted the Commission under paragraph this subsection. 
(g) 
Adoption policies implement section institutions. --The governing board each public institution higher education shall adopt appropriate policies implement the provisions this section. 

(h) 
Students receiving tuition rate not counted in-State students. --The students that are receiving the tuition rate subsection this section may not counted in-State students for the purposes detennining the number Maryland undergraduate students enrolled public senior higher education institution. 

Md. Education Code Ann. 16-103 (2012) 
 16-103. Powers board trustees 
(a) general. --In addition the other powers granted and duties imposed this title, and subject the authority the Maryland Higher Education Commission, each board community college trustees has the powers and duties set forth this section. 

(b) 
Establishment and operation. --With the approval the Maryland Higher Education Commission, each board trustees may establish and operate one more community colleges. General control; rules and regulations. --Each board trustees shall exercise general control over the community college, keep separate records and minutes, and adopt reasonable rules, regulations, bylaws carry out the provisions this subtitle. Salaries and tenure. --Each board trustees may fix the salaries and tenure the president, faculty, and other employees the community college. Acquisition property. --Each board trustees may purchase, lease, condemn, otherwise acquire any property considers necessary for the operation the community college. 

(f) 
Disposition property. Each board trustees may sell, lease, otherwise dispose community college assets 
property. 

(2) 
Except provided  16-105 (h) this subtitle, the president the community college and the chairman the board trustees may execute conveyance other legal document under appropriate resolution the board. 

(g) 
Cooperative use facilities with board education. --Each board trustees may: 

(1) 
With the approval the Commissio permit the cowtty board education use the lands, buildings, other facilities the community college; and 

(2) 
With the approval the county board education, use any land, buildings, assets, other facilities the county board education. 

(h) 
Gifts and grants. --Each board trustees may apply for and accept any gift grant from the federal government any other person. 

(i) 
Entrance requirements; curriculum. --Subject the minimum standards the Commission, each board trustees may determine entrance requirements and approve offerings that consist of: Transfer programs offering the equivalent the first years bachelor's degree program; 
(2) 
Career programs offering technical, vocational, and semiprofessional education; and 

(3) 
Continuing education programs. Student fees. --Each board trustees may charge students reasonable tuition and fees set with view making college education available all qualified individuals low cost. 

(k) 
Suits. --Each board trustees may sue and sued. 

(l) 
Agreements. --Each board trustees may make agreements with the federal government any other person, including agreements between counties support regional community college, the board considers the agreement advisable for the establishment operation the community college. 

(m) 
Name. --Except provided in 16-105 (i) this subtitle, each board trustees shall styled "the board trustees ............................. community (or junior) 
college". 

(n) 
Seal. --Each board trustees may adopt corporate seal. 

Md. Education Code Ann. 16-301 (2012)  16-301. Budget 
(a) Preparation. --Each year, the board trustees and the president each community college 
shall prepare and submit the county governing body or, the case regional community 
college, the county governing body each county that supports the regional community college: operating budget; 

(2) capital budget; and 

(3) required local law, charter, regulation, long-term capital improvement program. 

(b) 
Contents operating budget. --The operating budget shall show: All revenues estimated for the next fiscal year classified funds and sources income, 
including: 

(i) 
Any funds from federal, State, and local sources; and 

(ii) 
Any surpluses;  (2) All expenditures requested, including the major functions listed under 16-304 (b); and 

(3) 
Any other information supporting data required the county governing body. Contents capital budget. --The capital budget and any long-term capital improvement 
program shall contain statement all capital revenues and expenditures. Consideration budgets. The capital and operating budgets shall prepared and 


considered accordance with county fiscal procedures not inconsistent with State law. 
(e) 
Action county governing body --Community colleges. --The county governing body shall review and approve the budget the community college and may reduce it. 

(f) 
Action county governing body  Regional community college.

(1) 
The coWlty governing bodies the counties that support regional community college 
jointly shall review the budget the regional community college and may reduce it. 

(2) 
Approval the budget majority the counties that support regional community 
college constitutes approval the budget and binds all the counties. 

(g) 
Submissions Commission.

(1) 
The budget each community college, approved the county governing body under this section shall submitted the Commission for informational purposes. 

(2) 
Proposals for capital projects shall submitted the Department Budget and 
Management through the Commission. 

Md. Election Law Code Ann.  6-202 (2012) 
 6-202. Advance determinations 
(a) general. --The format the petition prepared sponsor may submitted the chief election official the appropriate election authority, advance filing the petition, for determination its sufficiency. 

(b) 
Advice legal authority. --In making the determination, the chief election official may seek the advice the legal authority. 

Md. Election Law Code Ann.  6-206 (2012) 
 6-206. Determinations time filing 
(a) 
Review chief election official. --Promptly upon the filing petition with election 
authority, the chief election official the election authority shall review the petition. 

(b) 
Determinations. --Unless determination deficiency made under subsection this 
section, the chief election official shall: make determination that the petition, matters other than the validity signatures, 
sufficient; 

(2) 
defer determination sufficiency pending further review. 

(c) 
Declaration deficiency. --The chief election official shall declare that the petition 
deficient the chief election official determines that: 

(1) 
the petition was not timely filed; 

(2) 
after providing the sponsor opportunity correct any clerical errors, the information provided the sponsor indicates that the petition does not satisfy any requirements law for the number geographic distribution signatures; 

(3) examination unverified signatures indicates that the petition does not satisfy any 
requirements law for the number geographic distribution signatures; 

(4) 
the requirements relating the form the petition have not been satisfied; 

(5) 
based the advice the legal authority: 

(i) 
the use petition for the subject matter the petition not authorized law; 

(ii) 
the petition seeks: 
the enactment law that would unconstitutional the election nomination individual office for which that individual not legally qualified candidate; result that otherwise prohibited law; the petition has failed satisfy some other requirement established law. Consistency with advance determination. --A determination under this section may not inconsistent with advance determination made under 6-202 this subtitle. Notice. --Notice determination under this section shall provided accordance with  6-210 this subtitle. 

Md. Election Law Code Ann.  6-208 (2012) 
 6-208. Certification 
(a) general. --At the conclusion ofthe verification and counting processes, the chief election official the eJection authority shall: 

(I) 
detennine whether the validated signatures contained the petition are sufficient satisfy 
all requirements established law relating the number and geographical distribution 
signatures; and 

(2) has not done previously, determine whether the petition has satisfied all other 
requirements established law for that petition and immediately notify the sponsor that 
determination, including any specific deficiencies found. 

(b) 
Certification. -If the chief election official determines that petition has satisfied all
requirements established law relating that petition, the chief election official shall certify 
that the petition process has been completed and shall: 

(1) 
with respect petition seeking place the name ofan individual question the 
ballot, certify that the name question has qualified placed the ballot; 

(2) 
with respect petition seeking create new political party, certify the sufficiency the petition the chairman the governing body the partisan organization; and 

(3) with respect the creation charter board under Article the 
Constitution, certify that the petition sufficient. Notice. --Notice determination under this section shalJ provided accordance with  6-210 this subtitle. 

Md. Election Law Code Ann.  6-209 (2012) 
 6-209. Judicial review 
(a) general.

(1) person aggrieved determination made under  6-202,  6-206,  6-208(a)(2) ofthis subtitle may seek judicial review: 

(i) the case statewide petition, petition refer enactment the General Assembly pursuant Article XVI the Maryland Constitution, petition for congressional General Assembly candidacy, the Circuit Court for Anne Anmdel County; 

(ii) any other petition, the circuit court for the county which the petition filed. 

(2) 
The court may grant relief considers appropriate assure the integrity the electoral process. 

(3) 
Judicial review shall expedited each court that hears the cause the extent necessary consideration the deadlines established law. 

(b) 
Declaration relief. Pursuant the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and upon the complaint any registered voter, the circuit colllt the county which petition has been will filed may grant declaratory relief any petition with respect the provisions this title other provisions law. 

Md. State Government Code Ann.  2-1501 (2012) 
 2-1501. Definitions 
(a) general. --In this Part this subtitle the following words have the meanings indi