Kendall v. Howard County
66 A.3d 684
Md.2013Background
- Petitioners are Howard County residents seeking declaratory relief that certain County land-use actions violated the Charter and thus were not enacted by original bill as required; they rely on Charter provisions granting the people the right to referendum to challenge “legislative acts.”
- The Howard County Charter distinguishes “laws” (acts/ordinances) from “resolutions,” with only original bills subject to referendum; a purported “resolution” may be invalid if it constitutes a legislative act.
- Petitioners allege that numerous resolutions, zoning decisions, and related actions were taken by administrative decision or resolution rather than original bill, thereby circumventing referendum.
- The circuit court dismissed for lack of standing, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review standing only.
- The Court holds that Petitioners failed to allege a concrete, personal injury or other cognizable injury sufficient to confer standing to seek declaratory relief, and affirms dismissal.
- The decision does not address the merits of whether the challenged actions were truly “legislative acts.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petitioners have standing to sue for declaratory relief to enforce the Charter referendum right. | Kendall argues the Charter's referendum right itself confers standing. | County argues standing requires concrete, personal injury beyond generalized grievance. | No standing; rights are too attenuated for Petitioners to sue. |
| Whether taxpayer or property-owner standing is necessary or satisfied here to challenge land-use decisions. | Petitioners seek standing without showing specific harm beyond general interest. | Standing requires a special damage or proximately caused injury. | Not satisfied; special damages not shown. |
| Whether the denial of the right to referendum infringes First Amendment rights to speech/association and the right to vote, thereby producing standing. | Denial of referendum rights activates constitutional protections. | Constitutional rights are too attenuated from the challenged actions to confer standing. | Rejected; standing not established by generalized constitutional rights. |
| Whether the petitioner's reliance on federal cases supports standing for a state Charter claim. | Federal cases show standing where voting rights are implicated. | Those cases do not involve similar local Charter rights or direct harms. | Inapplicable to this state-law Charter context. |
| Whether the Court should consider equal-protection concerns about limiting standing to property owners/taxpayers. | Excluding non-property-owning residents violates equal protection. | Standing doctrine permits differences in who may sue based on cognizable interests. | Not reached; the amended complaint fails on standing before equal-protection analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Manown, 328 Md. 463 (Md. 1992) (standing defined for access to judicial process)
- Weinberg v. Kracke, 189 Md. 275 (Md. 1947) (special damage requirement for public-right challenges)
- Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (Md. 1967) (special damage standing in land-use challenges)
- Inlet Assocs. v. Assateague House Condo. Ass’n, 313 Md. 413 (Md. 1988) (standing via taxpayer or property-owner avenues when ordinances required; ultra vires)
- 120 West Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore, 407 Md. 253 (Md. 2009) (standing via taxpayer or property-owner theories; zoning/land-disposition context)
- Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74 (Md. 2013) (aggrievement spectrum for rezoning; almost prima facie aggrieved)
- Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419 (4th Cir. 2009) (generalized grievance insufficient; injury needed for standing)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (injury to voting rights may establish standing)
- LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standing in Voting Rights Act context; not controlling here)
- Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (U.S. 2010) (First Amendment implications of referendums (cited for context))
- Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (ballot-access and expression concerns (cited))
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (impact of petition circulation on First Amendment)