Doe v. Maryland State Board of Elections
428 Md. 596
Md.2012Background
- Senate Bill 167 (Maryland Dream Act) was enacted in 2011 to extend in-state tuition eligibility to certain undocumented students and veterans in Maryland.
- MDPetitions.com sought to referendum the Act under Md. Const. art. XVI, §1; the Board certified the petition.
- Appellants sued in Anne Arundel County, challenging referability as an unlawful appropriation under Article XVI §2.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Appellees, concluding the Act is not an appropriation in itself and not in pari materia with Cade Funding Formula or future budget bills.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether the Act is an exempted appropriation or eligible for referendum; the court ultimately held it is not an appropriation and may be placed on the ballot as a referendum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Maryland Dream Act is an appropriation under Article XVI §2 | Appellants: Act appropriates funds for maintaining state government | Appellees: Act is not primarily an appropriation; incidental effects are insufficient | Not an appropriation |
| Whether the Act is in pari materia with Cade Funding Formula and future budgets | Appellants: Act and Cade Formula are interdependent to create future appropriations | Board: no mutual dependency; separate objectives and timing | Not in pari materia; not an appropriation via interconnected statutes |
| Whether the Act is a revenue-related money bill exempt from referendum | Appellants: Act changes tuition revenues affecting future appropriations | Board: exemption requires direct appropriation or revenue scheme; not present | Not a money bill; not exempt on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Marylanders for Sports Sanity, 310 Md. 437 (Md. 1987) (revenue-spending measures and the appropriation exception analysis)
- Dorsey v. Petrott, 178 Md. 230 (Md. 1940) (primary object must be to assign monies for a specified purpose)
- Winebrenner v. Salmon, 155 Md. 563 (Md. 1928) (statutory schemes that specify revenues and expenditures can be appropriations)