State Bd. of Elections v. Ambridge

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Decided: October 10, 2024
• Docket: 26pc/24
• Status: Published

Opinion

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-24-002246 IN THE SUPREME COURT Argued: October 9, 2024 OF MARYLAND

No. 26

September Term, 2024

______________________________________

MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL.

v.

ANTHONY J. AMBRIDGE, ET AL.

Fader, C.J., Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, Killough, Battaglia, Lynne A. (Senior Justice, Specially Assigned),

JJ. ______________________________________

PER CURIAM ORDER ______________________________________

Filed: October 10, 2024 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic.

2024.10.10 13:21:49 -04'00' Gregory Hilton, Clerk * IN THE * MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF SUPREME COURT ELECTIONS, ET AL. * OF MARYLAND v. * No. 26 ANTHONY J. AMBRIDGE, ET AL. * September Term, 2024 *

PER CURIAM ORDER Upon consideration of the filings by the Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.,

Appellants,1 and Anthony J. Ambridge, et al., Appellees,2 and oral argument conducted on

October 9, 2024,

Whereas, the Maryland State Board of Elections is the State agency responsible for

preparing the content and arrangement of all ballots used in Maryland elections pursuant

to § 9-202(a) of the Election Law Article; and

Whereas, Appellees are twenty-three voters registered in Baltimore City; and

Whereas, on March 11, 2024, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore enacted

Resolution 23-0444 to submit Ballot Question F to the voters of Baltimore City to amend

Article I, § 9, of the Charter of Baltimore City; and

1 The other appellants are the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and MCB HP Baltimore LLC. 2 The other appellees are Linda Lynn Batts, Brent Bederka, Elizabeth Bement, Carol Lois Berkower, Teporah Bilezikian, Leon Bridges, Lauren Brown, Sharon Dlosh, Johanna Doble, Michael S. Donnenberg, Dolph Druckman, Paula Jane Fernandes, Robert L. Merbler, Ellen Meyer, Jennifer Morse Boyer, James Prost, Winstead Rouse, Sandra Seward, Donna Shapiro, Olivia Taylor, David Tufaro, and Katherine Venanzi. Whereas, on August 2, 2024, the Chief Solicitor of the Baltimore City Law

Department transmitted a letter to the Maryland State Board of Elections certifying the

language of Ballot Question F; and

Whereas, on September 2, 2024, the Maryland State Board of Elections posted to

its website the final content and arrangement of all ballots to be used in the 2024 November

general election; and

Whereas, on September 5, 2024, Mr. Ambridge filed a petition for judicial review

of Ballot Question F in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County pursuant to § 9-209(a)

of the Election Law Article; and

Whereas, on September 6, 2024, Appellees filed an amended petition adding the

other appellees as parties; and

Whereas, on September 9, 2024, Appellees amended their petition to add a claim

under § 12-202(a) of the Election Law Article; and

Whereas, on September 10, 2024, Appellees filed a memorandum in support of their

petition in which they argued that Ballot Question F is invalid because (1) it is improper

“charter material” in violation of Article XI-A, § 3, of the Constitution of Maryland and

(2) the language is not “easily understandable by voters” in violation of Election Law

§ 9-203(1); and

Whereas, on September 13, 2024, the Maryland State Board of Elections opposed

Appellees’ petition for judicial review on the grounds, among others, that judicial review

pursuant to Election Law § 9-209(a) was not an appropriate mechanism to raise Appellees’

2 claims and that Appellees’ claims pursuant to Election Law § 12-202 were barred by

laches; and

Whereas, on September 17, 2024, after a hearing, the circuit court issued a

memorandum opinion and order in which it determined that Appellees’ claims were not

barred by laches and could be raised pursuant to Election Law § 9-209(a). On the merits,

the circuit court determined that Ballot Question F: (1) “violates Article XI-A §3 of the

Maryland Constitution in that it is not proper charter material”; and (2) alternatively,

violates Election Law § 9-205(2), which requires that each ballot contain “a statement of

each question that has met all of the qualifications to appear on the ballot,” because the

language is not “easily understandable by voters,” as required by Election Law § 9-203(1).

As a remedy, the circuit court ordered that “the Baltimore City Board of Elections shall not

certify the results of Ballot Question ‘F’ arising from the 2024 General Election for the

City of Baltimore”; and

Whereas, on September 19, 2024, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and

MCB HP Baltimore LLC moved to intervene as defendants; and

Whereas, on September 20, 2024, the circuit court granted their motions to

intervene; and

Whereas, on the same day, Appellants noted direct appeals from the circuit court’s

judgment to this Court pursuant to Election Law §§ 9-209(d)(1)(ii) and 12-203(a)(3); and

Whereas, on October 9, 2024, this Court held oral argument,

Now, therefore, for reasons to be stated later in an opinion to be filed, it is this 10th

day of October, 2024, by the Supreme Court of Maryland,

3 ORDERED, that the Order issued by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on

September 17, 2024, is hereby REVERSED; and it is further

ORDERED, that § 9-209(a) of the Election Law Article, which provides for

“judicial review of the content and arrangement [of the ballot], or to correct any

administrative error” on the ballot, is not a proper mechanism to challenge either whether

a proposed charter amendment is proper charter material or whether the language of a

proposed charter amendment comports with § 9-203(1) of the Election Law Article; and it

is further

ORDERED, that the circuit court erred in entering judgment in favor of Appellees

on their claim that Ballot Question F violates Article XI-A § 3 of the Constitution of

Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that Ballot Question F is not improper charter material. See Cheeks v.

Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 608 (1980); and it is further

ORDERED that the circuit court erred in entering judgment in favor of Appellees

on their claim that Ballot Question F violates §§ 9-203(1) and 9-205(2) of the Election Law

Article; and it is further

ORDERED that the appropriate election authority may certify the results of Ballot

Question F as presented on the November 2024 general election ballot; and it is further

4 ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

for entry of judgment in favor of Appellants. Costs are to be paid by Appellees. The

mandate shall issue forthwith.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader Chief Justice