55 A.3d 496
Md.2012Background
- This case involves a Maryland Anne Arundel County zoning ordinance (Bill No. 82-09) authorizing video lottery facilities in restricted areas, challenged for referendum under the County Charter § 308(a).
- Article XIX of the Maryland Constitution authorizes video lottery facilities to raise education-related revenue, with implementing statutes creating an Education Trust Fund; licensing is conditioned on proper zoning.
- The Anne Arundel County Board of Elections certified that enough petition signatures were collected to place Bill 82-09 on the 2010 ballot, prompting a declaratory judgment and judicial review by the circuit court.
- The circuit court held Bill 82-09 was not subject to referendum because it was interdependent and inseparable from an appropriation package tied to Article XIX and the Education Trust Fund, citing Kelly v. Marylanders For Sports Sanity.
- PPE Casino Resorts contends the bill is a zoning measure, not an appropriation, and subject to referendum; Citizens Against Slots asserts appellate jurisdiction and seeks review of the Board of Elections’ certification.
- This Court granted certiorari to address both the appealability of the circuit court’s judgment and the referability of Bill 82-09, clarifying applicable election and referendum law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s judgment is appealable. | PPE Casino Resorts argues §12-302(a) bars review of an administrative decision. | State/Election Boards argue jurisdiction lies under the Election Article, not §12-302(a). | The Court holds §12-302(a) does not apply to Election Article cases; appellate jurisdiction exists under Election Article provisions. |
| Whether Bill 82-09 is subject to referendum under Anne Arundel County Charter §308(a). | Citizens Against Slots contends the ordinance is not an appropriation, thus referendumable. | PPE Casino Resorts contends it is effectively part of an appropriation package. | Bill 82-09 is a zoning ordinance, not an appropriation, and is subject to referendum. |
| Whether the Kelly v. Marylanders For Sports Sanity framework applies to treat the Bill 82-09/package as an improper referendum exclusion. | PPE (and circuit court) relied on Kelly to treat the package as inseparable from an appropriation. | The facts here do not create a single inseparable package as in Kelly; Article XIX bundle differs. | Kelly does not control; no single inseparable package exists here; referendum exclusion does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Marylanders For Sports Sanity, 310 Md. 437, 530 A.2d 245 (Md. 1987) (agency package approach to referendums and appropriation)
- Doe v. Maryland State Board of Elections, 428 Md. 596, 53 A.3d 1111 (Md. 2012) (approach to appropriation and referendum in Article XIX context)
- Gisriel v. Ocean City Elections Board, 345 Md. 477, 693 A.2d 757 (Md. 1997) (non-application of §12-302(a) to certain election-board actions; municipal context note)
- Bowen v. Annapolis, 402 Md. 587, 937 A.2d 242 (Md. 2007) (appealability of declaratory/injunctive relief under election/agency decisions)
- State v. 158 Gaming Devices, 304 Md. 404, 499 A.2d 940 (Md. 1985) (historic context on gaming and zoning; statutory interpretations)