Lamone v. Schlakman
| Decision Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 50,50 |
| Parties | LINDA H. LAMONE, et al. v. IAN SCHLAKMAN, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
ELECTION LAW—TIME FOR PROCEEDINGS
Notwithstanding the equitable nature of Appellees' claims, we may gauge their delay against the statutory limitations period because courts sitting in equity will apply statutory time limitations in determining, at least as an outside limit, whether laches has run. A statutory limitations period, such as that provided by ELEC. LAW § 12-202(b)(1), provides a benchmark for the application of laches against which this Court can assess whether the Appellees' delay in filing was unreasonable and whether it prejudiced the interests of Appellants. We hold that the temporary restraining order was granted in error because Appellees' state court challenges to the Boards' actions were untimely and are barred by laches. Appellees have not explained this delay, or explained why they did not institute a parallel action in the Circuit Court within the statutorily-mandated time limits.
Moreover, where the federal court dismissed Appellees' action because Appellee's counsel was not admitted to practice before that court, the savings provision under Maryland Rule 2-101(b) did not apply to toll Appellees' obligation to file in the appropriate circuit court, as instructed by ELEC. LAW § 12-202(b)(1).
Furthermore, Appellees have not demonstrated any basis for relief on the merits under any theory of action or avenue for relief. The plain language of ELEC. LAW § 5-703(d)(1) does not require candidates to submit the required filings until the first Monday in August preceding the General Election. 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.
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No. C 02-cv-16-2906
Barbera, C.J. Greene Adkins McDonald Watts Hotten Getty, JJ.
Opinion by 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) . 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 dismissedAppellees' 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) ; 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 caseto the Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Id. The mandate issued forthwith, and we now explain the reasons for our decision.2
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.
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 Boardapproved 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial