Lamone v. Schlakman

451 Md. 468

153 A.3d 144

Linda H. LAMONE, et al.

v.Ian SCHLAKMAN, et al.

No. 50, Sept. Term, 2016

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

February 1, 2017

Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Attorney General (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Jeffrey L. Darsie, Assistant Attorney General of Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellants.

H. Mark Stichel (Kelcie L. Longaker, Gohn Hankey Stichel & Berlage, LLP of Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellees.

Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten and Getty, JJ.

Greene, J.

This case involves a challenge under the election law article to a candidate's qualifications to appear on the ballot. See MD. CODE ANN., ELEC. LAW § 12–202(a) (2002, 2010 Repl. Vol., 2016 Supp.). Ian Schlakman and Frank Richardson (Appellees), along with Dan Sparaco, were among the candidates in the 2016 General Election vying for a seat representing Councilmanic District Twelve on the Baltimore City Council.¹ Appellees challenged the decisions of the Baltimore City Board of Elections ("City Board") to certify Mr. Sparaco as an eligible candidate and the State Board of Elections ("State Board") to include him as a candidate for the District Twelve seat on the 2016 General Election ballot. They maintained that Mr. Sparaco's failure to comply with statutory filing requirements in a timely manner disqualified him from running for election as a candidate for the District Twelve vacancy. Appellees sought to have the City Board withdraw its certification of Mr. Sparaco's candidacy and the State Board strike his name from the ballot. When the relief they sought was not forthcoming, Appellees went to court.

Appellees initially challenged Mr. Sparaco's qualifications in court by filing on August 25, 2016 an action against the State Board of Elections in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking an injunction "prohibiting ... [the] State Board from violating Maryland Law" and other relief. The federal court dismissed Appellees' lawsuit out of hand because then counsel had not been admitted to practice before the federal court.

On September 20, 2016, Appellees then filed the instant action in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against Linda H. Lamone and Armstead B. C. Jones, Jr., in their official capacities as the Administrator of the State Board of Elections and Election Director of the Baltimore City Board of Elections, respectively. See MD. CODE ANN., ELEC. LAW § 6–209(a) (2002, 2010 Repl. Vol., 2015 Supp.); ELEC. LAW § 12–203(a)(3).

On September 22, after notifying the Boards' counsel, Appellees submitted an ex parte request for an immediate temporary restraining order. See Md. Rule 15–504. The Circuit Court granted the request on September 22 and issued the temporary restraining order directing Appellants to remove Mr. Sparaco's name from ballots and granting further relief. On September 23, Appellants filed direct appeals both to the Court of Special Appeals as well as this Court. See ELEC. LAW § 12–203(a)(3). On that date, this Court entered an order staying both the temporary restraining order and all further Circuit Court proceedings pending our review. On September 27, Appellants filed a "Petition for Certiorari and Request for Expedited Review." On October 6, we granted certiorari , before consideration of the direct appeal by the Court of Special Appeals. Lamone, et al. v. Schlakman , 450 Md. 214, 147 A.3d 393 (2016). We also allowed Appellants' request for expedited review and heard oral argument on October 18, following which we entered an order lifting the stay, vacating the temporary restraining order, and remanding the case to the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Id. The mandate issued forthwith, and we now explain the reasons for our decision.²

ISSUE

Appellants have advanced the following question for our review:

Did the circuit court err in entering an ex parte temporary restraining order that requires the defendants to remove the name of a qualified candidate from the ballot in Baltimore City Councilmanic District No. 12 for the 2016 General Election?

For the reasons set forth below, we agree that the temporary restraining order was granted in error. Appellees' state court challenges to the State Board's and City Board's actions were untimely and are barred by laches. Moreover, Appellees have not demonstrated any basis for relief on the merits under any theory of action or avenue for relief. The City Board's certification of Mr. Sparaco as a qualified candidate, and the State Board's listing of his candidacy, complied with the provisions of the Election Law Article.

BACKGROUND

The operative facts are not in dispute.³ Ian Schlakman was the Green Party candidate for the District Twelve Councilmanic seat on the Baltimore City Council. Frank W. Richardson and Dan Sparaco were independent candidates for the same vacancy. By February 3, 2016, Appellees Schlakman and Richardson had each filed a declaration of intent or certificate of candidacy with the Baltimore City Board of Elections, filings that were required of them as part of the process by which each would qualify for a place on the ballot for the District Twelve seat. See generally ELEC. LAW §§ 5–301(a), (d) ; COMAR 33.01.06.01B(2) (definition of "candidate filing document" includes certificate of candidacy and declaration of intent).

Anticipating a run for the District Twelve seat, Dan Sparaco formed a candidate committee in September 2015, and filed his campaign finance report with the State Board of Elections on January 13, 2016. See ELEC. LAW § 13–202. He did not file his declaration of intent by February 3, however. Instead, on May 20, 2016, Mr. Sparaco filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, challenging the constitutionality of the early filing deadline for unaffiliated candidates.⁴ Sparaco v. Lamone , No. 1:16–cv–1579–GLR (D. Md). Mr. Sparaco voluntarily dismissed this suit on August 15, 2016.

On July 11, 2016, Mr. Sparaco filed with the City Board his declaration of intent to seek nomination by petition for the District Twelve seat. On August 2, the City Board approved the petition signatures that had been submitted by Mr. Sparaco, and certified his candidacy pursuant to ELEC. LAW § 6–208(b)(1), which governed the certification of petitions.⁵ The State Board included Mr. Sparaco's name on the ballot and on August 31 posted on its website ballot proofs that included his name, as well as those of Appellees.

On August 25, 2016, Appellees filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking to enjoin what they perceived as the State Board's violation of the Maryland Election Law. Schlakman et al. v. Md. State Bd. of Elections , No. 1:16–cv–02968 (D. Md.). They complained that the State Board was effectively rewriting the statute's candidate filing deadline by including Mr. Sparaco's name on the ballot, and that the State Board's actions had harmed their campaign for the contested seat because they would be forced to "compete in an election against an ineligible candidate."

Appellees' federal suit was dismissed on September 20 because their former attorney was not admitted to the bar of that court. The district judge ordered all pleadings stricken, noting that the clerk had not been authorized to accept any previous filings, and prohibited the clerk from receiving the complaint and "all subsequent filings." See D. Md. Loc. Adm. R. 101.1(a), (b)(i), (ii), 102.1(a)(i) (D. Md.).

The action before us was docketed on September 20 in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.⁶ Appellees contested the Boards' actions pursuant to ELEC. LAW §§ 6–209 and 12–202(a). In an eight-count complaint, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as the issuance of a writ of mandamus and a temporary restraining order which would "require that [Appellants] remove the name of Dan Sparaco from any and all ballots to be distributed to voters in Baltimore City Councilmanic District No. 12 for the 2016 General Election." On September 20, Appellees' attorney notified counsel for the Boards that they would be filing a motion for a "TRO/preliminary injunction" in the Circuit Court.⁷ Appellees served the Boards' counsel with the TRO motion and accompanying documents on September 21.

On September 22, 2016, the Circuit Court issued the temporary restraining order that is the subject of this appeal. The court found that there were "no material facts in dispute." The court also concluded:

3. [The] Court finds that Plaintiffs, registered voters and candidates for the Baltimore City Council in Councilmanic District No. 12, have raised a substantial question concerning whether Defendants are violating Maryland law by their including the name of Dan Sparaco as a candidate for Baltimore City Council in Councilmanic District No. 12 on ballots to be distributed to voters for the 2016 General Election. [The] Court further finds that the Defendants' actions, unless restrained, may act in contravention of the Plaintiffs' claimed rights before this Court has had the opportunity to determine those rights and effectively moot this case. [The] Court finds that this outcome would harm Plaintiffs' legitimate interests. The Court further finds that this harm will be immediate, substantial, and irreparable.

* * *

5. Accordingly, Linda H. Lamone, in her official capacity as State Administrator, Maryland State Board of Elections, and Armstead B. C. Jones, Sr., in his official capacity as Election Director, Baltimore City Board of Elections (collectively "Defendants") are ORDERED to remove the name of Dan Sparaco from any and all ballots to be distributed to voters in Baltimore City Councilmanic District No. 12 for the General Election and ENJOINED from distributing to voters any ballot containing the name of Dan Sparaco as a candidate for election in the 2016 General Election. FURTHER, those working under Defendants' direction and in concert with them

...