State Administrative Board of Election Laws v. Calvert

327 A.2d 290, 272 Md. 659, 1974 Md. LEXIS 798
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedOctober 10, 1974
Docket[No. 133 (Adv.), September Term, 1974.]
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 327 A.2d 290 (State Administrative Board of Election Laws v. Calvert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Administrative Board of Election Laws v. Calvert, 327 A.2d 290, 272 Md. 659, 1974 Md. LEXIS 798 (Md. 1974).

Opinion

Smith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We shall here give our reasons for reversing the decree of a trial court by our per curiam order of August 23, 1974. In so doing, we must present the answers to four questions: (1) the validity of our provision that in a legislative district of more than two counties no county shall have more than one delegate residing in it, a provision applicable by its terms to Legislative District 34, a district of three counties; (2) whether this provision runs counter to the provisions of Maryland Constitution art. Ill, § 9 relative to residence; (3) whether the name of an individual who is the sole candidate from his county for nomination by his party to the House of Delegates in a three-county district must be printed upon the primary election ballot of that party; and (4) whether because of the grant by Constitution art. Ill, § 5 to this Court of original jurisdiction to review the legislative districting of the State the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain an attack upon the constitutionality of the legislative districting plan.

*662 i

History of the Litigation

Appellee, William B. Calvert (Calvert), a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the House of Delegates residing in Cecil County, filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Cecil County on August 9, 1974, in which he challenged that portion of the order of this Court in In re Legislative Districting, 271 Md. 320, 317 A. 2d 477 (1974), which provided:

“(D) In any legislative district which contains more than two counties or parts of more than two counties, and where Delegates are to be elected at large by the voters of the entire district, no county, or part of a county, shall haye more than one Delegate residing in it.”

He likewise challenged an application of that order under an opinion of the Attorney General of Maryland issued on July 19, 1974, in which it was concluded that the names of candidates who, by reason of their residence, were unopposed and thus assured of nomination should not be included on the primary election ballot.

Named as respondents were the individuals constituting the Board of Supervisors of Elections for Cecil County, the individuals constituting the State Administrative Board of Election Laws, and the State Administrator of Election Laws. Calvert prayed a permanent injunction:

“(a) forbidding Respondents from taking any action toward ordering, directing, authorizing, or permitting the preparation or printing of any primary election ballots or ‘Special Instructions’ which [would] advise or instruct the voters of Legislative District 34 that only one resident of Cecil County [might] be nominated for election to the Maryland House of Delegates,” and
“(b) directing Respondents to prepare ballots *663 which [would] list all the candidates who [sought] nomination for election to the Maryland House of Delegates from Legislative District 34, and which [would] allow the voters to vote for three (3) candidates for said nomination . . . .”

The matter came on for hearing in that court on August 14. The chancellor (Mackey, J.) filed his opinion on August 16. He ordered that ballots be prepared “which list[ed] all the candidates who [sought] nomination for election to the Maryland House of Delegates from Legislative District 34 and which [would] allow the voters to vote for three (3) candidates for said nomination . . . .” He enjoined the respondents “from taking any action toward ordering, directing, authorizing, or permitting the preparation or printing of any primary election ballots or ‘Special Instructions’ which [would] advise or instruct the voters of Legislative District 34 that only one (1) resident of Cecil County [might] be nominated for election to the Maryland House of Delegates.”

The State Administrative Board of Election Laws and the State Administrator of Election Laws noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals on August 19. The parties jointly petitioned us for the writ of certiorari. We granted the writ and set the matter for argument on August 23.

Pursuant to Constitution art. Ill, § 5, the Governor of Maryland submitted to the General Assembly his proposals for legislative redistricting. When the General Assembly failed to adopt its own plan for legislative redistricting, the Governor’s plan became law on February 24, 1973.

We were thrust into the center of the matter of redistricting by the combination of the adoption by the people of Maryland of an amendment to Constitution art. Ill, § 5 providing that this Court should “have original jurisdiction to review the legislative districting of the State” and the failure of the Governor to hold the public hearings required by the same section of the constitution prior to the submission of his redistricting plan to the General Assembly. Upon challenge to the plan on that basis, we *664 concluded that the Governor’s plan was not validly promulgated. We passed an order to that effect on July 31, 1973.

In the matter of granting “appropriate relief” we were faced with the necessity for finding a point of beginning. Our order specified “that said invalidly promulgated plan [was] .. . adopted by the Court as the plan setting forth the proposed boundaries of the legislative districts for the election of members of the Senate and House of Delegates, unless cause to the contrary [were] shown, as [t]hereinafter provided.” We ordered “that public hearings be properly scheduled and held in Annapolis, Maryland before the Honorable Hall Hammond, [former Chief Judge of this Court,] a Special Master” appointed by the same order. We provided for notice throughout the State by publication in newspapers in each county. We ordered “that any registered voter of this State, other than the petitioners in the [then pending] proceedings, who desire [d] to show cause why the said plan, or any part thereof, should not be duly adopted as the final legislative districting plan for this State [should] formally intervene in th[o]se proceedings on or before September 30, 1973 . .. .” Rather than go off on a project of our own, redesigning and redefining the legislative districts of this State, we elected to exercise judicial restraint by changing only those legislative districts which, upon challenge, we found to be constitutionally invalid.

In the plan proposed by the Governor and in the plan promulgated by us, Legislative District 34 consists of the counties of Cecil, Kent, and Queen Anne’s. The provision that no county should have more than one delegate residing in it is identical in both plans. It affects only Legislative Districts 34, 35, and 36, made up of the nine counties comprising the Eastern Shore of Maryland, since only those legislative districts contain “more than two counties or parts of more than two counties.”

No challenge was made before or after our order of July 31, 1973, to Legislative District 34. Challenge was made to Districts 35 and 36 based upon the' division of Wicomico County and the fact that a part of Somerset County was *665

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

2022 Legislative Districting
Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2022
State Board of Elections v. Snyder ex rel. Snyder
76 A.3d 1110 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2013)
State ex rel. Cooper v. Tennant
730 S.E.2d 368 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2012)
Montgomery County v. Butler
9 A.3d 824 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2010)
Suessmann v. Lamone
862 A.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2004)
Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer
849 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Maryland, 1994)
DuBois v. City of College Park
410 A.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
Lawlor v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners
395 F. Supp. 692 (N.D. Illinois, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
327 A.2d 290, 272 Md. 659, 1974 Md. LEXIS 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-administrative-board-of-election-laws-v-calvert-md-1974.