CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/29/2023 1

Unsuccessful Attempt to Block State-Court 

Removal of a Candidate from a Ballot 

Libertarian Party of Maryland v. Maryland State Board 

of Elections (George L. Russell III, D. Md. 1:18-cv-2825) 

A federal district judge declined to block a state court’s removal of a 

minor political party’s nomination because the nomination violated 

party rules against nominating members of other parties. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

matters for state courts; party procedures. 

A minor political party was unsuccessful in its effort to get a federal court to 

overturn a state court’s removal of the party’s candidate for a state judge position from the general-election ballot.1

 The party filed its federal complaint 

against Maryland election officials in the District of Maryland on September 

11, 2018.2

A state judge determined on August 24 that the candidate’s nomination 

violated party rules because the candidate was a member of a different party, 

so the state judge issued a preliminary injunction against inclusion of the candidate on the general-election ballot.3

 On September 7, state election officials 

certified a general-election ballot with the candidate omitted.4

With its federal complaint, the party filed a motion to stay state-court proceedings and stay the preliminary injunction.5

 The next day, in a motion to 

amend the stay motion, the party informed the court, “Today in the state court 

proceedings, Assistant Attorney General Andrea Trento stated to the Circuit 

Court that the final day for the State Board of Elections to restore Plaintiff’s 

nominee to the general election ballot is close of business Friday, September 

14, 2018.”6

Election officials responded on September 14 that as compliance with the 

preliminary injunction was already complete it could not be stayed, and the 

party’s request for additional interference with state-court proceedings was 

not justified.7

 Two days later, the party filed a federal motion for a temporary 

restraining order restoring its candidate to the general-election ballot.8

1. Order, Libertarian Party of Md. v. Md. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:18-cv-2825 (D. Md. 

Sept. 20, 2018), D.E. 14; Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 11, 2018); Complaint, id. (Sept. 11, 2018), 

D.E. 1. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1. 

3. See Complaint, supra note 1, at 5; Defendants’ Brief at 4–5, Libertarian Party of Md., 

No. 1:18-cv-2825 (Sept. 14, 2018), D.E. 8. 

4. See Complaint, supra note 1, at 5; Defendants’ Brief, supra note 3, at 5. 

5. Stay Motion, Libertarian Party of Md., No. 1:18-cv-2825 (Sept. 11, 2018), D.E. 2. 

6. Amendment Motion at 2, id. (Sept. 12, 2018), D.E. 6. 

7. Defendants’ Brief, supra note 3. 

8. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Libertarian Party of Md., No. 1:18-cv-2825

(Sept. 16, 2018), D.E. 9. 
Unsuccessful Attempt to Block State-Court Removal of a Candidate from a Ballot 

2 Federal Judicial Center 3/29/2023 

On a Monday, September 17, telephone conference, Judge George L. Russell III and the litigants agreed to schedule a hearing three days later.9

 Following the hearing, Judge Russell denied the plaintiff party immediate relief “for 

reasons stated on the record, including but not limited to that the Party fails 

to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits.”10

The case was dismissed voluntarily on November 5.11

9. Memorandum, id. (Sept. 17, 2018), D.E. 10. 

10. Order, supra note 1. 

11. Dismissal, Libertarian Party of Md., No. 1:18-cv-2825 (Nov. 5, 2018), D.E. 19; Dismissal Notice, id. (Nov. 5, 2018), D.E. 18.