Roberts v. Lakin

• Decision Date: 01 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 68,68
• Citation: 665 A.2d 1024,340 Md. 147
• Parties: Anthony ROBERTS, et al. v. Steven S. LAKIN. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 147

340 Md. 147

665 A.2d 1024

Anthony ROBERTS, et al. v. Steven S. LAKIN.

No. 68, Sept. Term, 1994.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Per Curiam Order Oct. 19, 1994.

Opinion Oct. 10, 1995.

Charles C. Roberts, Greenbelt, for appellants.

Torin K. Andrews (Andrews & Associates, Chtd., Patrick M. Connelly, on brief) Rockville, for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.

ORDER

On September 7, 1994, the Court, on its own motion, issued a writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals in the above-captioned case.

On September 8, 1994, the Court conducted a hearing at which the parties presented arguments in support of their respective positions.

The Court has fully considered the arguments, motions and other pleadings filed in this matter.

NOW THEREFORE, it is this 8th day of September, 1994

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County dated September 2, 1994, ordering that the name of Anthony Roberts be stricken from the primary election ballot for District 14A is hereby stayed and the State Administrative Board of Elections and the Board of Supervisors of Elections of Montgomery County, Maryland are hereby directed to include the name of Anthony Roberts on the primary ballot.

PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 19th day of October, 1994,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County is reversed; mandate to issue forthwith; costs to be paid by appellee.

ELDRIDGE, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether Anthony Roberts fulfilled the constitutional residency requirements to be a candidate for the House of Delegates from Maryland Legislative District 14A. ¹ The dispute over Roberts's eligibility arose in the midst of the 1994 election for members of the House of Delegates. This Court on October 19, 1994, issued an order reversing the circuit court and holding that Roberts had been eligible to run for the House of Delegates from District 14A. We now set forth the reasons for our order.

Both the appellee Steven S. Lakin and the appellant Anthony Roberts were candidates in the 1994 primary election for the Republican nomination for delegate from District 14A. Lakin, believing that Roberts did not satisfy the residency requirements to run for this office, filed on August 28, 1994, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County a petition for a writ of mandamus and for declaratory relief. Lakin sought a declaration that Roberts failed to meet the minimum constitutional residency requirements for the House of Delegates from District 14A and an order that Roberts's name be stricken from the election ballot. Lakin named as defendants Anthony Roberts, the State Administrative Board of Election Laws, and the Board of Supervisors of Elections of Montgomery County.

The minimum residency requirement for the House of Delegates, set forth in Article III, Section 9, of the Maryland Constitution, is as follows: "A person is eligible to serve as a ... Delegate, who on the date of his election ... has resided in that district for six months next preceding that date." The 1994 general election was held on November 8, 1994. Thus, in order to have been eligible as a candidate for delegate from District 14A, Roberts must have resided in that district from May 8, 1994.

On September 2, 1994, following an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County declared that Roberts did not meet the residency requirement for delegate from District 14A because he was not domiciled in that district as of May 8, 1994. The circuit court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the state and county election boards to remove Roberts's name from the primary election ballot.

Roberts immediately noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals and filed in the Court of Special Appeals a motion to stay the judgment of the circuit court pending disposition of the appeal. On September 7, 1994, six days before the primary election, this Court issued a writ of certiorari prior to any proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals. On September 8, 1994, after hearing arguments on the motion for a stay, we granted the motion, ordered a stay of the circuit court's judgment, and directed the election boards to include Roberts's name on the Republican primary ballot.

In the Republican primary election held September 13, 1994, Lakin lost by 78 votes to the winner, Patricia Faulkner. ² Roberts placed fourth out of the four candidates in the Republican primary, receiving 100 votes. At first glance, since both Roberts and Lakin lost the primary, it might appear that the case had become moot. Nevertheless, since the margin separating Lakin and Faulkner was less than the number of votes received by Roberts, Lakin theoretically could have won if enough of the 100 votes cast for Roberts had gone instead to Lakin. Thus, the results of the primary election did not render the case moot.

After the submission of briefs and oral argument, this Court, on October 19, 1994, three weeks before the general election, issued the per curiam order reversing the circuit court's judgment.

The underlying facts of this case were presented by Roberts during his testimony at the September 2, 1994, trial in the circuit court. Roberts, the only person to testify, stated that, prior to January 1993, he lived in an apartment on Colgate Way, in Silver Spring, Maryland. This residence was in Legislative District 20. Roberts testified that he began living with his girlfriend at her house on Pamela Drive, in Silver Spring, in January 1993. The house on Pamela Drive was in Legislative District 14A.

Roberts further testified that he had his own set of keys to his girlfriend's house, knew the combination to the alarm system, kept some of his clothing there, and cut the grass. Roberts stated that in December 1993, he formally transferred his church membership from a church in District 20 to one within the boundaries of District 14A. Most importantly, before the critical date of May 8, 1994, and with the express intention of fulfilling the requirements to run for delegate from District 14A, Roberts changed his voter registration to reflect his move to Pamela Drive.

While Roberts lived with his girlfriend at the Pamela Drive address, he continued to lease his apartment on Colgate Way through August 1994 and kept his furniture there. Roberts testified that he used the Colgate Way apartment as a business address to meet Maryland clients, as an escape when his allergies to his girlfriend's pets escalated, as a retreat from his girlfriend's daughter with whom he did not always get along, and for its amenities including a pool and a racquetball court. He further explained that his girlfriend's home was fully furnished and, therefore, there was neither room nor any need for his furniture. Additionally, the term of Roberts's lease at the Colgate Way address did not expire until June 1994. After his lease expired, Roberts entered into a month-to-month lease that terminated at the end of August 1994. In August 1994, Roberts took steps to acquire an apartment in District 14A, and on September 1, 1994, he signed a lease for an apartment in District 14A, on Blackburn Lane.

Also in August 1994, Roberts and his girlfriend developed relationship problems, and Roberts began to stay overnight at the Colgate Way address a majority of the time. ³ Nevertheless, during this same period in August 1994, Roberts had the address on his driver's license changed to the house on Pamela Drive and filed a change of address with the post office, listing his new address as the house on Pamela Drive. Upon the termination of the lease on the Colgate Way apartment at the end of August 1994, Roberts moved into the apartment on Blackburn Lane.

At the conclusion of Roberts's testimony, the circuit court determined that Roberts was domiciled at the Colgate Way address in District 20. The trial judge stated that the evidence failed to persuade him that Roberts "had any intent to do anything other than to live as his domicile at the Colgate Way place. [Mr. Roberts] has a bed there. He has a TV there.... The voter registration thing is kind of a self-serving thing."

As previously mentioned, under Article III, Section 9, of the Maryland Constitution, Roberts must have "resided" in District 14A from May 8, 1994, in order to have been a candidate for the House of Delegates from that district. This Court has expressly held that the word "resided" in Article III, § 9, means "domiciled." Bainum v. Kalen, 272 Md. 490, 496-497, 325 A.2d 392, 396 (1974), and cases there cited. This is in accord with our decisions generally that the words "resided" or "resident" in various constitutional and statutory provisions mean "domiciled" or "domiciliary" unless a contrary intent is shown. See, e.g., Garcia v. Angulo, 335 Md. 475, 477, 644 A.2d 498, 499 (1994); Wamsley v. Wamsley, 333 Md. 454, 458, 635 A.2d 1322, 1324 (1994); Comptroller v. Haskin, 298 Md. 681, 690, 472 A.2d 70, 75 (1984); Toll v. Moreno, 284 Md. 425, 438-442, 397 A.2d 1009, 1015-1017 (1979); Dorf v. Skolnik, 280 Md. 101, 116, 371 A.2d 1094, 1102 (1977); Comptroller v. Lenderking, 268 Md. 613, 615, 303 A.2d 402, 403-404 (1973); Hawks v. Gottschall, 241 Md. 147, 149, 215 A.2d 745, 746 (1966); Maddy v. Jones, 230 Md. 172, 178-179, 186 A.2d 482, 485 (1962); Rasin v. Leaverton, 181 Md. 91, 93, 28 A.2d 612, 613 (1942); Shenton v. Abbott, 178 Md. 526, 530, 15 A.2d 906, 908 (1940); Wagner v. Scurlock, 166 Md. 284, 291-293, 170 A. 539, 542 (1934), and cases there cited.

Judge Smith for the Court set forth the principles for determining domicile in Dorf v. Skolnik, supra, 280 Md. at 116-117, 371 A.2d at 1102-1103 (emphasis added):

"[T]he words 'reside' or 'resident' mean 'domicile' unless a contrary intent is shown. A person may have several...