MD Supreme Court orders evidentiary hearing in Anne Arundel candidate residency case

Listen to this article

ANNAPOLIS — The Maryland Supreme Court on Monday ordered an evidentiary hearing to assess whether a candidate for the House of Delegates actually lives in the district he aims to represent.

In a short opinion filed Monday afternoon — just hours after oral arguments — the court overturned a decision by the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, which dismissed incumbent state Del. Gary Simmons’ lawsuit against Democratic primary challenger John Dove Jr. on the grounds that it was premature.

A majority of the court, the unsigned opinion states, concluded that Simmons’ claims were ripe for review, even though the Maryland Constitution only requires candidates to live in the district for six months before the November election.

The high court ordered a hearing on the merits of Simmons’ claims by noon on April 6, allowing an appeal no later than 4 p.m. that day.

“I’m pleased that the Supreme Court ruled in my favor,” Simmons stated in a news release shared by his lawyer, Robbie Leonard. “I look forward to returning to the Circuit Court to demonstrate that Mr. Dove does not live in District 12B.”

State Sen. Clarence Lam, D-Anne Arundel and Howard, who is an ally of Simmons and represents many of the same areas, added, “I’m glad to see that the Supreme Court restored a universal recognition that you have to live in the district that you file to run in.”

“Had the justices let the lower court’s ruling stand,” Lam said, “any candidate could file to run in any legislative district with the intention to move into the district later. That made no sense at all.”

“The decision is a bit disappointing,” Jill Carter, a former state senator who represents Dove, wrote in a text message. “Mr. Dove has relied in good faith on the constitutional residency requirement. I continue to believe an evidentiary hearing is premature. Mr. Dove will likely prevail and the good news is he now gets to tell his story.”

In February, Dove changed his voter registration from his home in Gambrills to an address in Pasadena, about 10 miles away, and used the Pasadena address when he filed to run against Simmons.

State election law directs candidates to list their current address when they file to run; if that address isn’t in the district, the Maryland State Board of Elections can prevent them from running, even if they plan to move to the district by the prescribed date.

The conflict between state law and the constitution arose when lawmakers moved the primaries from September to June ahead of the 2014 primaries. (In 2022, it was pushed back to July.) That decision moved the candidate filing deadline outside the six months required under the constitution.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Robert Thompson on March 16 granted Dove’s motion to dismiss the case without hearing arguments on the merits, saying it was premature to question Dove’s residency until early May.

But it’s not so simple, Simmons argued. He said a candidate must meet the requirements of the Election Law Article, including residing in the district, when they file to run. The form specifies, among other things, “the address on the statewide voter registration list or the current address of that individual.”

Leonard asked the Supreme Court during Monday’s hearing to reverse the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case and remand it back for a full hearing on the merits.

“Just changing your voter registration, just claiming you live there, is not enough under Maryland law,” Leonard told the court.

He argued that if the motion to dismiss stands and residency challenges must wait until May, it would be impossible to meaningfully challenge a candidate’s residency and reprint ballots before the primary. In his brief before the high court, he noted that final ballots will be sent to the printer on April 23, and ballots will be mailed to overseas voters no later than May 9.

In a hypothetical case in which the only candidate is found ineligible for the primary, a party’s state central committee would nominate a candidate.

“We would be removing democracy,” Leonard said.

Carter argued Monday that the statutes “must be looked at in harmony with the Constitution.” (She is a member of The Daily Record’s Editorial Advisory Board, which is independent of the newsroom.)

“Any statute that accelerates that (residency requirement) is inappropriate and, I would argue, unconstitutional,” she said.

Maryland Solicitor General Julia Doyle, arguing for the state elections board, said it would be impossible for the body to remove a candidate and run an orderly election in a matter of weeks.

Dove’s argument, the elections board argued in its brief, “would render nearly impossible the statutory mandate that the election boards verify the qualifications of candidates seeking nomination. This would also cause voter confusion and last-minute disruptions to the elections process and could effectively preclude removal of the names of non-compliant candidates from the ballot.”

At the hearing, Doyle said, “We can’t wait until after May 3 to decide who’s eligible for the primary election.”

This story has been updated.