Secretary of State v. McGucken

• Decision Date: 01 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 353,353
• Citation: Secretary of State v. McGucken, 244 Md. 70, 222 A.2d 693 (Md. 1966)
• Parties: SECRETARY OF STATE v. Patrick F. X. McGUCKEN. William Albert ALBAUGH v. SECRETARY OF STATE. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 70

244 Md. 70

222 A.2d 693

SECRETARY OF STATE v.Patrick F. X. McGUCKEN.

William Albert ALBAUGH v.SECRETARY OF STATE.

No. 353, Sept. Term, 1966.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Order Aug. 22, 1966.

Opinion Sept. 21, 1966.

Thomas P. Perkins, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Robert C. Murphy, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Edward L. Blanton, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for Secretary of State.

William Albert Albaugh, in pro. per.

Frank B. Walsh, Jr., Annapolis, for Patrick F. X. McGucken.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., ^* and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion to be hereafter filed, it is ordered by the Court of Appeals of Maryland this twenty-second day of August, 1966, that that part of the Order dated August 15, 1966 pertaining to William Albert Albaugh be, and it is hereby, affirmed; and it is further

Ordered that that part of the order pertaining to Patrick F. X. McGucken be, and it is hereby, reversed; and it is further

Ordered that the mandate shall issue forthwith.Costs to be paid one-half by William Albert Albaugh and one-half by Patrick F. X. McGucken.

OPINION

HORNEY, Judge.

When the Secretary of State refused to certify William A. Albaugh as a Republican candidate for Governor and Patrick F. X. McGucken as a Democratic candidate for Congress from the Sixth Congressional District of Maryland in the primary election to be held on September 13, 1966, because the respective candidates failed to appoint a campaign treasurer pursuant to § 213(a) of Article 33 of the Code (1965 Cum.Supp.), the gubernatorial candidate filed a petition for summary judgment and an injunction in an effort to have his name placed on the ballot.Subsequently, the congressional candidate filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and obtained an order allowing him to intervene in the pending case filed by the gubernatorial candidate.

Judge E. Mackall Childs, in an opinion and order filed on August 15, 1966, directed the Secretary of State to certify McGucken as a candidate for Congress, but declined to order a certification of Albaugh as a candidate for Governor.The Secretary of State entered an appeal to this Court forthwith in the McGucken case, and Albaugh did likewise a week later.Arguments on appeal were heard on August 22, 1966, and on the same day we filed a per curiam order wherein we affirmed the order of the lower court with respect to William A. Albaugh and reversed the order with respect to Patrick F. X. McGucken.We state below the reasons for our action.

The Albaugh Case

Candidate Albaugh filed his certificate of candidacy as a Republican candidate for Governor on November 2, 1965.Early in July 1966, he was advised by the Secretary of State that he should promptly appoint a campaign treasurer.In reply he stated that he would not appoint a treasurer and informed the Secretary that he had 'spent about $200 so far and expect(ed) to spend about $1000 before the primary election.'When he was notified on August 1, 1966, that he must appoint a treasurer prior to the certification date of August 3, he filed suit.Therein he alleged, among other things, that he had no intention of appointing a treasurer.

In his certificate of candidacy, the candidate stated under oath that he had been a citizen of the State of Maryland for a period of eight years and a resident for ten years.At the hearing before Judge Childs, he stated that he had been a citizen of the State for twelve years, but he offered no testimony with regard to either citizenship or residency.An in an affidavit filed with his motion seeking to have the lower court reconsider its decision that he was not qualified to be a candidate for Governor, he stated that he had been a citizen for more than ten years and that he had continuously resided in the State for the last five years.

On appeal, Albaugh contends that § 213 (a) of Article 33 is in conflict with § 5 of Article II of the Constitution of Maryland pertaining to the eligibility of a person to be Governor and that his certificate of candidacy shows that he was a qualified candidate for that office.

Since the candidate cited Hellman v. Collier, 217 Md. 93, 141 A.2d 908(1958), to support the first contention, he appears to claim that the statute, requiring candidates for office to appoint a campaign treasurer, had the effect of imposing another qualification for the office of Governor in addition to those set forth in the Constitution.We do not agree.On the contrary, it is obvious that the statute, which is a part of the Corrupt Practices Act, was intended to do no more than enhance the effectiveness of those regulations requiring a full disclosure of the financial aspects of the campaign of a candidate for office.Clearly the Act, including § 213(a) thereof, has no bearing on the eligibility of a candidate for office.

With respect to whether the certificate of candidacy disclosed that the candidate had the requisite qualifications for the office of Governor, Albaugh contends that the only reasonable interpretation of the certification-

'That I am over 30 years of age and have been a citizen of the State of Maryland for the past eight years, and I have resided therein for more than ten years next preceeding this election and that I am a qualified voter therein,'

is that the words 'for the past eight years' indicate the extent of his 'continuous residence' and that the words 'for more than ten years' indicate the length of his 'discontinuous total citizenship.'The contention is wholly without merit.There is no ambiguity (as the candidate claims) in the wording of the quoted part of the certificate of candidacy.Rather, the wording is a clear and unequivocal paraphrase of the constitutional provision.¹Ordinarily the word 'citizen' connotes an inhabitant or permanent resident, and while the words 'citizen' and 'resident' as used in some contexts may be synonymous, as they were held to be in Cross v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 243 Md. 555, 221 A.2d 431(1966) and in Dorsey v. Kyle, 30 Md. 512(1869), it is apparent that the citizenship and residential requirements of the constitutional provision under consideration are not synonymous; nor are the requirement's interchangeable.In this instance, since the certificate of candidacy shows on its face that Albaugh had not been a citizen of Maryland for the requisite ten year period, he was clearly not qualified to be a gubernatorial candidate.

The McGucken Case

Candidate McGucken filed his certificate of candidacy for the Democratic nomination as a representative in Congress from the Sixth Congressional District on June 3, 1966.During July of 1966, the Secretary of State notified the candidate twice to promptly file the name of his campaign treasurer.On August 1, 1966, a telegram was sent to the candidate advising him that the Secretary was required to certify candidates on August 3 and that if he was not advised of the name and address of the candidate's treasurer at once, the name of the candidate would not be certified.On August 8, 1966, the candidate advised the Secretary that he had appointed Robert A. Seidel as his campaign treasurer.After consulting the Office of the Attorney General, the Secretary notified the candidate that he was unable to certify him, and the candidate filed suit.

The only questions we need consider on appeal are whether the Secretary of State was required to certify a candidate who had failed to appoint a campaign treasurer pursuant to the requirements of § 213(a) of Article 33 and whether that section violates the Constitution of the United States with regard to the qualifications of a candidate for Congress.

Section 213(a) of Article 33 provides that:

'Each candidate for...