Town of La Plata v. Faison-Rosewick LLC
76 A.3d 1001
Md.2013Background
- La Plata Town Council adopted four related resolutions on Sept. 27, 2011: one annexation resolution (adding 14.1 acres) and three related non-annexation resolutions (annexation agreement, annexation plan, amendment).
- Citizens circulated a referendum petition seeking to refer all four resolutions to voters; petition pages listed all four resolutions.
- Two days before petition filing, Town Manager Daniel Mears published an eight‑page “Procedures for Validation and Verification of Signatures” describing how he would verify petition signatures.
- Mears reviewed signatures, concluded the petition contained >20% valid signatures, and the Town proclaimed the annexation suspended pending referendum.
- Opponents sued in Circuit Court challenging (a) inclusion of non‑referable resolutions on the petition, (b) Mears’s authority to publish/implement verification procedures, and (c) aspects of petition circulation; the Circuit Court invalidated the petition.
- Maryland Court of Appeals vacated the Circuit Court judgment, holding the petition was not invalidated by collateral material and that the Town Manager had implied authority to publish verification procedures; remanded for remaining fraud claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition was invalid because it listed, besides the annexation resolution, three non‑referable resolutions | Opponents: statute allows referendum only on the annexation "resolution"; including non‑referable resolutions misleads voters and invalidates petition | Supporters/Town: listing collateral, related resolutions merely informs voters; they form an "annexation package" and do not vitiate the petition | Inclusion of collateral, non‑referable enactments that do not obfuscate the annexation’s subject matter does not invalidate the petition; only annexation resolution is referable under § 19(g) |
| Whether Town Manager had authority to publish verification procedures | Opponents: § 19(g) imposes verification duty but does not authorize him to set rules; such rulemaking is non‑delegable and should follow Town Council or state election law safeguards | Town/Supporters: implied authority to adopt reasonable procedures to carry out the express verification duty; publication increases transparency | Town Manager had implied authority to promulgate reasonable procedures to verify signatures; doing so was not arbitrary and did not violate due process |
| Whether State Election Law/common law should govern municipal annexation petition verification | Opponents: absent local rules, state election rules and common‑law protections should apply to protect integrity | Town: § 23A/§ 19 provides the municipal framework; municipalities may adopt or incorporate state rules but § 19(g) governs | Court did not decide applicability in full; noted municipalities may adopt State election law/common law but § 19(g) controls the municipal annexation referendum process as written |
| Whether publication of procedures two days before filing violated due process or tainted the process | Opponents: late publication deprived public fair notice and tainted verification | Town: publication was informational and promoted transparency; no protected interest was deprived | No due process violation; late publication did not render procedures invalid nor taint the petition process |
Key Cases Cited
- Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14, 63 A.3d 582 (2013) (discusses municipal annexation statutory scheme and petition timing)
- Anne Arundel Cnty. v. McDonough, 277 Md. 271, 354 A.2d 788 (1976) (ballot language must be clear and not misleading)
- Gisriel v. Ocean City Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 345 Md. 477, 693 A.2d 757 (1997) (verification of referendum petitions is a ministerial duty subject to common‑law mandamus)
- Burroughs v. Raynor, 56 Md. App. 432, 468 A.2d 141 (1983) (officials charged with signature verification may use reasonable means to confirm registrant status)
- Barnes v. State ex rel. Pinkney, 236 Md. 564, 204 A.2d 787 (1964) (Secretary empowered to examine signatures on referendum petitions)
- Mayor of Oakland v. Mayor of Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301, 896 A.2d 1036 (2006) (interpreting § 19: ‘‘resolution’’ refers to annexation resolution)