Fuller v. Republican Central Committee
120 A.3d 751
Md.2015Background
- Vacancy created when State Senator Joseph Getty resigned to join incoming Governor Hogan's administration; Carroll County Republican Central Committee ("Central Committee") conducted a selection process.
- Committee publicly adopted a process stating it would forward only one nominee, interviewed applicants, and voted to select Robin Frazier; a subset of committee members later met with Governor Hogan's staff and reportedly submitted three names (Frazier, Justin Ready, Dave Wallace).
- Petitioners (three county central-committee members) sued the Central Committee for declaratory relief, mandamus, and injunctive relief, arguing Article III, §13(a)(1) of the Maryland Constitution prohibits submission of more than one name.
- Circuit Court denied a temporary restraining order; Governor Hogan appointed Justin Ready to the Senate, creating a subsequent House vacancy and prompting renewed procedural steps.
- Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari, issued a temporary restraining order pending appeal, heard argument, and then issued a per curiam order affirming the circuit court and dissolving the TRO; opinion explains that Section 13 imposes a duty only on the Governor and does not limit the central committee to a single submitted name.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article III §13(a)(1) prohibits a party central committee from submitting more than one name to the Governor to fill a single General Assembly vacancy | Section 13's use of the singular "a person whose name shall be submitted" requires submission of only one name | Section 13 imposes the appointment duty on the Governor only; the committee has no constitutional duty and may submit multiple names under its internal procedures | Held: Section 13 does not require the committee to submit only one name. The provision imposes the duty on the Governor to appoint from the name or names (or, if none submitted, to appoint a qualified person of same party). |
| Whether petitioners were entitled to a temporary restraining order / mandamus and the applicable standard for TROs | Petitioners argued TROs require only showing of "immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm" under Md. Rule 15-504(a) | Committee argued Armacost four-factor injunction standard applies and petitioners had not shown likelihood of success on merits | Held: Merits disposition mooted most relief; court clarified TROs require both Rule 15-504(a)'s irreparable-harm showing and the Armacost four-factor injunction test; petitioners unlikely to succeed on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suessmann v. Lamone, 383 Md. 697 (construing party central-committee structure and election-law framework) (used for background on party committees)
- Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (First Amendment freedom of association protects party self-governance)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (justiciability and judicial review principles)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political-question factors)
- Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519 (2006) (application of four-factor test for interlocutory injunctive relief/TROs)
- Valle v. Pressman, 229 Md. 591 (1962) (judicial review of central-committee authority)
- Hall v. Prince George's Cnty Democratic Cent. Comm., 431 Md. 108 (2013) (review of central-committee authority to rescind nomination)
- Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599 (2004) (statutory/constitutional interpretation principles)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Swedo, 439 Md. 441 (statutory interpretation guidance on plain meaning and ambiguity)
- Dep't of Transp. v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392 (1984) (four-factor test for interlocutory injunctions)