Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Brief of Md Petitions

Brief of Md Petitions

Brief of Md Petitions

Page 1: Brief of Md Petitions

Category:General

Number of Pages:45

Date Created:August 15, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Districting, Intervener, signatures, Appellants, registered, signature, petition, Elections, Congressional, Election, Article, MONTGOMERY, maryland, section, COUNTY, State, board, court, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


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. 133 
DENNIS WHITLEY III, 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-12-171365 
The Honorable Ronald Silkworth 

Paul Orfanedes Chris Fedeli JUDICIAL 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-Intervener MDPetitions.com 
TABLE CONTENTS 

TABLE CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 

TABLE AUTHORITIES...............................................................................................ii 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 

STATEMENT FACTS.................................................................................................. 

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

ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................... 	
Appellants Failed Properly Plead Prove Claim Under  
 6-209(a) 6-209(b) the Election Law Article .................................. 	
Appellants Did Not Claim Aggrieved  
   Any Determination Made Under  6-202,   


 6-206,  6-208(a)(2) ................................................................. 	
Appellants Failed Plead Prove That They
   Are Aggrieved Any Way .......................................................... 	
Appellants Failed Plead Prove Any Facts 
Establishing the Existence Justiciable 
Controversy ...................................................................................... 

II. Signer May Attest His Her Own Signature the Circulators Affidavit ........................................................................ 

III. Signer May Use Internet-Based Software Program Signing Petition .................................................................................... 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................
 
CITATION AND VERBATIM TEXT  
PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,  
STATUTES, ORDINANCES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS ..................................... 

CERTIFICATE SERVICE.......................................................................................... 

TABLE AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page 
Barnes
 State, 236 Md. 564 (1964) ................................................................................ 

Boyds Civic Assn Montgomery County Council, 309 Md. 683 (1987) ....................... 

Burruss
 Bd. County Commrs, 2012 Md. LEXIS 380 (June 25, 2012) .................... 

Comptroller the Treasury Blanton, 390 Md. 528 (2006) .......................................... 

Doe
 Montgomery County Bd. Elections, 406 Md. 697 (2008) ................. 10, 13, 

Doe
 Montgomery County Board Elections, 

2008 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 727, 

(Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co., Md. July 24, 2008) .................................................21-22 

Dutton
 Tawes, 225 Md. 494 (1961)............................................................................... 

Fletcher
 Lamone, 831 Supp. 887 (D. Md. 2011) ................................................... 

Hatt
 Anderson, 297 Md. (1983) ..........................................................................14-15 

Howard County Citizens for Open Govt  
Howard County Bd. Elections, 201 Md. App. 605 (2011)................................. 

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

Kaczorowski
 Mayor Baltimore, 309 Md. 505 (1987) ................................................ 

Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue 
Assn Montgomery County Bd. Elections, 
418 Md. 463 (2001)................................................................... 18, 20, 26-28, 30-32 

Ritchmount Pship Bd. Supervisors Elections, 283 Md. (1978)....................... 

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

Sugarloaf Citizens Assoc. Dept Envt, 344 Md. 271 (1996)................................... 

Town Oxford Koste, 204 Md. App. 578 (2012)......................................................... 

Md. Const., art. XVI,  4....................................................................................... 16, 20, 

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

Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc.  3-409(a)(1) .............................................................. 

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

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

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-201 ................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-201(c)(6).......................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-202 ................................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-203(a) .............................................................................. 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-203(a)(2).....................................................................31-32 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-203(b)(4) ......................................................................... 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-204 ..............................................................................16-17 

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

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-207(a)(2).......................................................................... 

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

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-208(a)(1).....................................................................10-12 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-208(a)(2).................................................................... 10, 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-208(b) .............................................................................. 

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

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209(a) ........................................................................ 10, 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209(b) ................................................................... 10, 13-14 

Md. Code Ann., Estates Trusts  4-102 ...................................................................22-23
 
COMAR  33.06.03.06................................................................................................ 25-26 

COMAR  33.06.03.06(B)(2) ......................................................................................32-33 

COMAR  33.06.03.06(C) ................................................................................................ 

COMAR  33.06.03.07................................................................................................ 17-18 

COMAR  33.06.03.08.................................................................................................17-18 

Other Authorities 
Righting the tilted system gerrymandered map Maryland, 
The Washington Post, July 21, 2012 ........................................................................
 

Maryland Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Page Page 

INTRODUCTION this action, five alleged registered Maryland voters (Appellants) seek prevent the people Maryland from deciding for themselves whether accept reject congressional redistricting scheme that has been described barefaced manipulation that stands embarrassment the state and blatant act impermissible political gerrymandering that crossed the line. Righting the tilted system gerrymandered map Maryland, The Washington Post, July 21, 2012; Fletcher Lamone, 831 Supp. 887, 905 (D. Md. 2011) (Titus, J., concurring). total 59,201 confirmed registered Maryland voters signed petition calling for Senate Bill Chapter the 2011 Special Session the Maryland General Assembly, also known the Congressional Districting Plan, subject referendum the November 2012 general election. July 20, 2012, the State Board Elections certified the measure for placement the November 2012 ballot.  Not content let Maryland voters consider the Congressional Districting Plan for themselves, Appellants sued stop the referendum.  

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 
Whether Appellants properly pled and proved claim under  6-209(a) 6-209(b) the Election Law Article. 
Whether the Maryland State Board Elections properly certified petition signatures where the signer attested his her own signature the circulators affidavit. Whether the Maryland State Board Elections properly certified petition 
signatures where the signer used internet-based software program signing the petition. 

STATEMENT THE FACTS 
The Congressional Districting Plan was enacted the Maryland General Assembly during special session 2011.  Governor Martin OMalley signed into law the same day was enacted. least 55,735 valid signatures registered Maryland voters are required refer law enacted the General Assembly referendum the 2012 General Election. 2011, Appellee-Intervener MDPetitions.com (Intervener) had organized and sponsored successful campaign petition Senate Bill 167, Chapter 191 the 2011 Laws Maryland, referendum. See Affidavit Neil Parrott, Appendix Brief Appellants, App. 21,  part this successful campaign, Intervener created internet-based software program that registered Maryland voters could use signing the petition. Id.  More than 26,000 registered Maryland voters used Interveners internetbased software program sign the petition refer Senate Bill 167 referendum, and the State Board Elections accepted these signatures. Id. 
Intervener also subsequently organized and led campaign refer the Congressional Districting Plan referendum.  Id. App. 22,  early March 2012, Intervener asked the State Board Elections for advance determination the sufficiency Interveners petition materials, and, March 15, 2012, the State Board Elections determined that, with few minor revisions, Interveners petition materials 
were sufficient. Id. App. 22,  Intervener made the revisions and resubmitted its 
petition materials the State Board Elections for further determination.  Id. App. 23,  March 26, 2012, the State Board Elections issued follow-up determination: accordance with Election Law Article,  6-202 the Maryland Code 
Annotated, have reviewed the format the submitted petition material, 
including the map and have determined that sufficient under the 
advanced determination provisions Election Law Article,  6-202. 
Id. App. 23,  
After receiving the advance determination, Intervener launched its petition campaign.  Id. App. 23,  part this campaign, Intervener again made its internet-based software program available registered Maryland voters use signing the petition. Id. App. 23,  order use the software program, registered Maryland voter who wished sign the petition had log Interveners internet website, www.MDPetitions.com, click box marked redistricting petition and follow series prompts commands that led them through different screens.  Id. App. 23,  10. 
The first screen showed map the State Maryland and the new boundaries for the States congressional districts and asked the rhetorical question, Does this make any sense you? Id. App. 24,  12. Under this rhetorical question were two buttons stating Sign the petition now and Get volunteer packet.  Id. App. 24,  13. The screen then asked another rhetorical question, Why should care about redistricting? followed by: 
Career politicians would like tell you that redistricting doesnt matter and that should just accept the crazy congressional redistricting lines that theyve drawn for us. fact, redistricting affects every household the state. Maryland should have districts that represent communities and groups people. example, district should allow the City Baltimore represented congressman devoted their causes, Anne Arundel County theirs, Prince Georges County their causes and on.  
Marylands approved Congressional map purposefully spreads out minority votes that they cannot compete with establishment politicians. African American and Hispanic Districts are split keep white-establishment liberals control and minimize minority voting power. Rural voters and Republicans are combined into one large area District and then separated and combined with densely-populated urban areas other districts snuff out their voting power. 
The map needs give fair representation all, and have the power overturn this severely gerrymandered map through the referendum process. Lets demand true representation and overturn the current map signing the petition today. 
Id. App. 24,  14. clicking either the Sign the petition now button the underlined 
statement sign the petition today, the second screen would appear.  Id. App. 25,  15. 
The second screen contained two distinct fields.  Id. App. 25,  16. The field the 
left hand side the screen stated, Get Your Petition, and contained the following 
instructions: 

Maryland has strict rules regarding how the petition filled out. 
This site will help insure that your petition filled out properly easy 
steps. 
Step  Provide information requested the petition, indicated the right. 
Step  Select members your household who might also want sign the 
petition. 
Step  Download the petition 
Step  Print the petition 
Step  Sign and date the petition. Id. App. 25,  17. The field the right hand side the screen displayed series boxes where the user could enter unique identifiers: 

Get Started  Its Easy 
Fill out the information form with your information. 
First Name 
Last Name 
Suffix (optional) 
Email Address 
Phone Number 
Zip Code digit) 
Birth Date Month (Dropdown) Date (Dropdown) Year (Dropdown) Id. App. 25,  18. Underneath Birth Date was box that could checked receive updates about Interveners activities. Id. App. 26,  19. Underneath the Updates box was button that stated Continue, followed this acknowledgement:  By clicking Continue you agree the terms and conditions.  Id. App. 26,  20. 
 Interveners internet-based program used the most current voter registration rolls made available the Maryland State Board Elections identify whether user was registered Maryland voter. Id. App. 26,  21. the user was not registered Maryland voter, had entered his her unique identifiers incorrectly, there was some other mismatch between the identifiers entered the user and the voter rolls, the following screen appeared: 
Oops, couldnt find you 
This could happen for couple reasons:	 
You are not registered vote Maryland. this the case, you could register vote and then sign the petition after you get your  voter card.	 
The zip code you provided doesnt match the zip code the voter database.	 
The name entered does not match the name provided the Board Elections when you signed up. example, Debra may required instead Debbie. you feel that youve reached this message error, please contact (/redistristing/petitions/sb1/contact).   Id. App. 26,  22. Clicking register vote took the user the State Board Elections webpage regarding voter registration information.  Id. App. 27,  23. The screen also contained Search Again button that took the user back screen one.   Id. App. 27,  24. the user was registered Maryland voter, had entered his her unique identifiers correctly, and these identifiers matched the voter rolls, screen three appeared.  Id. App. 27,  25. Screen three identified each registered Maryland voter the same address and instructed the user deselect the name any registered Maryland voter 
the address not wishing sign the petition clicking the box next the voters name:    
Voters Household Youre almost done NAME! Weve selected everyone whos registered vote your address.  Please 
unselect anyone who will not signing the petition: 
Box Name 
Box Name 
Box Name 

Id. App. 27,  26. Beneath the name was Continue button.  Id. 
Clicking the Continue button took the registered Maryland Voter fourth screen. Id. App. 27,  27. Under caption the fourth screen stating Your Petition Almost Ready was Download Petition button.  Id. App. 27,  28. Beneath this button were the following instructions: 

Instructions: 
Step  Download the petition, you may need save the file your computer order open 
Step  Open the File which includes the petition, self-addressed 
envelope, and copy the bill 

Step  Print the petition. The first two pages need printed both sides page. this without duplex printer, print just page 	Then insert the paper upside down the manual feeder and  print just page Select pages 3-7 and print normal Step  Sign and date the petition your name, have others the page sign, then sign and date the circulator last. copy the actual 4-page bill needs available every  time someone signs the petition. NOTE: Unlike other petition efforts, this petition does not have the full bill the back the petition, but page approved summary the bill. Id. App. 27-28,  29. the bottom the fourth screen was another Download Petition button. Id. 
Clicking either button marked Download Petition caused fifth, pop up screen appear along with tool bar containing download prompt.  Id. App. 28,  
30. 	This pop up screen stated follows: Thank you for downloading the petition. now you should have seen download prompt for your Petition. Please make sure print pages one and two the same sheet paper 
(double sided). 
The remaining pages can printed single sided. you are having trouble downloading cant print double sided, you can 
request have petition mailed you. Id. App. 28-29,  31. the bottom the pop up screen was button marked Finish. Id. 
Clicking the open button the download prompt enabled the registered Maryland voter open and print his her signature page, summary the Congressional Districting Plan, and map, well the complete text the 
Congressional Districting Plan and foldable envelope use mailing the signature 
 Intervener ultimately collected least 64,744 signatures support its petition, including signatures registered Maryland voters who had used Interveners internetbased software program, and submitted these signatures the Secretary State.  Id. App. 29,  37. The State Board elections validated, verified, and accepted total 59,201 signatures being the signatures registered Maryland voters.  Id. App. 30,  
38. about July 20, 2012, the State Administrator Elections certified the Congressional Districting Plan for placement the November 2012 ballot.  Id. App. 30,  39. 

STANDARD REVIEW 
Orders granting summary judgment are reviewed novo, (Ross State Board Elections, 389 Md. 649, 658 (2005)), and the reviewing court must determine whether the trial court ruled correctly matters law. Doe Montgomery County Board Elections, 406 Md. 697, 711 (2008). 
ARGUMENT 	Appellants Failed Properly Plead Prove Claim Under  6-209(a) 6-209(b) the Election Law Article. 
Section 6-209 authorizes two types judicial review, albeit each with different predicates and different remedies.  Under Section 6-209(a), a person aggrieved determination made under  6-202,  6-206,  6-208(a)(2) this subtitle may seek judicial review the case petition refer enactment the General Assembly pursuant Article XVI the Maryland Constitution, and the reviewing court authorized grant such relief considers appropriate assure the integrity the electoral process.  Doe, 406 Md. 715; Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209(a). contrast, Section 6-209(b) authorizes court grant declaratory relief any petition with respect the provisions this title any other provisions law [p]ursuant the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and upon the complaint any registered voter. Doe, 406 Md. 715; Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209(b).   
Appellants invoke the aggrieved person provision Section 6-209(a) and seek both declaratory and injunctive relief.  Appellants also invoke Section 6-209(b) support claim for declaratory relief only.  The Circuit Courts judgment should affirmed because Appellants failed properly plead prove claims under either section. 	Appellants Did Not Claim Aggrieved Any Determination Made Under  6-202,  6-206,  6-208(a)(2). 
Section 6-209(a) could not any clearer about its judicial review provision applying persons aggrieved determinations made under  6-202,  6-206,  6208(a)(2). does not authorize judicial review determinations made under Section 6208(a)(1). See, e.g., Comptroller the Treasury Blanton, 390 Md. 528, 537 (2006) (noting that Maryland has long accepted the doctrine expressio (or inclusio) unius est exclusio alterius, the expression one thing the exclusion another). 
While Appellants invoke Section 6-208(a) (see Complaint  and 78), they fail differentiate between the two different subsections contained within this provision. The provision states: general. the conclusion the verification and counting process, 
the chief election official the election authority shall:   
(1)
 determine 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. 

Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-208(a). 
Appellants clearly challenge the number signatures validated and verified the State Board Elections. They seek disqualify thousands signatures persons confirmed the State Board Elections registered Maryland voters that they can then argue that Intervener did not submit the required number signatures.  The Complaint alleges, Of the signatures submitted the State Board the petition sponsors, significantly less than 55,736 are actually valid  less than the number constitutionally required (55,736) for placing [the Congressional Districting Plan] the November 2012 general election ballot.  Complaint  76.  The Complaint continues, 
. the State Boards determination, July 20, 2012, under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 
 6-208(a), that the number accepted signatures exceeds the minimum, not supported substantial evidence and/or premised upon erroneous conclusions law. Id.  77. Appellants brief further confirms that they challenge the number signatures validated the State Board Elections:  Because 55,736 valid signatures are required refer law statewide referendum, either these groups signatures was determined invalid, the petition legally sufficient.  Brief for Appellants see also id. (those signatures are not valid and the Petition legally deficient for that reason alone), (Without those [7,578] signatures, the petition submitted lacks the 55,736 needed for placing [the Congressional Districting Plan] the 2012 general election ballot), and (. the Petition lacked sufficient validated and verified signatures refer [the Congressional Districting Plan] statewide referendum).    
Because Appellants challenge the number signatures validated and verified the State Board Elections, their claim plainly constitutes challenge the State Board Elections numbers determination under Section 6-208(a)(1), not any determination made the State Board Elections at the conclusion the verification and counting process about whether the petition satisfied all other requirements established law for [the] petition under Section 6-208(a)(2).  Because Section 6-209(a) does not authorize judicial review determinations made under Section 6-208(a)(1), Appellants have failed state claim for judicial review under Section 6-209(a). 
Nor sufficient for Appellants simply assert that that they challenge the State Board Elections certification Interveners petition refer the Congressional 
Districting Plan referendum. See Brief Appellant (This case concerns the 
certification petition refer [the Congressional Districting Plan] statewide referendum) and 1-2 (Appellants, registered Maryland voters, challenge the certification .). Section 6-209(a) does not authorize judicial review certifications, which constitutes separate step the petition process that follows the validation, verification, and counting petition signatures.  See Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6208(b).  Consequently, Appellants have failed properly plead claim for judicial review under Section 6-209(a). 	Appellants Failed Plead Prove That That They Are  
  Aggrieved Any Way. addition, order aggrieved for purposes judicial review under 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. Dept Envt, 344 Md. 271, 288 (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 the State Board Elections under one the three specific provisions listed Section 6-209(a).  Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209(a).   
Appellants failed plead present any evidence demonstrating that they suffered any special damage all.1  While the State Board Elections may have stipulated its Answer that Appellants are registered Maryland voters, nowhere did the State Board Elections Intervener stipulate that Appellants suffered any special damage were aggrieved determination made the State Board Elections.  Defendants Answer Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief  16-20; Answer Intervener MDPetitions.com Plaintiffs Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief  16-20. result, Appellants cannot maintain claim for judicial review under Section 6-209(a) for this additional reason. 	Appellants Failed Plead Prove Any Facts Establishing the Existence Justiciable Controversy. 
Nor can Appellants maintain claim for judicial review under Section 6-209(b).  This review provision authorizes court grant declaratory relief any petition with respect the provision this title other provisions law [p]ursuant the Maryland Uniform 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 Assn Montgomery County 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 
The only entity that alleged was aggrieved determination made the State Board Elections, and the only plaintiff that sought injunctive relief, was the Maryland Democratic State Central Committee, which not party this appeal.  Complaint  14-15, 79-82. 
assert adverse claims upon statement 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, and there must more than mere prayer for declaratory relief. Hatt, 297 Md. (citations omitted). 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. 
Appellants failed plead prove any facts establishing the existence justiciable controversy between Appellants and Appellees.  Appellants failed plead any facts present any evidence demonstrating the existence actual controversy the presence antagonistic claims between Appellants and Appellees.  Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc.  3-409(a)(1) and (2).  They also failed plead any facts present any evidence demonstrating that legal relation, status, right, privilege Appellants was being challenged denied Appellees.  Id.  3-409(a)(3). Instead, the Circuit Court noted, Appellants baldly assert that [t]he justiciable controversy simply that [Appellants] dont agree that [the Congressional Districting Plan] subject referendum. Opinion [A] mere difference opinion does not constitute justiciable controversy, however.  Hatt, 297 Md. 45. Because Appellants failed plead prove any facts establishing the existence justiciable controversy, they cannot maintain claim for declaratory relief under Section 6-209(b).  Because Appellants claims under both Section 6-209(a) and 6-209(b) are neither properly pled nor supported the requisite evidence, the Circuit Courts judgment should affirmed. 

II. Signer May Attest His Her Own Signature the Circulators Affidavit. 
Section Article XVI the Maryland Constitution describes the circulator requirement follows: There shall attached each paper signatures filed with petition affidavit the person procuring those signatures that the signatures were affixed his presence and that, based upon the persons best knowledge and belief, every signature the paper genuine and bona fide and that the signers are registered voters the address set opposite below their names. Md. Const., art. XVI,  
Section 6-201 the Election Law Article the Maryland Code states, pertinent part, that Each signature page shall contain space for the required affidavit made and executed the circulator.  Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-201(c)(6). Section 6-203 states, pertinent part: 
(b) Validation and counting.  The signature individual shall validated and counted if: 
(4) 	the signature attested affidavit appearing the page which the signature appears; 
Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-203(b)(4).  Section 6-204 states, its entirety: 
(a) general. --- Each signature page shall contain affidavit made and executed the individual whose presence all the signatures that page were affixed and who observed each those signatures being affixed. 

(b) 
Requirements.  The affidavit shall contain the statements, required regulation, designed assure the validity the signatures and the fairness the petition proceed. 

(c) Age circulator.  circulator must least years old the time any the signatures covered the affidavit are affixed.  Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-204.   
The relevant regulations, Sections 33.06.03.07 and 33.06.03.08 the Code Maryland Regulations, state, their entirety, follows:  
.07 	Circulator Identification. 	Identification Required. Each signature page shall include identification individual circulator, required this regulation. 	Information Provided.  The identification the circulator shall include that individuals: 
(1) 	
Printed typed name;  

(2) 	
Residence address, including house number, street name,  apartment number (if applicable), town, and ZIP code; and  

(3) 	
Telephone number. 

.08 	Circulators Signed and Dated Affidavit. 	Affidavit Required. Each signature page shall include affidavit signed and dated the circulator, required by:  
(1) 	
Election Law Article, 6-204(a), Annotated Code    Maryland; and 

(2) 	
This regulation. 	Scope and Tenor. The affidavit shall state that:  
(1) 	
All the information given the circulator under    Regulation .07 this chapter true and correct;  

(2) 	
The circulator was years old older when each signature  was affixed the page;  

(3) 	
The circulator personally observed each signer the page    was signed; and 

(4) the best the circulator's knowledge and belief, all:  

(a) 	Signatures the petition are genuine, and  
(b) Signers are registered voters the State.  COMAR  33.06.03.07 and 33.06.03.08.   
None these provisions prohibit person who circulates petition from signing and executing affidavit his her signature.  Nor the provisions impose any limitation the identity the affiant other than the requirement that she must least years old. Appellants argument that person who circulates petition cannot attest his her own signature petition signature page wrong under any plain reading the provisions. addition, the obvious purpose the circulator affidavit bolster the validity the signature entries. Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Assn Montgomery County Bd. Elections, 418 Md. 463, 479 (2011) (Fire-Rescue Assn). The signer, not third-party circulator, probably the best position anyone attest the fact that she signed petition signature page, that his her signature genuine, and that she registered vote the State Maryland. this regard, person who signs petition obviously observes himself herself doing so. would difficult not so. also would completely disingenuous for person whose signature appears any document disavow the signature the basis 
that did not observe himself sign the document. person who signs document also the best person attest the genuineness his her signature the document. signer undoubtedly knows his her own signature. third-party circulator may not know the signers signature and, the third-party circulator does not know the signer, she unlikely know whether the signers signature genuine.   
Similarly, the signer, not third-party circulator, also the best person attest whether the signer registered vote the State Maryland. third-party circulator may very well complete stranger the signer.  The signer and third-party circulator may have met for the first time when the circulator approached the signer sporting event movie theater and asked the signer for moment his her time review the petition.  Or, the signer and third-party circulator may have met for the first time when the signer walked petition booth table set outside grocery store and asked the circulator how about signing the petition. The law does not require that the signer and the circulator know each other.  Nor does require that the signer present any proof identification proof registration third-party circulator. only requires that, the best the affiants knowledge and belief, the signers signature genuine and that the signer registered vote the State Maryland. 
Appellants have exactly backwards when they claim the purpose the affidavit utterly defeated signer attests his her own signature.  Laws are 
construed reasonably with reference the purpose accomplished.  Kaczorowski Mayor Baltimore, 309 Md. 505 (1987).  Results that are unreasonable, illogical, inconsistent with common sense should avoided.  Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted); Town Oxford Koste, 204 Md. App. 578, 586 (2012) (noting that courts should avoid absurd unreasonable readings statutes).  Signatures petition pages are the most trustworthy, not the least trustworthy, when the person who signs the petition page also attests under penalty perjury having signed the page, the genuineness his her signature, and the fact that she registered vote the State Maryland. Having signers personally attest these facts under penalty perjury plainly bolsters the validity the signature entries more than any third-party circulators ever could. Fire-Rescue Assn, 418 Md. 479.   
Indeed, the State Maryland could have required that each signer attest under penalty perjury having signed the petition, the genuineness his her signature, and being registered vote the State Maryland, but chose not impose this higher standard proof. would unreasonable, illogical, [and] inconsistent with common sense read Article XVI, Section the Maryland Constitution, Sections 6201, 6-203, and 6-204 the Election Law Article, and Sections 33.06.03.07 and 
33.06.03.08 the Code Maryland Regulations, require the rejection thousands signatures confirmed registered Maryland voters because the signatures satisfy higher level proof than they would satisfy they had been attested third-party circulator. 
Appellants also claim that [n]o person can serve witness his her own actions. Complaint  48. That patently not the case.  Witnesses testify their own actions all the time. among the most common, not the most common, form testimony offered.  While witnesses may not compelled provide self-incriminating testimony, nothing the law prevents witness from testifying his her own behalf.  One the most common questions posed witnesses testifying under oath Is that your signature? 
Appellants fail cite single case holding that petition signer may not execute circulator affidavit attesting his her own signature.  Nor they cite single case holding that person may not attest his her own signature generally.  Indeed, besides the Circuit Court, the only other Maryland court that considered Appellants argument rejected soundly. Doe Montgomery County Board Elections, 2008 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Co., Md. July 24, 2008), the Court found follows: 
Plaintiffs contend that 679 signatures should disqualified from the 
February filing, and 332 from the February filing because the 
circulator executed affidavit his her own signature. 

Although certainly not binding precedent, the court finds persuasive the position the Attorney Generals office this subject. letter dated April 20, 1987 chief counsel the Attorney General asserted that there constitutional statutory prohibition preventing person who circulates petition from signing and executing affidavit his her signature. 
Such practice consistent with the State Boards Guidelines, well.  Plaintiffs have advanced valid reason why circulator cannot observe his her own signature being affixed petition, provided that Circulator registered voter otherwise eligible sign.  The court disagrees with 
Plaintiffs suggestion that the circulator must sign the presence
 another adult, and has not been directed case statutory law that 
supports that proposition.
 
All questioned signatures category are valid. Id. **15-16.  While this Court subsequently reversed and remanded Doe other grounds, did not consider the issue whether circulator could attest his her own petition signature, the appellants Doe, who were represented the same counsel who represent Appellants this case, abandoned the argument.  Doe, 406 Md. 709 
n.10. 
Nor has the State Board Elections advised the public that person who circulates petition may not sign and execute affidavit attesting his her own signature. The State Board Elections Petition Signature Gathering FAQ states: 

Can the circulator petition signer the petition that he/she circulating? 
Yes  Provided he/she otherwise eligible sign the petition.   State Maryland, Petition Signature Gathering FAQ (Revised February 28, 2012) available www.elections.state.md.us/petitions/Petition%20Signature%20Gathering %20FAQ.pdf. 
Because constitutional statutory provision and regulation regarding  circulator affidavits impose any limitation the identity affiant other than that she must least years old, Appellants attempt impose additional limitations looking wholly irrelevant statutes.  They argue that, because the Estates and Trusts Article requires that every will shall (1) writing, (2) signed the testator, 
some other person for him, his presence and his express direction, and (3) attested 
and signed two more credible witnesses the presence the testator (Md. Code Ann., Estates Trusts  4-102), signature referendum petition governed the Election Law Article also must witnessed third party. will obviously not referendum petition, and testator obviously not petition signer. The two very different situations are governed two very different sets requirements.  While both sets requirements may intended prevent fraud, they through different mechanisms selected the General Assembly, presumably based what the General Assembly believed was appropriate for these very different circumstances. Appellants analogy wills  not the reading these provisions adopted the Circuit Court, the trial court Doe, and the State Board Elections  that does not make sense. sum, Appellants circulator argument plainly incorrect.  Nothing Maryland law prohibits circulator from attesting under penalty perjury his her own petition signature. Circulator affidavits executed this manner satisfy both the letter and the purpose the law. Far from being unreliable untrustworthy, these signatures are the most reliable and trustworthy all the signatures submitted support petition, not only are they sworn under penalty perjury, but they also are supported direct, personal knowledge the affiant.  The State Board Elections properly accepted these signatures, and there reason all for excluding them.  The judgment the Circuit Court should affirmed this regard. 

III. Signer May Use Internet-Based Software Program Signing Petition. 
Appellants also challenge thousands signatures confirmed registered Maryland voters the grounds that these voters used Interveners internet-based software program signing the petition. essence, Appellants argue that the only way registered voters can sign petition physically write out their names and addresses hand use typewriter. the anachronistic argument Appellants  not the thousands signatures confirmed registered Maryland voters who used Interveners internet-based software program  that should rejected. 
The Maryland Constitution does not specify how petition must physically executed order for registered Maryland voters signature accepted.  Rather, Article XVI, Section only states, The General Assembly shall prescribe law the form the petition, the manner for verifying its authenticity, and other administrative procedures which facilitate the petition process and which are not conflict with this Article. Id.  Pursuant this authority, the General Assembly enacted Section 6-203 the Election Law Article, which provides, pertinent part, follows: 
(a) general.  sign petition, individual shall: 
(1) 	
sign the individuals name appears the statewide voter registration list the individuals surname registration and least one full given name and the initials any other    names; and 

(2) 	
include the following information, printed typed, the spaces provided: 

(i) 	
the signers name was signed; 

(ii) 
the signers address; 

(iii) 	the date signing; and 
(iv) 	other information required regulations adopted     the State Board. 
Md. Code. Ann., Elec. Law  6-203(a) (emphasis added).   The State Board Elections, turn, has adopted the following regulation: 
.06 	Signer Identification. General. Each signature page shall contain labeled spaces for providing, adjacent each signature, the information specified   this regulation. 	Required Information. When signing the signature page, each signer shall: 
(1) 	
Sign the individuals name appears the Statewide  voter registration list the individual's surname  registration and least one full given name and the initials any other names; and  

(2) 	
Provide the following information, printed typed the appropriate spaces: 

(a) 	
Date signing, 

(b) 	
Signers name was signed, and 

(c) 	
Current residence address, including house number,     street name, apartment number (if applicable), town,     and ZIP code. 

COMAR  33.06.03.06 (emphasis added).   
Neither Section 6-203(a) the Election Law Article Section 33.06.03.06 the Code Maryland Regulations require that registered Maryland voters who wish sign petition must physically write out their names and addresses hand use typewriter, they can find one. referendum petition not test penmanship typing proficiency. What matters that the information required the law present.  Nothing either the statutory provision the regulation prohibits person from using computer keyboard dot matrix, inkjet, laser other type printer print, type, include, provide any the required information.  Based plain reading Section 6-203(a) the Election Law Article Section 3.06.03.06 the Code Maryland Regulations, Appellants are wrong matter law.  They also fail cite single case that supports the proposition that signer may not use tools common and ordinary computers and computer software programs print, type, include, provide the information required Section 6-203(a).     
Nor Maryland law hidebound compel the use the mid-twentieth century definitions the terms print and type that Appellants advocate.  Maryland law readily accommodates new and innovative technologies like Interveners internetbased software program, which fully consistent with both the letter and the purpose Marylands election laws. this regard, the Court has declared that the purpose Section 6-203(a) to provide personal attestation, signature often used, evidence support for the petition and provide unique identifier conjunction with the printed name, address, date, and other information required the State Board. Fire-Rescue Assn, 418 Md. 479.  The Court also has declared that the printed name, address, date, and other information is used subsequently verify the eligibility the petition signer support the petition, meaning that used the State Board Elections confirm that the person registered Maryland voter.  Id.; Md. Code. Ann., Elec. Law  6-207(a)(2). 
Persons who used Interveners internet-based software program print their names and addresses properly formatted petition signature pages, then signed and dated those pages, did everything required them Section 6-203(a).  They personally attested their support for the petition signing and dating the petition page, and they provided all the unique identifiers required the State Board Elections  their printed full names and addresses  well their dates birth, enable the State Board Elections verify that they are registered Maryland voters.  They satisfied both the letter and the purpose the law.  Indeed, the State Board Elections was able verify that thousands such persons are registered Maryland voters. 
Appellants are wrong when they assert that Intervener pre-filled pre-printed the names and addresses registered Maryland Voters.  Intervener did such thing.  Nor did Intervener type, print, include, provide the names and addresses registered Maryland voters petition signature pages. was the registered Maryland voters who did logging computer, accessing Interveners website, typing their name and unique identifiers and following the various prompts create their own petition signature pages. Likewise, was the registered Maryland voters who then printed the petition signature pages they had created.  Registered Maryland voters did the typing and printing, not Intervener.  Registered Maryland voters, not Intervener, typed, printed, included and provided their names and addresses the petition signature pages challenged Appellants. addition, Appellants are also wrong when they assert that one member household cannot use Interveners internet-based software program assist other household members their request signing the petition.  The law has such prohibition. Under the Maryland State Board Elections guidelines, even petition circulator may fill the information the petition page, except for signature, only the request the signer. Maryland State Board Elections, Procedures for Filing Statewide Public Law Referendum Petition: Presidential Election November 2012 (Revised March 2011) available www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/6-201-3a.pdf. 
Moreover, well settled that election procedures are conducted with due regard the intent the voter. Fire-Rescue Assn, 418 Md. 477 n.14 (citing Dutton Tawes, 225 Md. 494, 495 (1961)). Regardless whether these confirmed registered Maryland voters typed, printed, included, provided their names and addresses with pen, typewriter, computer, some other instrument, their intent clear: they wished exercise their constitutional right referendum. this particular instance, the confirmed registered Maryland voters who used Interveners internet-based software program help them sign the petition went substantial effort type, print, include and provide their names and addresses petition signature pages. addition all the steps described above, they also signed and dated the petition signature pages, executed had executed the circulators affidavit, and then mailed the fully executed materials Intervener.  Not only did the registered Maryland voters type, print, include, and provide the required information, but there mistaking their clear intent. 
The argument Appellants that somehow improper use internet-based 
software program signing petition also directly contrary the position taken the State Board Elections computer generated signature pages.  The State Board Elections has specifically stated that accepts signature pages that have been downloaded from website.  Its Petition Signature Gathering FAQ states:  

Can petition posted web site?  
Yes, and signatures the downloaded signature page will valid long the page the proper format and contains all required information.    State Maryland, Petition Signature Gathering FAQ (Revised February 28, 2012) available www.elections.state.md.us/petitions/Petition%20Signature%20Gathering %20FAQ.pdf. 
Nor registered voters use Interveners internet-based software program anything like signing walking list. Id. Walking lists are pre-printed lists names and addresses that registered voters are merely asked sign and date.  Id. person seeking signatures support petition uses walking list going door-todoor through neighborhood with list pre-printed names and addresses and asking residents for their signatures. Unlike with Interveners internet-based software program, which requires registered voters type their names and unique identifiers and through the series steps described above download, print, sign, and date their own petition signature pages, person who signs walking list has not typed, printed, included, provided his her name address all.   
Finally, limiting registered Maryland voters hand writing their names and 
addresses typing them typewriters order sign petition signature pages would unduly burden voters constitutional right referendum.  Maryland courts have long recognized that the referendum process basic instrument democratic government. Howard County Citizens for Open Govt Howard County Bd. Elections, 201 Md. App. 605, 626 (2011) (Howard County) (quoting Ritchmount Pship Bd. Supervisors Elections, 283 Md. 48, (1978)). The right referendum therefore enjoys considerable degree constitutional protection.  Howard County, 201 Md. App. 623. Because signing sponsoring referendum petition implicates registered voters constitutional rights, the courts have held that any legislation regulating the referendum process must reasonable and must not place any undue burden registered voter. Barnes State, 236 Md. 564, 573(1964); see also Burruss Bd. County Commrs, 2012 Md. LEXIS 380, **51-55 (June 25, 2012); Fire-Rescue Assn, 418 Md. 476-77 (Prior decisions this Court affirm that statutory requirements upon the referendum petition process are viable not unduly burdensome the constitutionally protected right referendum.); Doe, 406 Md. 733; Howard County, 201 Md. App. 623.  This standard also applies rules and regulations promulgated the State Board Elections.  Fire-Rescue Assn, 418 Md. 477 (The State Boards guidelines, similarly, may not evade the requirement reasonableness, they must not unduly burdensome, and they should not frustrate the intent the petition signer.). Fire-Rescue Assn, the Court reviewed the manner which the State Board Elections approached signature review submitted petitions evidenced the revised State Maryland Petition Acceptance and Verification Procedures: Statewide Public Local Law Referendum Petition. 418 Md. 475. that time, the State Board Elections required the printed name and the signature match exactly and that the printed name/signature match the name the voter registration list.  Id. The Court ruled that the State Board Elections requirement was unduly burdensome registered voters right referendum.  Id. 476-477. 
There reasonable rational basis, much less compelling basis, for requiring registered voters physically write out their names and addresses hand use typewriter type their names and addresses onto petition signature pages order exercise their constitutional right referendum.  Appellants claim that such requirement necessary prevent fraud, but they not point single instance actual fraud this particular petition drive the prior petition drives which registered voters used Interveners internet-based software program signing petition pages.   
Regardless, requiring that petition signature pages physically written out hand with typewriter would completely ineffective anti-fraud measure.  Appellants assert that anyone who knows the name, zip code, and birth date voter could use Interveners internet-based software program download and sign petition signature page the voter. Complaint  40.  Much more likely that anyone who knows voters name and address could write that name and address and sign petition signature page the voter.2  The latter type fraud much more likely than the former because address information much more readily available than date birth information.  Fire-Rescue Assn, 418 Md. 492 n.6 (Harrell, J., dissenting) (noting use telephone books petition fraud). would make little sense require, anti-fraud measure, interpretation Section 6-203(a)(2) the Election Law Article and Section 33.06.03.06(B)(2) the Code Maryland Regulations that prohibits the use tool helpful and beneficial Interveners internet-based software program when that same, restrictive interpretation would nothing address much more likely type fraud. any event, the task the General Assembly, not Appellants, the Court design appropriate anti-fraud measures that balance the need for integrity the petition process and the peoples constitutional right referendum. 
There also are compelling reasons for not applying the restrictive interpretation Section 6-203(a)(2) the Election Law Article and Section 33.06.03.06(B)(2) the Code Maryland Regulations advocated Appellants.  Interveners internet-based software program helps registered Maryland voters avoid some the most common errors that prevent signatures from being validated, verified, and counted, such missing middle initials other name standard issues.  See, e.g., Fire-Rescue Assn, 418 Md. 475-476. also greatly benefits disabled less able voters who may not able write write legibly use typewriter with ease.  The restrictive interpretation Section 6203(a)(2) the Election Law Article and Section 33.06.03.06 (B)(2) the Code 
The State Board Elections request voters provide their birth dates, but birth date not required and signature will not rejected birth date not provided.  COMAR  33.06.03.06(C). 
Maryland Regulations advocated Appellants would effectively deprive these persons their constitutional right petition. There reasonable rational basis, much less compelling basis, for rejecting thousands signatures confirmed registered Maryland voters simply because they used Intervener's internet-based software program signing petition pages. Doing would unduly burden these voters' constitutional 
rights. The judgment the Circuit Court must affirmed this regard well. 
CONCLUSION 
For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment the Circuit Court should AFFIRMED. Dated: August 15, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, 

o.9112190026 

c::-2L:_ 
Chris edeli Md. Bar No. 0012120179 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 646-5199 Email: porfanedes@judicialwatch.org 
cfedeli@judicialwatch.org 
Attorneys for Appellee-lntervener MDPetitions. com 
Font: Times New Roman, point. 
CITATION AND VERBATIM TEXT 
PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,  
STATUTES, ORDINANCES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS 

Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann.  3-409 (2012)
 
 3-409. Discretionary relief 
(a) general. Except provided subsection (d) this section, court may grant declaratory judgment decree civil case, will serve terminate 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. statute provides special form remedy for specific type case, that statutory remedy shall followed lieu proceeding under this subtitle. 

(c)
 Concurrent remedies not bar for declaratory relief. party may obtain declaratory judgment decree notwithstanding concurrent common-law, equitable, extraordinary legal remedy, whether not recognized regulated statute. 

Md. Election Law Code Ann.  6-201 (2012)  6-201. Content petitions 
(a) general. petition shall contain 

(1) information page; and 

(2)
 signature pages containing not less than the total number signatures required law filed. 

(b)
 Information page. The information page shall contain: 

(1) description the subject and purpose the petition, conforming the requirements regulations; 

(2)
 identification the sponsor and, the sponsor organization, the individual designated receive notices under this subtitle; 

(3)
 the required information relating the signatures contained the petition; 

(4)
 the required affidavit made and executed the sponsor or, the sponsor organization, individual responsible and designated the organization; and 

(5)
 any other information required regulation. 

(c)
 Signature page. Each signature page shall contain: 

(1) description the subject and purpose the petition, conforming the requirements regulations; 

(2) the petition seeks place question the ballot, either: 

(i) fair and accurate summary the substantive provisions the proposal; 

(ii)
 the full text the proposal; 

(3) statement, which each signer subscribes, that: 

(i)
 the signer supports the purpose that petition process; and 

(ii)
 based the signer's information and belief, the signer registered voter the county specified the page and eligible have his her signature counted; 

(4)
 spaces for signatures and the required information relating the signers; 

(5) space for the name the county which each the signers that page registered voter; 

(6) space for the required affidavit made and executed the circulator; and 

(7)
 any other information required regulation. 

(d)
 Petition relating questions. the petition seeks place question the ballot and the sponsor elects print summary the proposal each signature page provided subsection (c)(2)(i) this section: 

(1)
 the circulator shall have the full text the proposal present the time and place that each signature affixed the page; and 

(2)
 the signature page shall state that the full text available from the circulator. 

(e)
 Signature page meet requirements all times. signature page shall satisfy the requirements subsections (c) and (d)(2) this section before any signature affixed and all relevant times thereafter. 

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. 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 (c) this section, the chief election official shall: 

(1)
 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; 

(6)
 the petition has failed satisfy some other requirement established law. 

(d)
 Consistency with advance determination. determination under this section may not inconsistent with advance determination made under  6-202 this subtitle. 

(e)
 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. the conclusion the verification and counting processes, the chief election official the election authority shall: 

(1)
 determine 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. 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 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 XI-A,  the Maryland Constitution, certify that the petition sufficient. 

(c)
 Notice. Notice determination under this section shall 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,  6208(a)(2) this 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 Arundel 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 court the county which petition has been will filed may grant declaratory relief any petition with respect the provisions this title other provisions law. 

COMAR 33.06.03.07 (2012) .07 Circulator Identification. Identification Required. Each signature page shall include identification individual circulator, required this regulation. Information Provided. The identification the circulator shall include that individual's: 
(1)
 Printed typed name; 

(2)
 Residence address, including house number, street name, apartment number (if applicable), town, and ZIP code; and 

(3)
 Telephone number. 

CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 15th day August, 2012, caused true and correct 
copy the foregoing BRIEF APPELLEE-INTERVENER MDPETITIONS.COM served, via email and first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, the following: 
Amanda LaF orge Joseph Sandler Elizabeth Getman SANDLER, REIFF, YOUNG LAMB, P.C. 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, 20005 
Jonathan Shurberg 
JOHATHAN SHURBERG, P.C. 8720 Georgia venue, Suite 906 Silver Spring, 20910 
Jeffrey Darsie Julia Bernhardt Jennifer Katz 
Assistant Attorney Generals 
OFFICE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor Baltimore, 21202-2021 

Chris Fedeli



Sign Up for Updates!