Skip to content

Judicial Watch • MotionToInterv8_1

MotionToInterv8_1

MotionToInterv8_1

Page 1: MotionToInterv8_1

Category:General

Number of Pages:31

Date Created:August 1, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:MotionToInterv8


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

DENNIS WHITLEY, III, al., 
Plaintiffs, 
MARYLAND STATE BOARD ELECTIONS, al., 
Defendants.  THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY Case No. 02-C-12-171365  

MOTION INTERVENE MDPETITIONS.COM 
MDPetitions.com, counsel and pursuant Rule 2-214, respectfully submits this 
motion intervene. The grounds for the motion are set forth the accompanying memorandum points and authorities, attached which proposed answer the Complaint proposed 
order also submitted herewith for the Court's consideration 

FOR HEARING 
Pursuant Rule 2-33 l(f), MDPetitions.com respectfully requests that hearing held the motion intervene answer any questions the Court might have about the proposed 
intervention. 
c"J 
Dated: July 31, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 

Washington, 20024 
Tel: (202) 646-5172 
Fax: (202) 646-5199 

Attorneys for Intervener 
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 31th day July, 2012, caused true and correct copy the foregoing MOTION INTERVENE MDPETITIONS.COM served, via first-class 
U.S. mail, postage prepaid, the following: 
Amanda Laforge Joseph Sandler Elizabeth Getman SANDLER, REIFF, YOUNG LAMB, P.C. 1025 Vermont venue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, 20005 
Jonathan Shurberg JOHATHAN SHURBERG, P.C. 8720 Georgia venue, Suite 906 Silver Spring, 20910 
Jeffrey Darsie Assistant Attorney General OFFICE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor Baltimore, 21202-2021
DENNIS WHITLEY, III, al., THE
Plaintiffs, CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 
MARYLAND STATE BOARD Case No. 02-C-12-171365 
ELECTIONS, al., 
Defendants. 
MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORT MDPETITIONS.COM'S MOTION INTERVENE Petitions.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 Senate Bill Chapter the 2011 
...... 
Special Session the Maryland General Assembly, also known the Congressional Districting 
.":'1 
Plan, the ballot the November 2012 general election. The statute establishes the 
composition the eight districts the State Maryland for the election members the o 
r:y 
United States House Representatives. lrJ 
"'-> Petitions.com the sponsor the successful petition drive that placed the 
Congressional Districting Plan the November 2012 ballot. Following the enactment the 
statute, MDPetitions.com conceived of, organized, and led state-wide campaign that collected least 64,744 signatures support the petition and submitted the signatures the Secretary State. these 64,744 signatures, total 59,201 were validated, verified, and accepted 
the State Board Elections being the signatures registered Maryland voters. about 
July 20, 2012, the State Administrator Elections certified the Congressional Districting Plan for placement the November 2012 ballot. the sponsor this successful petition, Petitions.com obviously has compelling interest ensu1ing that voters across the State Maryland have the opportunity vote the Congressional Districting Plan the November 2012 election. MDPetitions.com represents not only its own interests and the interests the organizers and volunteers who worked make the petition success, but also the interests the 59,201 confomed 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 used many confirmed registered voters sign the petition, MDPetitions.com has unique interest preserving the availability this helpful and effective tool for use registered voters future petition drives. 
MDPetitions.com thus seeks intervene order protect these clear and direct interests against the unfounded allegations the Complaint. Petitions.com intervened challenge another successful state-wide petition MDPetitions.com had sponsored last year, John Doe, al. Maryland State Board Elections, al., Case No. 02-C-11-163050 (Arme Arundel Co. Cir. Ct.) (Silkworth, J.) That challenge was resolved MDPetitions.com's favor only last month. See Doe Maryland State Board Elections, 2012 Md. LEXIS 363 (Md. June 13, 2012). proposed Answer the Complaint attached hereto Exhibit pursuant Md. Rule 2-214(c). 
II. 	MDPetitions.com Entitled Intervene Right. Petitions.com has the right intervene directly this matter pursuant Md. Rule
214(a)(2). party moving for intervention right must establish the following: (1) that the 
applicant bas interest the subject matter the action; (2) that disposition the action 
would least potentially impair the applicant's ability protect its interest; and (3) that the 
applicant's interest will not adequately represented the existing parties. Chapman 
Kamara, 356 Md. 426 (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 and foremost, Plaintiffs seek nullify and overturn the results the successful petition drive conceived of, organized, and led MDPetitions.com place the 
Congressional Districting Plan the November 2012 ballot. The Complaint repeatedly 
recognizes MDPetitions.com the petition's sponsor. See Complaint 26-29, 31-32, 36, 
39-40. alleges that MDPetitions.com's successful petition should nullified and overturned 
for reasons that include: (i) confirmed registered voters' use MDPetitions.com's web-based 
computer program sign the petition (id at 31-43); (ii) confirmed registered voters' 
attestations the veracity their own signatures (id. 44-49); and (iii) other alleged defects the petition. Id. 50-65. Thus, one obvious interest 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, MDPetitions.com represents not only its own 
interests and the interests the organizers and volunteers who worked make the petition 

success, but also the 59,201 confirmed registered voters who signed the petition. 

participating the petition process, either leading and organizing the petition drive, 
voll.lllteering 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 Congressional Districting Plan the November 2012 ballot 
Third, MDPetitions.com also the creator web-based computer program that many registered voters used sign the petition. Complaint 31-43. One the main benefits this program that helps registered voters sign the petition 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 very common error that causes petition signatures rejected. See Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Assoc. A1ontgomery County Bd. Elections, 418 Md. 463, 475-76 (2011). Plaintiffs challenge confirmed registered voters' use the program, claiming that constitutes allegedly unlawful "pre-filled petition form." Complaint 31-43. does not. Nonetheless, the creator this very helpful and highly effective computer program that enables registered voters sign the petition clearly and properly and accordance with Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6203(a), MDPetitions.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 organizers, volunteers, and 59,201 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 Petitions.com 
protect its interests. the sponsor the petition, representative the organizers and 
volunteers who made the successful petition possible and the 59,201 confirmed registered voters 
who signed the petition, well the creator the web-based computer program used many 
confirmed registered voters, MDPetitions.com's interests 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 59,201 confirmed registered voters who participated 
the petition process. ruling that registered voters' use MDPetitions.com's web-based 
computer program was unlawful not only would negate MDPetitions.com's substantial efforts 
with respect the petition drive being challenged this action, but also would undermine 
MDPetitions.com's interest preserving the program's availability for use registered voters future petition drives. Moreover, the deadline submit petition refer the Congressional 
Districting Plan referendum has long expired, opportunity would exist submit new 
signatures 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, 732 (1990). not necessary that 
there positive showing inadequacy representation; 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. TKUAssociates, 276 Md. 705, 713, 
(1976) (intervention should have been granted because interest appealing adverse decision 
was potentially greater for applicant interveners) (internal citations omitted). Petitions.com' interests may not adequately represented the existing parties. Obviously, Plaintiffs will not represent MDPetitions.com's interest. Plaintiffs seek nullify 
everything MDPetitions.com has accomplished well the rights the 59,201 confirmed 
registered voters who signed the petition. Plaintiffs also seek block registered voters' use 
web-based computer programs sign petitions properly pursuant Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 
 6-203(a). 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 Congressional Districting Plan 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 Petitions.com the sponsor the petition and the representative the 
organizers, volunteers, and confirmed registered voters who signed the petition. Nor likely 
that Defendants will defend Petitions.com' 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, 
Defendants may decide not press important interests raised Petitions.com, such 
defending the integrity the signature-gathering process opposed the verification and 
validation process. Likewise, counsel for Defendants would not required appeal any adverse ruling the merits. Because more than likely that Defendants will not adequately represent the interest ofMDPetitions.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 organizers adn volunteers who made the petition success and the 59,201 confirmed registered voters who signed the petition. 	The Court Should Allow Permissive Intervention the 
Unlikely Event Intervention Right Not Allowed. 

Any person may permitted intervene action when the person's claim defense has question law fact common with the action. Md. Rule 2-214(b)(l). 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 (1980). Permissive intervention "is wru.rnnted when person's claim defense has question oflaw fact common with the action." Simpson Consolidated Const. Services, Inc., 143 Md. App. 606, 636 (2002) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Given the obviously substantial rote Petitions. com the petition --indeed, the Congressional Districting Plan would not the November 2012 ballot were not for MDPetitions.com's efforts --the defenses MDPetitions.com the relief sought Plaintiffs have many questions law and fact common with the instant action. set forth above, the issues law and fact raised this action relate solely the petition submitted MDPetitions.com. MDPetitions.com's efenses Plaintiffs' claims have more than merely single "question law fact common with the action." The questions 
fact and law that Petitions.com will raise intervention granted substantially, not 
completely, overlap with the claims and anticipated defenses the current parties. the 
creator the web-based computer program challenged Plaintiffs, Petitions.com also 
uniquely positioned explain the program the Court. behalf itself and the 59,201 
confirmed registered voters who signed the petition, MDPetitions.com should permitted the 
opportunity defend against Plaintiffs' claims, which directly challenge MDPetitions.com's 
petition and its computer program. Accordingly, MDPetitions.com respectfully requests 
intervention pursuant Md. Rule 2-214(b)(2). 	MDPetitions.com's Motion Timely and Will Not Prejudice the Current Parties. 
Plaintiffs initiated this action July 24, 2012. MDPetitions.com filing its motion 
intervene only one week later and before Defendants are due answer otherwise respond 
the Complaint. Thus, MdPetitions.com's motion timely, arid allowing MDPetitions.com 
intervene will not unduly delay prejudice the adjudication the rights ofthe original parties any way. 
III. 	Conclusion. 
For the foregoing reasons, Petitions.com respectfully requests that its motion 
intervene granted. 
Dated: July 31, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 

Washington, 20024 

Tel: (202) 646-5172 

Fax: (202) 646-5199 

Attorneys for Intervener
DENNIS WHITLEY, III, al., THE
Plaintiffs, 	CIRCUIT COURT 	FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
MARYLAND STATE BOARD Case No. 02-C-12-171365 ELECTIONS, al., 
Defendants. 
and 
MDPETITIONS.COM, 
Intervener. 
[PROPOSED] ANSWER INTERVENER MDPETITIONS.COM PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

Intervener MDpetitions.com, counsel and pursuant Rules 2-303 and 2-323 the Maryland Rules Civil Procedure, hereby answers Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief follows: 
NATURE THE ACTION 

Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are introductory nature and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener admits that the Complaint pmports action for judicial review determination made the Maryland State Board Elections (4'State Board Elections") regarding Senate Bill Chapter the 2001 Special Session the General Assembly, known the Congressional Districting Plan. Intervener denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are introductory natme and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener admits that some registered Maryland voters used Intervener's internet-based computer program sign the petition properly pursuant Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-203(a). Intervener denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the allegations paragraph 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the allegations paragraph 

II. 
BACKGROUND 	Admit. 
Admit. 	Admit. Intervener admits that gathered signatures support .of petition refer the Congressional Districting Plan referendum. Intervener also admits that the State Board Elections subsequently determined that Intervener had submitted sufficient number verified and validated signatures registered Maryland voters qualify the Congressional Districting Plan for placement the ballot the November 2012 general election. Intervener fwther admits that State Administrator Elections Linda Lamone ce1tified the Congressional 
Districting Plan for placement the ballot the November 2012 general election. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Inte1vener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the allegations paragraph 
III. 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from lnte1vener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the allegations paragraph 10. 
11. 
Admit. 

12. 
Admit. 

IV. 
PARTIES 

13. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 13. 

14. 
Deny. 

15. 
Deny. 

16. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 16. 

17. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 17. 
18. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 18. 

19. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 19. 

20. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 20. 

21. 
Intervener admits that John McDonough the Secretary State the State Maryland. The remainder Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set fo1th the duties, responsibility, and authority the Secretary State. 

22. 
Intervener admits that the 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 that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the duties, responsibility, and authority the Secretary State. 

23. Admit. 
FACTS GIVING RISE CAUSE ACTION 

24. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener admits that, under Art. XVI, the Maryland Constitution, referendum petition sufficient signed three percent the qualified voters the State Maryland, calculated upon the whole number votes cast for Governor the last preceding Gubernatorial election, not more than half are residents Baltimore City, any one County. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph 24. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener admits that the number signatures required qualify enactment the Maryland General Assembly for placement the ballot the November 2012 general election 55,736. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph 25. 
26. Admit. 
27. Intervener admits that, about May 31, 2012, Intervener submitted total 28,477 signatures the Secretary State support Intervener's petition refer the Congressional Districting Plan referendum. Intervener also admits that, out these 28,477 signatures, the State Board Elections accepted 26,763. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph and, particular, denies that the State Board Elections had obligation conduct independent review signatures validated and verified local state boards election. 
28. Intervener admits that, about June 30, 2012, Intervener submitted 
additional 36,267 signatures the Secretary State support lntervener's petition refer the Congressional Districting Plan referendum. Intervener also admits that, out these 
36,267 signatures, the State Board Elections accepted 32,438. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph and, particular, denies that the State Board Elections had obligation conduct independent review signatmes validated and verified local state 
boards election. 
29. 
Intervener admits that, about July 20, 2012, the State Board Elections determined that, out total 64, 744 signatures submitted Intervener support Intervener's petition refer the Congressional Distticting Plan referendum, 59,201 were accepted and 7,649 were rejected. Intervener also admits that, about July 20, 2012 and pursuant Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-208(b), State Administrator Elections Linda Lamone certified that the Congressional Districting Plan had qualified for placement the ballot the November 2012 General Election. Intervener denies the remaining allegations paragraph 29. 

30. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations paragraph 30. 

31. 
Intervener admits that maintains the website located https://mdpetitions.com and that its website included internet-based computer program that some registered Maryland voters used sign the petition properly pursuant Md. Code Atm., Elec. Law 6-203(a). Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully and accurately describe 

Interveners' internet-based computer program and therefore denies the remaining allegations 
paragraph 31. 
32. 
Intervener admits that maintains the website located https://mdpetitions.com and that its website included internet-based computer program that some registered Maryland voters used sign the petition properly pursuant Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6-203(a). Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully and accmately describe Interveners' internet-based computer program and therefore denies the remaining allegations paragraph 32. 

33. 
Intervener admits that maintains the website located https://mdpetitions.com and that its website included internet-based computer program that some registered Maryland voters used sign the petition properly pursuant Md. Code Allll., Elec. Law 6-203(a). Intervener denies that Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph fully and accurately describe Interveners' internet-based computer program and therefore denies the remaining allegations paragraph 33. 

34. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6203(a).

35. 
Plaintiffsallegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements COMAR  33.06.03.06(B). 

36. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the 

allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 6203(a) COMAR 33.06.03.06(B). Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 36. 
37. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any referendum petiti.on procedures Plaintiffs may claim have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also 
denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 37. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any "Frequently Asked Questions" Plaintiffs may claim have reviewed 
and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations 
paragraph 38. 
39. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any "Frequently Asked Questions" Plaintiffs may claim have reviewed 
and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations 
paragraph 39. 
40. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the 
allegations paragraph 40. 
41. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the allegations paragraph 41. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 42. 
43. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the 
allegations paragraph 
44. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the 
allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Art. XVI, the Maryland 
Constitution. 
45. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the 
allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 
204(a). 
46. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements COMAR 33.06.03.08. 

47. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the allegations paragraph 

48. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  203(a)(l). 

49. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies the allegations paragraph 49. 

50. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements COMAR 33.06.03.07. 

51. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements COMAR 33.06.03.0SA. 

52. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any petition acceptance and verification procedures Plaintiffs may claim have reviewed and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 52. 

53. 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 53. 
54. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 54. 
55. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response fr.om Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the 
allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 
203(a)(l 
Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any verification instructions Plaintiffs may 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 that response required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 57. 
Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6203(a)(2)(ii) COMAR 33.06.03.06. 
59. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 59. 
60. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies that the 
allegations fully and accurately set forth the requirements Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law
203(a)(2)(iii). 
61. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 61. 
62. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signatures pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 62. 
63. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form be! ief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations 
paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 63. 
64. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without 
knowledge infonnation sufficient belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signature pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 64. 
65. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require, 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener without 
knowledge information sufficient form belief the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph about any signatme pages Plaintiffs may claim have examined and therefore denies the allegations. Intervener also denies Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paragraph 65. 
VI. 
CAUSES ACTION 

COUNT I-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
66. Intervener hereby refers and incorporates reference its response 
paragraphs 1-65, above. 
67. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations 
paragraph 67. Intervener also denies that its petition was legally deficient any way. 
68. Intervener without knowledge information sufficient form belief 
the truth Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph and therefore denies the allegations 
paragraph 68. Intervener also denies that its petition was legally deficient any way. 
69. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 69. 
70. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 70. 
71. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 71. 
72. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 72. 
COUNT -JUDICIAL REVIEW -JULY 20, 2011 DETERMINATION 
73. Intervener hereby refers and incorporates reference its response 
paragraphs 1-72, above. 
74. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 74. 
75. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' 
allegations paragraph 
76. Plaintiffs> allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 76. 
77. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs, allegations paragraph 77. 
78. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 78. 
COUNT 111 INIBNCTION
79. Intervener hereby refers and incorporates reference its response 
paragraphs 1-78, above. 
80. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response requiredIntervener denies Plaintiffs' 
allegations paragraph 80. 
81. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 81. 
82. Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph are legal conclusions and not require 
response from Intervener. the extent that response required, Intervener denies Plaintiffs' allegations paragraph 82. 
VII. 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
Intervener denies that Plaintiffs are entitled the judgment requested paragraph the Prayer for Relief. 
Intervener denies that Plaintiffs are entitled the order requested paragraph the Prayer for Relief. 
Intervener denies that Plaintiffs are entitled the injunction requested paragraph the Prayer for Relief. 
Intervener denies that Plaintiffs are entitled any other relief requested paragraph the Prayer for Relief. 

GENERAL DENIAL 
Any and all allegations not heretofore expressly admitted are denied. 
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES pleading the following Affirmative Defenses, Intervener does not concede that each the matters covered the numbered defenses proven Intervener, and Intervener reserves its position that Plaintiffs retain the burden proof all matters necessary establish the claims asserted the Amended Complaint. 
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
The Complaint, whole part, fails state claim either law fact upon 
which relief can granted. 
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
Plaintiff Maryland Democratic State Central Committee has not been been "aggrieved" any determination made under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-202, 6-206, 6-208(a)(2) for purposes judicial review under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law  6-209(a). 
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
The Complaint, whole part, fails plead sufficient facts establish standing with respect each and every Plaintiff, and, result, the Court therefore lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action. 
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
The State Board Elections rejected certain signatures that should have been included the total number signatures accepted the State Board Elections about June 21, 2012 and July 18, 2012. 
RESERVATION RIGHTS 
Intervener reserves the right prepare and present additional affirmative defenses and supplement amend its Answer and Affomative Defenses. 
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs' Complaint, Intervener respectfully 
requests that the Complaint dismissed, that Intervener awarded its costs, and that the Court 
order such other relief deems just and proper. 

Dated: July 31, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
Christopher edeli Md. Bar No. 0012120179 
425 Third Street, SW, Ste. 800 
Washingto 20024 

Tel: (202) 646-5172 

Fax: (202) 646-5199 

Attorneys for Intervener 
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 31th day July, 2012, caused true and correct copy the foregoing MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORT MDPETITIONS.COM'S MOTION INTERVENE served, via first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, the following: 
Amanda LaForge 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 
Assistant Attorney General 
OFFICE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor 
Baltimore, 21202-2021