Supreme Court of Maryland: Election candidacy

Civil service; ripeness

BOTTOM LINE: Where a man challenged whether a candidate could appear on the primary ballot, and the circuit court dismissed the suit as premature, it erred.

CASE: Simmons v. Dove, Jr., No. 61, Sept. Term, 2025 (filed March 30, 2026) (per curiam)

FACTS: Gary Simmons filed a petition in the circuit court, challenging the certificate of candidacy, residency and qualifications of John Calvin Dove Jr. to be a candidate in the primary election in June 2026. Mr. Simmons alleged that “Mr. Dove resides in, is domiciled in, and maintains a primary place of abode in the 31st Legislative District,” but that he filed a certificate of candidacy on which he “represented that he was a resident of Legislative District 12B.” Mr. Simmons also alleged that Mr. Dove inaccurately represented that he resided at an address in Legislative District 12B when completing a change of voter registration form a week before filing his certificate of candidacy.

Mr. Simmons alleged that because Mr. Dove was not a resident of Legislative District 12B at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy, he was ineligible to serve as a candidate for the House of Delegates from that district. Mr. Simmons also alleged that Mr. Dove had made false and misleading statements in both his voter registration application and his certificate of candidacy that he lived in Legislative District 12B at times he did not. Mr. Simmons alleged that based on those allegedly false statements, Mr. Dove’s certificate of candidacy was invalid, and he should be excluded from the Democratic Party primary ballot.

The day before the hearing, Mr. Dove filed a motion to dismiss. Mr. Dove argued that Article III, § 9 of the Constitution of Maryland requires a candidate for the office of delegate to reside in and have a place of abode in the district for only six months before the general election. Because that six-month deadline would not arrive until May 3, Mr. Dove argued that Mr. Simmons’s petition was premature.

The circuit court agreed with Mr. Dove, determining that because the constitutional deadline was in the future, “the court cannot make a finding on whether [Mr. Dove] will in the future meet the constitutional requirements for candidacy as a delegate.” Accordingly, the circuit court granted Mr. Dove’s motion and dismissed Mr. Simmons’s petition with prejudice.

LAW: The circuit court erred in concluding that Mr. Simmons’s petition was premature. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and remanded for a decision on the merits of Mr. Simmons’s challenge under §§ 5-305 and 12-202 of the Election Law Article.

A majority of the court concludes that Mr. Simmons’s challenge is ripe with respect to his claim that Mr. Dove failed to satisfy requirements in the Election Law Article to be lawfully registered to vote in, and to reside or have a place of abode in, Legislative District 12B at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy. A minority of the court concludes that Mr. Simmons’s challenge is ripe with respect to his claim that Mr. Dove’s certificate of candidacy is invalid because he misrepresented his residential address on the certificate.

On remand, the court should address the merits of both claims. To allow time for any further appeal to be resolved without disrupting deadlines related to the upcoming primary election, the circuit court shall hold an evidentiary hearing and issue its decision on the merits no later than noon on April 6, 2026. Any appeal from the circuit court’s decision on the merits must be filed no later than 4:00 pm on April 6, 2026.

Judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County reversed and remanded.