Stop Slots MD 2008 v. State Board of Elections
34 A.3d 1164
Md.2012Background
- During a 2007 Maryland special session, House Bill 4 proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize video lottery terminals (slot machines) to fund education.
- Senate Bill 3 enacted contingent appropriations for such video lottery revenues, dependent on the amendment's ratification, and specified distribution to education and other recipients.
- Ballot language and a non-technical summary were prepared for Question 2, describing the amendment and its funding purposes, including contingent legislation.
- Petitioners challenged both the contingent legislation as an improper delegation of legislative power and the ballot language as misleading or deficient.
- This Court previously decided Smigiel v. Franchot upholding the contingent legislation; Stop Slots MD similarly challenged the sufficiency of ballot language, with conclusions to be explained here.
- The Court analyzes (i) non-delegation/contingent legislation and (ii) sufficiency of ballot language and adequacy of prior notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contingent legislation accompanying a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional delegation | Smigiel petitioners argue the Legislature delegated lawmaking to voters. | Respondents contend contingent legislation is permissible to implement the amendment. | Constitutional; contingent legislation valid. |
| Whether the ballot language adequately informs voters of the amendment and its contingent effects | Question 2 misleads by tying primary purpose to education and omits contingent details. | Question 2 accurately conveys true nature and purpose with sufficient notice. | Question 2 is constitutional; language adequately informs voters. |
| Whether the election-notice requirements were fulfilled to cure any ballot-language deficiencies | Notice could not cure defective ballot language. | notice plus complete text on websites and mailing sufficed. | Notice adequate; cure not required where ballot language suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smigiel v. Franchot, 410 Md. 302 (Md. 2009) (upheld contingent legislation; affirmed constitutionality of pre-authorization actions)
- Brawner v. Supervisors of Elections, 141 Md. 586 (Md. 1922) (referendum invalidates legislation that requires future approval to take effect)
- McDonough v. Anne Arundel County, 277 Md. 271 (Md. 1976) (ballot-language sufficiency; concise, understandable summary; due process notice)
- Kelly v. Vote Know Coalition of Maryland, Inc., 331 Md. 164 (Md. 1993) (ballot language must convey true nature of measure; pre/post-election scrutiny differs)
- Druggan v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1925) (federal precedent supporting pre-enactment legislation to implement future constitutional provisions)
- Dutton v. Tawes, 225 Md. 484 (Md. 1961) (pre-election notice standards; substantial compliance may still inform voters)