Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Doe v MD Board of Elections Motion to Intervene 92011

Doe v MD Board of Elections Motion to Intervene 92011

Doe v MD Board of Elections Motion to Intervene 92011

Page 1: Doe v MD Board of Elections Motion to Intervene 92011

Category:General

Number of Pages:39

Date Created:September 22, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:92011, Doe, Intervene, Elections, motion, board


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

JOHN DOE, al., THE 
Plaintiffs, 
MARYLAND STATE BOARD ELECTIONS, al., 
Defendants. 
CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 
Case No. 02-C-11-163050 
MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORT MDPETITIONS.COM'S MOTION INTERVENE 
MDPetitions.com, counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum points and 
authorities support its motion intervene this matter, and states follows: Introduction. this action, Plaintiffs challenge the placement the Maryland DREAM Act the 
ballot the November 2012 general election. The statute, which was enacted the Maryland 
General Assembly during its 2011 session and signed Governor Martin O'Malley May 10, 
2011, creates new, taxpayer subsidized public benefit for certain eligible, unlawfully present 
aliens, namely the ability pay the lowest, in-state rate tuition Maryland community 
colleges and public senior higher education institutions. 
MDPetitions.com the sponsor the successful petition drive that placed the Maryland 
DREAM Act the November 2012 ballot. the seven week time period between May 10, 
2011 and June 30, 2011, MDPetitions.com conceived organized, and led state-wide 
campaign that collected 132,071 signatures support the petition and submitted the 
signatures the Secretary State. these 132,071 signatures, total 108,923 signatures 

were validated, verified, and accepted being the signatures registered Maryland voters. 
This total nearly twice the amount required law put the new public benefit for eligible 
unlawfully present aliens referendum. te1ms sheer numbers, perhaps the most successful petition drive Maryland's history. July 22, 2011, the State Administrator Elections certified the Maryland DREAM Act for placement the November 2012 ballot. the sponsor this overwhelmingly successful petition, MDPetitions.com obviously has compelling interest ensuring that voters across the State Maryland have the opportunity vote the Maryland DREAM Act the November 2012 election. addition, MDPetitions.com represents not only its leaders and organizers and the hundreds volunteers who worked make the successful petition possible, but also the 108,923 confirmed registered voters who signed the petition the exercise their rights under Article XVI, Section the Maryland Constitution. Equally important that, the creator web-based computer program that many 28,860 confirmed registered voters used generate, print, sign, and mail clear and accurate petition pages, Petitions.com has unique interest preserving the availability this very helpful and effective tool for use registered voters future petition drives. MDPetitions.com seeks intervention right and permissive intervention protect these clear and direct interests against the unfounded allegations the Amended Complaint. MDPetitions.com's proposed Answer the Amended Complaint attached hereto Exhibit 
II. MDPetitions.com Entitled Intervene Right. 
MDPetitions.com has the right intervene directly this matter pursuant Md. Rule 2214(a)(2). party moving for intervention right must establish the following: (1) that the 
applicant has interest the subject matter the action; (2) that disposition the action 
would least potentialJy impair the applicant's ability protect its interest; and (3) that the 
applicant's interest inadequately represented the existing parties. Chapman Kamara, 
356 Md. 426, 739 A.2d 387 (1999); see also Md. Rule 2-214(a)(2). 	MDPetitions.com Has Multiple, Demonstrable Interests the Subject Matter this Action. 
MDPetitions.com has least three, clear, obvious, and demonstrable interests the 
subject matter this action. First, Plaintiffs seek nullify and overturn the results the 
tremendously successful petition drive conceived of, organized, and led MDPetitions.com 
place the Maryland DREAM Act the November 2012 ballot. The Amended Complaint 
repeatedly recognizes MDPetition.com the petition's sponsor. Amended Complaint 10, 
45, and 51. confirms MDPetitions.com's key role collecting "signatures for petition 
refer repeal the Maryland DREAM Act the 2012 General Election ballot." id. 33. 
also recognized that Petitions.com submitted tens thousands signatures the Secretary State seeking refer the Maryland DREAM Act referendum May 31, 2011 (id. 'ii 34) 
and tens thousands more June 30, 2011. Id. 'ii 35. then alleges that MDPetitions.com's 
petition should nullified and overturned for reasons that include: (i) whether the Maryland 
DREAM Act subject referendum (id. 'ilif 38-43); (ii) voters' use ofMDPeti.tion.com's 
web-based computer program generate, print, sign, and mail petitions (id. 45-57); and 
(iii) other alleged defects the petition. 58-82. Thus, one obvious jnterest 
MDPetitions.com preserving and protecting its substantial efforts the sponsor the 
petition and the entity that conceived of, organized, and lead the petition highly successful 
outcome. 
Second, the sponsor the petition, Petitions.com represents not only its leaders 
and organizers and the hundreds volunteers who worked make the petition tremendous 
success, but also the 108,923 confirmed registered voters who signed 1he petition. participating the petition process, either leading and organizing the petition drive, volunteering for the drive, signing the petition, each and every one these persons exercised their right under Article XVI, Section the Maryland Constitution. the sponsor the petition, MDPetitions.com's interest this action includes the compelling interest protecting the constitutional rights all the persons who participated the petition place the Maryland DREAM Act the November 2012 ballot. 
Third, MDPetitions.com also the creator web-based computer program that Plaintiffs allege many 28,860 registered voters used generate, print, sign, and mail accurate petitions. Amended Complaint and 57. One the main benefits this 
program that helps registered voters sign petitions the same manner which their 
names appear the statewide voter registration list (e.g., John Smith for John Henry Smith, but not John Smith for John Henry Smith), thus avoiding common reason for rejecting signature. See Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Assoc. Montgomery County Bd. Elections, 418 Md. 463, 475-76 (2011 Plaintiffs challenge registered voters' use the program, claiming that constitutes allegedly unlawful "pre-filled petition form." Amended Complaint 45-57. the creator this very helpful and highly effective computer program that helps registered voters complete petitions clearly and properly, MDPctitions.com has unique interest preserving the program's availability for use registered voters future petition drives. sum, MDPetitions.com has multiple, important interests this action, including the 
compelling interest protecting the constitutional rights the leaders, organizers, volunteers, 
and 108,923 confirmed registered voters represents sponsor the petition. 	The Disposition the Action Will Undoubtedly Impair the Ability MDPetitions.com Protect Its Interests. 
The disposition this action will undoubtedly impair the ability ofMDPetitions.com 
protect its interests. the sponsor the petition, representative the leaders, organizers, and 
volunteers who made the successful petition possible and the 108,923 confirmed registered 
voters who signed the petition, well the creator the web-based computer program used many 28,860 confirmed registered voters, MDPetitions.com's intere-sts would 
affected directly and significantly this Court were grant the relief requested Plaintiffs. 
Indeed, ruling Plaintiffs' favor overturning the petition will negate all MDPetitions.com's 
substantial efforts well the constitutional rights the 108,923 confirmed registered voters 
who participated the petition process. ruling that registered voters' use 
MDPetitions.com's web-based computer program was un]awful not only would negate 
MDPetitions.com's substantial efforts with respect the petition drive being challenged this 
action, but also would undermine MDPctitions.com's interest preserving the program's 
availability for use registered voters future petition drives. Moreover> the deadline 
submit petition refer the Maryland DREAM Act referendum has long since expired, opportunity would exist submit new petition. adverse disposition this case will plainly 
impair MDPetitions.com's ability protect its multiple interests. 	MDPetitions.com's Interests Are Not Likely Represented Adequately the Existing Parties. 
The burden showing that existing representation may inadequate minimal for 
purposes intervention. Stewart Tuli, Md. App. 726, 573 A.2d 109 (Ct. Sp. App. 1990). not necessary that there positive showing inadequacy representation intervene; sufficient that representation may inadequate. Id. (emphasis added). The Court 
Appeals has explained: serious possibility that the applicant's interest may not adequately 
represented sufficient satisfy the rule. has been said that the most 

important factor determining adequacy representation how the interest 
the absentee compares with the interests the present parties. Where the applicant's interest similar to, but not identical with, that existing party, ordinarily should allowed intervene unless clear that the (existing) party will provide adequate representation for the absentee. 
Citizens Coordinating Comm. Friendship Heights, Inc. TKU Associates, 276 Md. 705, 713, 
351A.2d133, 139 (Md. 1976) (intervention should have been granted because interest 
appealing adverse decision was potentially greater for applicant interveners) (internal citations 
omitted). 
MDPetitions.com's interests may not adequately represented the existing parties. 
Obviously, Plaintiffs will not represent 1vIDPetition.com's interest. They seek nullify 
everything MDPetitions.com has accomplished well the rights the 108,923 confinned 
registered voters who signed the petition. They also apparently seek block the use web-
based computer programs that assist registered voters complete petitions accurately. 
Defendants, the other hand, will likely emphasize and focus the processes and procedures 
utilized the State Board Elections validating and verifying signatures and otherwise 
certifying that the Maryland DREAM Act will placed the November 2012 ballot. 
Defendants' efforts are thus likely centered the institutional interests the State Board Elections, the State Administrator Elections, and the Secretary State, not the interests 
MDPetition.com the sponsor the petition and the representative the leaders, organizers, 
volunteers, and confirmed registered voters who signed the petition. Nor likely that 
Defendants will defend MDPetitions.com's unique interest preserving its web-based computer 
program for use registered voters future petition drives. addition, virtue counsel's 
discretion select and emphasize certain legal arguments and exclude others, Defendant may 
decide not press important interests raised MDPetitions.com, such defending the 
integrity the signature-gathering process opposed the verifying and validating process. 
Likewise, counsel for Defendants would not required appeal adverse ruling the 
merits. 	Because more than likely that Defendants will not adequately represent the interest MDPetitions.com, opposed Defendants' procedural and institutional interest, 
MDPetitions.com should allowed intervene this action matter right protect its 
own unique interest well the constitutional rights the 108,923 confirmed registered 
voters who signed the petition. 	The Court Should Allow Permissive Intervention the 
Unlikely Event Intervention Right Not Allowed. 

Any person may pennitted intervene action when the person's claim 
defense has question law fact common with the action. Md. Rule 2-214(b )(1 
Permissive intervention "lies within the sound discretion the circuit court, and appeal may reviewed only for abuse that discretion." Jabine Priola, Md. App. 218, 224-25, 
412 A.2d 1277, 1281 (1980). Permissive intervention "is warranted when person's claim 
defense has question law fact common with the action." Simpson Consolidated 
Const. Services, inc., 143 Md. App. 606, 636, 795 A.2d 743, 771 (Md. App. 2002) (citations and 
internal quotations omitted). Given the obvious substantial role MDPetitions.com the 
petition --indeed, the Maryland DREAM Act would not the November 2012 ballot were 
not for MDPetition.com' efforts --the defense Petitions.com the relief sought 
Plaintiffs has questions oflaw and fact common with the instant action. set forth above, the issues law and fact this action relate solely the petition 
submitted MDPetitions.com. MDPetition.com's defonse has more than mere question 
law fact common with the action; the questions fact and law that will raised 
MDPetition.com have substantial, not complete overlap with the claims and anticipated 
.defenses the current parties. behalf itself and the 108,932 confirmed registered voters 
who signed the petitions, Petitions.com should permitted the opportunity defend against 
Plaintiffs' claims, many which challenge directly the integrity and propriety 
.MDPetitions.com's actions. Accordingly, MDPetitions.com respectfully requests intervention 
pursuant Md. RuJe 2-214(b)(2). 
MDPetitions.com's Motion Timely and Will Not Prejudice the Cunent Parties. 
Plaintiffs initiated this action August 2011 and filed Amended Complaint 
September 2011. MDPetitions.com filing its motion intervene the same day that 
Defendants are due answer otherwise respond the lawsuit. Thus, MdPetitions.com's 
motion timely, and allowing MDPctitions.com intervene will not unduly delay prejudice 
the adjudication the rights the original parties any way. IJ. Conclusion. 
For the foregoing reasons, NIDPetitions.com respectfully requests intervention, both 
matter right and permissively, this action, and declared defendant therein. 
Dated: September 21, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 

Attorneys for Intervener 
EXHIBIT 

JOHN DOE, al., THE  
Plaintiffs,  CIRCUIT COURT  FORANNEARUNDEL COUNTY  
MARYLAND STATE BOARD ELECTIONS, al.,  Case No. 02-C-11-163050  
Defendants,  
and  
MDPETITIONS.COM,  
Intervener.  

ANSWER INTERVENER MDPETITIONS.COM PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 
Intervener 11Dpetitions.com, counsel and pursuant Rules 2-303 and 2-323 the 
Maryland Rules Civil Procedure, hereby answers Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for 
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief follows: 
NATURE THE ACTION Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are introductory nature and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener admits that 
the Amended Complaint purports action for judicial review termination made 
the Maryland State Board Elections ("State Board") regarding the Maryland DREAM Act. 
Intervener denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the Maryland DREAM Act not subject referral referendum pursuant Article XVI, the Maryland Constitution, denies that the petition submitted the petition sponsors contained only 41,597 valid signatures, and denies that least 67,326 the signatures submitted and validated the Maryland State Board Elections ("State Board") are invalid. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs> remaining allegations paragraph 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the State Board's detennination and certification regarding the referral the Maryland DREAM Act referendum are not supported substantial evidence are premised erroneous conclusions law. 
Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph Intervener avers that May 31, 2011, submitted least ,505 signed petitions the Secretary State, which ,288 were verified and accepted and 10,217 were rejected. Intervener also avers that the 47,288 verified and accepted signatures exceeded 28,709 the 18,579 signatures required place the Maryland DREAM Act the November 2012 ballot. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that Plaintiffs are entitled any the relief referenced paragraph 

II. 
BACKGROUND Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the eligibility requirements the Maryland DREAM Act. Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient fom1 belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 

10. Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 10. 
III. 
JURISDICTION AN)) VENUE 

11. Intervener admits that Md. Code Ann., Cts. Jud. Proc.  1-501 and 3-406 and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(a) and (b) provide general grants jurisdiction. Intervener denies that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims this particular matter. 
12. 
Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 12. 

13. 
Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 13. 

IV. 
PARTIES 
14. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the legations. addition, Intervener also denies that Plaintiffs John Doe and Jane Doe are entitled bring suit 
under fictitious names Rule 2-201 the Maryland Rules Civil Procedure requires that 
"[e]very action shall prosecuted the name the real party interest" 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient fo1m belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' 11egations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies that the facts alleged paragraph are sufficient satisfy the eligibility requirements the Maryland DREAM Act. Intervener further denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate that Plaintiff John Doe has been "aggrieved" for purposes judicial review llllder Md. Code Ann., Elcc. Law 6-209(a). Intervener fui1her denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff John Doe and Defendants that Plaintiff John Doe "interested party" asserting adverse claim against Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. 
16. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the tmth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies that the facts alleged paragraph are sufficient satisfy the eligibility requirements the Maryland DREAM Act. Intervener further denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate that Plaintiff John Doe has been "aggrieved" for purposes judicial review under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(a). Intervener further denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff John Doe and Defendants that Plaintiff John Doe "interested party" asserting adverse claim against 
Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory 
Judgment Act. 
17. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Intervener also denies that the facts alleged paragraph are sufficient satisfy the eligibility requirements the Maryland DREAM Act. fntervener further denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate that Plaintiff Jane Doe has been "aggrieved" for purposes judicial review under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(a). Intervener further denies that the allegations contained paragraph arc sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Jane Doe and Defendants that Plaintiff Jane Doe "interested party,, asserting adverse claim against Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. 
18. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form beliefas 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Intervener also denies that the facts alleged paragraph are sufficient satisfy the eligibility requirements the Maryland DREAM Act. Intervener further denies that the allegations 
contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate that Plaintiff Jane Doe has been 
"aggrieved" for purposes judicial review under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(a). Intervener further denies that the allegations contained paragraph arc sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Jane Doe and Defendants that Plaintiff Jane Doe "interested party" asserting adverse claim against Defendants 
for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Tntervener also denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate 
the existence justiciable controversy between PlaintiffJesus Alberto Martinez and 
Defendants that Plaintiff Jesus Alberto Martinez "interested pa.J.ti, asserting adverse claim against Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and Md. Code Ann. Elec. Law  6-209(b 
20. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient fonn belief the truth Plaintiffs, allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Intervener also denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Abby lendrix and Defendants that Plaintiff Abby Hendrix "interested party" asserting adverse claim against Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and Md. Code Ann. Elec. Law 6-209(b). 
21. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient fonn belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Intervener also denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Katherine Ross-Keller and Defendants that Plaintiff Katherine Ross-Keller "interested party" asserting adverse claim against Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and Md. Code Ann. Elec. Law  6-209(b 
22. Intervener without knowledge infom1ation sufficient fonn belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Intervener also denies that the allegations contained paragraph arc sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Kim Samele and Defendants that Plaintiff Kim Samele "interested party" asserting adverse claim against Defendants for 
purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and 
Md. Code AnnElec. Law 6-209(b). 
Intervener without knowJcdge information sufficient fonn belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Intervener also denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Camden Douglas Lee and Defendants that Plaintiff Camden Douglas Lee "interested party' asserting adverse claim against Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and Md. Code AnnElec. Law 6-209(b). 
24. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
Intervener also denies that the aJlcgations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate the existence justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Catherine Brennan and Defendants 
that Plaintiff Catherine Brennan "interested party>' asserting adverse claim against 
Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and Md. Code Ann. Elec. Law 6-209(b). 
25. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies that the allegations contained paragraph are sufficient demonstrate that Plaintiff Casa Maryland has been "aggrieved" for purposes judicial review under Md. 
Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-209(a). Intervener further denies that the allegations contained 
paragraph are sufficient demonstrate the existence ofa justiciable controversy between Plaintiff Casa Maryland and Defendants that Plaintiff Casa Maryland "interested pai1y" asserting adverse claim against Defendants for purposes declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. 
26. Intervener admits that Defendant John McDonough the Secretary State the 
State Maryland. The remainder Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the duties, responsibility, and authority the Secretary State. 
27. Intervener admits that Defendant State Board Election the agency mandated Maryland law administer the state's election laws. The remainder Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the 
extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately 
set forth the duties, responsibility, and authority the Secretary State. 
28. Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 28. 
FACTS GIVING RISE CAUSE ACTION 
29. Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 29. 
30. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener admits that the relevant number three percent. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph 
30. 

31. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph arc legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener admits that 
the relevant number Intervener denies the rcmai ing allegations paragraph 31. 
32. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener admits that the reJevant number 18,579. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph 32. 
33. Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 33. Intervener admits that, about May 31, 2011, Intervener submitted the 
Secretary State total 57,505 signatures petition refer the Maryland DREAM Act referendum. Intervener also admits that, out these 57,505 signatures, local state boards election verified and accepted 47,288 signatures and rejected 10,217 signatures. Intervener 
 
denies that local state boards election "certified" any signatures. Intervener further admits 
that, about June 22, 2011, the State Board determined that the number accepted 
signatures met and exceeded the minimum initial one-third requirement the Maryland 
Constitution for placing the Maryland DREAM Act the November 2010 ballot Maryland, 
thereby extending the date for the filing least 8,448 additional signatures until June 30, 
2011. Intervener denies the remainder Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and, 
particular, denies that the State Board had any obligation conduct independent review 
the signatures verified and accepted the local state boards election. 
35. Intervener admits that about June 30, 2011, Intervener submitted 74,566 
additional signatures the Secretary State. Intervener also admits that, out these 74,566 signatures, local state boards election verified and accepted 61,635 signatures and rejected 12,931 signatures. Intervener denies that local state boards election "certified" any signatures. 
Intervener also denies the remainder Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and, pruticular, 
denies that the State Board had any obligation conduct independent review the signatures verified and accepted the local state boards election. 
36. 
Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 36. 

37. 
Intervener admits Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 37. 

38. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal concJusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the Mruyland DREAM Act law making appropriations within the meaning Atticle XVI,  the Maryland Constitution and not subject refen-al referendum. 

39. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the text Article XVI,  the Maryland Constitution. 

Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the Maryland DREAM Act authorizes the withdrawal any sum money from the State treasury, much less directly, inherently. necessarily has the primary object authorizing the withdrawal certain stun money for specified public objective purpose which such sum applied. Intervener admits that the Fiscal and Policy Note for Senate Bill 167 contains estimates the effect the Maryland DREAM Act enrollment and state expenditures. Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the contents the Fiscal and Policy Note. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 
41. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph arc legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 41. 
42. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 42. 

43. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 43. 

44. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies that submitted fewer than the required number valid signatures registered voters refer the Maryland DREAM Act referendum. 

45. 
Intervener admits that the sponsor the petition refer the Maryland DREAM Act referendum and that maintains website located https://mdpetitions.com/. Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph fully and accurately describe Intervener's website the web-based computer program available the website any registered voter who wished pruticipate the petition. Intervener therefore denies the remaining allegations paragraph 45. Intervener avers that registered voter who wished sign the petition could log Intervener's website, click the "Sign the Petition" button, and enter certain unique, identifying information generate his her own petition, format preapproved the State Board Elections, that included the voter's name, residence, address, city, zip code, and date birth reflected the State Board's statewide list registered 

voters. Intervener also avers that the petition generated the registered voter also included the 
full text the Maryland DREAM Act format pre-approved the State Board Elections. 
46. 
Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully and accurately describe the instructions that lnterveners' web-based computer program provided registered voters about how download, print, complete, and mail their self-generated petitions and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 46. Intervener avers that its web-based computer program included instructions registered voters about how properly download, print, complete, and mail their self-generated petitions, including instructions how complete the Circulator's Affidavit and how complete the petition when more than one registered voter residing the same address wished sign the petition. 

47. 
Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully and accurately describe Interveners' web-based computer program and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 47. Intervener avers that registered voter who wished sign the petition could log Intervener's website, click the "Sign the Petition" button, and enter certain unique, identifying information generate his her own petition, format pre-approved the State Board Elections, that included the voter's name, residence, address, city, zip code, and date birth reflected the State Board's statewide list registered voters. Intervener also avers that the petition generated the registered voter also included the full text the Maryland DREAM Act fo1mat pre-approved the State Board Elections. Intervener further avers that its web-based computer program included instructions registered voters about how properly download, print, complete, and mail their self-generated petitions} including instructions how complete the Circulator's Affidavit and how complete the petition when more than one registered voter residing the same address wished sign the petition. 

48. Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully and accurately 
describe Interveners' web-based computer program and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 48. Intervener avers that its web-based computer program included instructions registered voters about how properly download, print, complete, and mail their selfgenerated petitions, including instructions how complete the Circulator's Affidavit and how complete the petition when more than one registered voter residing the same address wished sign the petition. 
49. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that 
the allegations fully and accurately set forth the text ofMd. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-203(a). 
50. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that 
the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements COMAR 33.06.03.06(8). 
51. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies 
Plaintiffs' alIegations paragraph 51. 
52. Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 52. 
53. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the current versions the State Board's "Frequently Asked Questions" posted the State Board's website that the State Board's "Frequently Asked Questions" have the force law.
-13 
54. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 54. 
55. Plaintiffs' aJlcgations paragraph are JcgaJ conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 55. 
56. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 56. 
57. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' 
allegations 
paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies PJaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 57. 
58. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that 
the allegations fully and accurately set forth the text Article XVI,  the Maryland 
Constitution. 
59. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that 
the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Blee. Law 
201 and 610l(h). 
60. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements the Maryland Constitution the Election Law Article. 
61. Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully accurately 
describe Interveners' efforts obtain approval the sufficiency the text the Maryland DREAM Act and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 61. Intervener avers that 
submitted proposed full text the Maryland DREAM Act the State Board Elections for 
approval and that the State Board Elections approved Intervener's proposed texts April 21, 2011, after consultation with the Attorney General. 
62. Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully accurately 
describe lnterveners' efforts obtain approval the sufficiency the text the Maryland 
DREAM Act and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 62. Intervener avers that 
submitted proposed full text the Maryland DREAM Act the State Board Elections for 
approval and that the State Board Elections approved Intervener's proposed text April 21, 
2011, after consultation with the Attorney General. 
63. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any petitions Plaintiffs may claim 
have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining 
allegations paragraph 
64. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 64. 
65. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 65. 

66. 
Plaintiffs' aJlegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6204(a) and 6-203(b)(4). 

67. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the trnth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 67. 

68. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set f01th the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6203(b)(5). 

69. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 

paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the 
allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 69. 
70. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' alJcgations paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have 
examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener denies Plaintiffs' remaining 
allegations paragraph 70. 
71. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 71. 
72. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 
203(a)(t 
73. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 

74. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 

the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations. 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without 
knowledge infonnation sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the 
allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 74. 
75. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the 
allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 75. 
76. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any petitions Plaintiffs may claim have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 76. 
77. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth ofPlaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any petitions Plaintiffs may claim have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 77. 
78. Plaintiffs) allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any signatures Plaintiffs claim have examined and therefore denies the 
allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 78. 
79. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that 

the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 
201( )(7). 
80. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements COMAR 33.06.03.06. 
81. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements COMAR 33.06.03.06. futervener admits that "Notice Signer" appeared the sample petition page for the Maryland DREAM Act that received advance determination sufficiency from the State Board. 
82. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient fonn belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any petitions Plaintiffs may claim have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 82. 
CAUSES ACTION 
COUNT -JUDICIAL REVIEW -REFERABILITY 
83. futervcner hereby refers and incorporates reference its response 
paragraphs 1-82, above. 
84. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 84. 
85. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 85. 
86. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 86. 
COUNT -JUDICIAL REVIEW -JUNE 22, 2011 DETERMINATION 
87. Intervener hereby refers and incorporates reference its response 
paragraphs 1-86, above. 
88. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent response deemed required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief a