Lamone v. Schlakman
153 A.3d 144
Md.2017Background
- Schlakman and Richardson (Appellees) challenged Dan Sparaco’s inclusion on the 2016 ballot for Baltimore City Council District 12, claiming he missed statutory filing deadlines for petition candidates.
- Sparaco formed a campaign committee in Sept. 2015, filed campaign finance reports in January 2016, filed a declaration of intent July 11, 2016, and had his petition certified by the City Board on August 2, 2016; the State Board included him on posted ballot proofs on August 31.
- Appellees filed in federal court on August 25, 2016; that suit was dismissed because their counsel was not admitted in that court. They then filed in Anne Arundel Circuit Court; a TRO was issued on Sept. 22 ordering removal of Sparaco’s name.
- Appellants appealed; this Court granted certiorari, stayed and then vacated the TRO, remanding with directions to dismiss. The Court’s reasons are explained here.
- The Court addressed (1) whether the Circuit Court erred in issuing the ex parte TRO, (2) timeliness and laches under Election Law §12-202(b)(1), (3) whether the federal filing or Md. Rule 2-101 tolled the limitations, (4) whether mandamus avoids the statutory limit, and (5) the proper statutory filing deadline for petition candidates under Subtitle 7 (§5-703).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Laches under §12-202(b)(1) | Schlakman: challenge was timely because they learned of the certification in August and filed within weeks; equitable relief should govern. | Lamone/Jones: plaintiffs filed in circuit court after the 10-day window and their delay prejudiced election preparations; laches bars relief. | Held: Challenge was untimely and barred by laches; statutory 10-day window is a benchmark for laches. |
| Tolling by federal filing and Md. Rule 2-101(b) | Appellees: their August 25 federal filing tolled the §12-202(b)(1) deadline and Md. Rule 2-101(b) savings applies. | Appellants: federal dismissal did not fall within Rule 2-101(b) triggers; no tolling. | Held: No tolling — federal dismissal was a nullity for purposes of Rule 2-101(b); Rule 2-101(b) did not apply. |
| Mandamus claim and applicability of §12-202 timetable | Appellees: seeking mandamus bypasses §12-202(b)(1) timing constraints. | Appellants: mandamus is not a way to evade laches or the statutory timing when an adequate statute-based remedy exists. | Held: Mandamus claim is also barred by laches; §12-202 timing is a relevant benchmark and equities did not favor plaintiffs. |
| Statutory deadline for petition candidates (§5-703 v. §5-303) | Appellees: petition candidates must meet the pre-primary filing deadline (Feb. 3, 2016 under §5-303); Sparaco missed it. | Appellants: Subtitle 7 (§5-703) sets the filing deadline for petition candidates (first Monday in August); Sparaco complied. | Held: Held for Appellants — Subtitle 7 controls petition candidates; the deadline was the first Monday in August and Sparaco properly filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519 (Md. 2006) (standard of review for TRO/ preliminary injunction)
- LeJeune v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 381 Md. 288 (Md. 2004) (trial court discretion must follow correct legal principles)
- Ross v. State Board of Elections, 387 Md. 649 (Md. 2005) (§12-202 is the mechanism to challenge candidate qualifications; equity/laches discussion)
- Liddy v. Lamone, 398 Md. 233 (Md. 2007) (laches and election challenges; prompt filing required)
- Fraternal Order of Police v. Montgomery County, 446 Md. 490 (Md. 2016) (equitable claims assessed against statutory time limits for laches analysis)
- Fuller v. Republican Central Committee of Carroll County, 444 Md. 613 (Md. 2015) (party seeking interlocutory relief must show likelihood of success on the merits)
- Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2004) (late election challenges can disrupt election administration and justify denial of emergency relief)