Potts v. Governor of Md.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 47,47 |
| Citation | 255 Md. 445,258 A.2d 180 |
| Parties | Lucille B. POTTS, etc. v. GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Donald B. W. Messenger, Upper Marlboro, for appellant.
Henry R. Lord, Asst. Atty. Gen (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Robert F. Sweeney, Deputy Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.
Appellant, Lucille B. Potts, 'Republican member 1 of the Board of Election Supervisors of Prince George's County * * * individually and on behalf of all Republican Election Board members similarly situated' brought this action against the Governor of Maryland and the Secretary of State of Maryland. She sought a declaratory decree that Chapter 1 of the Acts of 1969 ('the Act') is unconstitutional and an injunction restraining the Governor and Secretary of State 'from appointing, issuing certificates of appointment, or allowing persons appointed under the provisions of (the Act) to take office as Election Board Members throughout the State of Maryland or from removing from office any of the (then) Board Members of the Several Election Boards throughout the State.' For reasons which will appear, the question presented is now moot. Therefore, we shall dismiss the appeal.
This litigation is a direct by-product of a complete revision of the election laws in 1967 and the election of Governor Spiro T. Agnew as Vice-President of the United States.
From 1896 until the enactment of present Code (1968 Repl.Vol.) Art. 33, § 2-1 by Chapter 392 of the Acts of 1967 effective July 1, 1967, the Maryland election laws provided for a Board of Election Supervisors of three people with the provision that 'two of them shall always be selected from the two leading political parties of the State, one from each of said parties.' Code (1957), Art. 33, § 1. Provision was made for recommendation by the two principal parties. Technically, so long as a governor appointed one person from the Democratic list and one person from the Republican list, he complied with the law. As a practical matter, a governor appointed the third member from his own party, but he was not obliged under the law to appoint that person from the list submitted by the State central committee of his party and did not always appoint from that list. See Riggin v. Lankford, 134 Md. 146, 150, 105 A. 172 (1918).
In 1967 something new was added with the provision that '(t)wo of them shall always be selected from and represent the majority party and one shall always be selected from and represent the principal minority party', and the definition of 'majority party' as 'the party whose candidate for Governor received the highest number of votes at the last preceding general election' and 'principal minority party' as 'the party whose candidate for Governor received the second highest number of votes at the last preceding general election.' Code (1968 Repl.Vol.) Art. 33, § 1-1(a)(11). This meant that the majority party was the Republican Party by virtue of the election of Governor Agnew the previous November. All three appointments were required to come from the party lists. On January 7, 1969, Governor Agnew resigned and, for the seventh time in the history of the State, the General Assembly elected a governor. Governor Mandel, the person so elected, is a Democrat.
The Act became effective immediately upon its approval by the Governor on February 11, 1969, since it had been passed as an emergency measure 'necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety'. It amended Section 1-1(a)(11) of Art. 33 for the purpose of redefining the majority party. In essence it defined it as the party of the incumbent governor from time to time with similar amendment as to the principal minority party.
Appellant attacks the Act on two grounds, (1) that as 'an emergency bill, (it) in effect creates and abolishes an office and shortens a term of office and grants a franchise or special privilege, within the meaning of, and in contravention of the provisions of the Maryland Constitution, Art. XVI, § 2 and is thereby unconstitutional', and (2) that no emergency necessitating the immediate preservation of the public health or safety was presented and that the declaration of emergency is subject to review of the courts for determination of whether an emergency exists. Both contentions are without merit.
We have consistently held that a legislative declaration of emergency is conclusive and not reviewable. Heaton v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 254 Md. 605, 255 A.2d 310 (1969); First Continental Savings & Loan Ass'n Inc. v. Director, 229 Md. 293, 302, 183 A.2d 347 (1962); Hammond v. Lancaster, 194 Md. 462, 476, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., 138
... ... Health Serv. v. Fritz, 295 Md. 268, 271-72, 454 A.2d 846, 848, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 3528, 77 L.Ed.2d 1389 (1983); Potts v. Governor, 255 ... Md. 445, 449, 258 A.2d 180, 182 (1969), and cases cited in each. In Attorney General v. Anne Arundel County Sch. Bus, 286 ... ...
-
State v. Siegel
...appeal was dismissed the questions became moot because the position of the parties had factually changed. For example, in Potts v. Governor, 255 Md. 445, 258 A.2d 180 where the question concerned the validity of the appointment of members of various Boards of Election Supervisors, the case ......
-
Droney v. Droney
...this Court may dismiss an appeal if the issues to be considered have become moot. Rule 8-602(a)(10); see also, Potts v. Governor, 255 Md. 445, 449, 258 A.2d 180 (1969); Washington Homes v. Baggett, 23 Md.App. 167, 171, 326 A.2d 206 (1974), cert. denied, 273 Md. 723 Mr. Droney contends that ......
-
Health Services Cost Review Commission v. Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Inc.
...v. Governor, 281 Md. 521, 524-25, 380 A.2d 220 (1977); State v. Ficker, 266 Md. 500, 506-07, 295 A.2d 231 (1972); Potts v. Governor, 255 Md. 445, 449, 258 A.2d 180 (1969); Washburne v. Hoffman, Etc., 242 Md. 519, 219 A.2d 826 (1966); Lloyd v. Supervisors of Elections, 206 Md. 36, 111 A.2d 3......