Whitley v. Maryland State Board of Elections
429 Md. 132
Md.2012Background
- Maryland voters used a website (MDPetitions.com) to generate petition signature pages for SB 1 (congressional redistricting) to referendum in 2012.
- Signature pages were printed, signed, and included an affidavit; § 6-203 requires signers to include identifying information, and COMAR 33.06.03.06 requires printed or typed date, name, and address.
- Whitley challenged certification, arguing electronic petitions via the website violated § 6-203(a) and COMAR 33.06.03.06(B) and that self-circulating pages violated Article XVI, § 4 and § 6-204.
The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the Board, approving the online petition format and allowing self-circulation; Whitley appealed, and a per curiam order affirmed the circuit court.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address (1) whether third‑party computer pre-fill violates § 6-203(a) and COMAR 33.06.03.06(B)(1), and (2) whether self-circulation (signer also acting as circulator) complies with Article XVI, § 4 and § 6-204.
- The Court of Appeals majority concluded § 6-203(a)(2) is satisfied when the signature page includes required information, even if entered via computer by a household member, and that self-circulation is permissible under the constitution and statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether computer-generated petitions violate § 6-203(a) and COMAR 33.06.03.06(B)(1). | Whitley: signatures via computer lack required personal inclusion/provision of data. | Board/Intervenor: statute/regulations do not require personal entry; 'include'/'provide' permit electronic generation. | Unambiguous; electronic inclusion satisfies § 6-203(a)(2). |
| Whether a self-circulated petition (signer also acting as circulator) complies with Article XVI, § 4 and § 6-204. | Whitley: must be two individuals; self-circulation undermines circulator affidavit. | Board/Intervenor: no express requirement mandating distinct circulator; self-circulation permissible. | Self-circulation valid; no requirement that circulator and signer be different. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Md. State Bd. of Elections, 428 Md. 596 (Md. 2012) (advanced discussion on computer-facilitated petitions)
- Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157 (Md. 2007) (statutory construction framework; plain meaning)
- Fire-Rescue, 418 Md. 468 (Md. 2011) (petition subtitle fraud prevention; §6-203/§6-204 interpretation)
- Montgomery Cnty. Volunteer Fire-Rescue Ass’n v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 418 Md. 463 (Md. 2010) (statutory interpretation; fraud prevention in petitioning)
- Tyler v. Secretary of State, 229 Md. 397 (Md. 1962) (circulator affidavit purpose; presumption of validity)