Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Ass'n v. Montgomery County Board of Elections
15 A.3d 798
Md.2011Background
- May 21, 2010 Montgomery County Council enacted Bill 13-10 (EMS transport fee).
- Association sought referendum; Board initially accepted petition format for advance determination.
- August 4 filing: 33,740 signatures; 13,021 accepted (≈42% of required).
- August 19 filing: 18,937 signatures; 5,317 accepted.
- Board informed August 23 that petition would not be certified for ballot due to failure to meet 50% threshold.
- Circuit Court granted summary judgment for Board; issue certified to Maryland Court of Appeals; Doe v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections (2008) and related precedents discussed.]
- Note: The law was later defeated on referendum at the November 2, 2010 General Election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §6-203(a)(1) requires a legible handwritten signature for validity. | Association contends illegibility is not fatal if other identifying data exist. | Board contends signature must match printed name exactly; illegible signatures must be rejected. | Illegible signatures may be counted if the entire petition entry satisfies §6-203(a) and (b) with other identifying data. |
| Whether Doe v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections mandates strict compliance with §6-203 signatures. | Doe requires mandatory compliance with signature requirements. | Board interprets Doe to permit some flexibility when assessing total petition data. | Doe's mandatory view governs, requiring meaningful compliance; remedy depends on the total statutory scheme. |
| Whether the Board's bucketed illegibility categories improperly disallow signatures. | Bucket categories should not automatically exclude illegible signatures. | Categories provide a structured approach to validation. | The signature entry as a whole must be used; illegibility alone cannot dictate exclusion. |
| Whether §6-203, read with §6-204 and §6-207, requires legible signatures as part of the validation process. | Legibility is not the sole determinant; multiple data points validate identity. | Legible signature facilitates matching to the voter list; strict matching is essential. | Validation relies on cumulative information, not legibility alone; must align with the full statutory scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections, 406 Md. 697 (2008) (mandatory signature requirements; legibility not sole determinant; Doe governs interpretation)
- Barnes, etc. v. State, ex rel. Pinkney, 236 Md. 564 (1964) (signature as identification; emphasis on safeguards for referendum petitions)
- Takoma Park v. Citizens for Decent Gov’t, 301 Md. 439 (1984) (strict compliance with referendum provisions; undue burden considerations)
- Gittings v. Bd. of Supervis. of Elections, 38 Md.App. 674 (1978) (strict adherence to election procedures; balance with referendum rights)