Kendall v. Balcerzak
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6235
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kendall, a signer of a Howard County referendum petition on Bill 58, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Howard County and state election officials.
- Howard County Charter § 211 allowed a referendum; signatures required and extensions possible if initial threshold met.
- EL § 6-203 governs signature format and verification for referendum petitions; Doe v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections interpreted the statute.
- County Board initially certified 2,603 signatures, then, after Doe, conducted a second review and invalidated many signatures, jeopardizing the extension.
- Kendall alleged the Board’s interpretation and re-verification violated his First/Fourteenth Amendment rights, equal protection, and due process.
- The district court dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, concluding EL § 6-203 is content-neutral, nondiscriminatory, and constitutionally permissible; appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does EL § 6-203, as interpreted, restrict Kendall's rights to referendum/petition and deny First Amendment rights? | Kendall contends the signature rules disenfranchise voters and burden petition rights. | Defendants assert non-discriminatory, content-neutral restrictions are permissible and do not violate rights. | No violation; EL § 6-203 content-neutral and reasonably related to preventing fraud. |
| Does the petition-signature scheme implicated by EL § 6-203 violate equal protection or substantive due process? | Kendall asserts unequal treatment and due process shortcomings in signature validation. | State action bears rational basis; no fundamental right or suspect class involved. | No equal protection or substantive due process violation; rational basis review applied. |
| Were Kendall's procedural due process rights violated by notice and review procedures of signature invalidation? | Kendall lacked notice of signature invalidation and challenged adequacy of process. | Maryland provided remedies; not availing them negates due process claim; procedures adequate. | No procedural due process violation; adequate remedies and notice framework available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections, 406 Md. 697 (Md. 2008) (interprets 6-203; mandatory signature requirements; impact on petition validity)
- Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010) (state leeway in ballot access; First Amendment scrutiny for disclosure/registration)
- Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1993) (state initiative procedures; non-discriminatory, content-neutral restrictions upheld)
- Howlette v. City of Richmond, Va., 485 F. Supp. 17 (E.D. Va. 1978) (notarization requirement upheld as protecting integrity of referendum)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (testing restrictions on voting rights with reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulations)