120 [85 Op. Att’y

 In your request you also state that you are concerned about the 1

propriety of your possible involvement in those determinations, given that

your office advocated passage of the bill while it was before the General

Assembly. We do not discuss the ethical issue that you raise.

Presumably, however, our interpretation of the Election Code also

resolves your ethical concern.

ELECTIONS

REFERENDA ) COUNTIES ) SUFFICIENCY DETERMINATION

CONCERNING A REFERENDUM ON A PUBLIC LOCAL LAW

ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS TO BE MADE BY

STATE OFFICIALS

May 19, 2000

Virginia W. Barnhart, Esquire

County Attorney for Baltimore County 

You have asked for an opinion on the procedure for

determining the sufficiency of a petition that may be submitted in an

effort to bring a public local law recently enacted by the General

Assembly to referendum. As you note, the recent recodification of

Article 33 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (the “Election Code”)

raises a question about whether sufficiency determinations are to be

made at the State level or by the local board of elections with the

legal advice of the county attorney. We believe that the best reading

of all relevant Election Code provisions, together with Article XVI

of the State Constitution, requires that the determinations be made

at the State level – that is, by the State Board of Elections, with the

assistance of its counsel, the Attorney General.1

I

Background

A. Chapter 75 

Your question arises in connection with Chapter 75, Laws of

Maryland 2000 (Senate Bill 509), a bill introduced at the request of
Gen. 120] 121

 If more than one-third of the required signatures is filed with the 2

Secretary of State before June 1, the deadline for submitting the remainder

is extended until June 30. Article XVI, §3(b).

 “A public general law ‘deals with the public general welfare, a 3

subject which is of significance not just to any one county, but rather to

more than one geographical subdivision, or even to the entire state.’”Park

v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City, 338 Md.

366, 378, 658 A.2d 687 (1995).

 A public local law is confined in its operation to certain 4

prescribed or defined territorial limits. Park, supra, 338 Md. at 378. See

also Maryland Constitution, Article XI-A, §4 (stating that “[a]ny law so

drawn as to apply to two or more of the geographical subdivisions of this

State shall not be deemed a Local Law”); Article XI-F, §1 (defining

“public local law” for purposes of code home rule provisions to exclude

a law that applies to more than one county).

Baltimore County and enacted by the General Assembly during its

most recent session. The major purposes of the law were to

“authoriz[e] Baltimore County to undertake and carry out projects

for residential, commercial, or industrial development and

redevelopment” in three specifically defined “renewal areas” within

the County, and to “authoriz[e] Baltimore County to exercise the

power of eminent domain,” if necessary, to acquire certain

specifically identified properties within those renewal areas. After

passage of the bill, opponents announced their intention to petition

the legislation to referendum.

B. The Referendum

Under Article XVI of the State Constitution, ratified in 1915,

the effective date of any law enacted by the General Assembly, with

certain exceptions not pertinent here, may be suspended pending its

submission to the voters for approval or rejection. The effectiveness

of the law is postponed if a sufficient number of petition signatures

is filed with the Secretary of State before June 1 following the

passage of the law. Article XVI, §2. The Secretary of State is to 2

refer a public general law to the voters statewide if the Secretary 3

receives a petition signed by voters equal in number to at least three

percent of the votes cast for Governor at the last preceding

gubernatorial election. The Secretary of State is to refer a public

local law to the voters of the affected county or Baltimore City if 4

the Secretary receives a petition signed by voters of that jurisdiction

equal in number to at least ten percent of the votes cast for Governor
122 [85 Op. Att’y

 When it recodified the Election Code in 1998, the General

5

Assembly heeded this express limitation by stating at the outset of Title

6 (Petitions): “This title may not be interpreted to conflict with any

provision relating to petitions specified in the Maryland Constitution.”

Article 33, §6-102(c).

by voters of that jurisdiction at the last gubernatorial election.

Article XVI, §3(a).

Certain technical requirements for a referendum petition are set

forth in Article XVI itself, which also directs the General Assembly

to “prescribe by law the form of the petition, the manner for

verifying its authenticity, and other administrative procedures which

facilitate the petition process.” Article XVI, §4. The Constitution

expressly qualifies this grant of authority by specifying that the

petition procedures and forms prescribed by the General Assembly

must not conflict with Article XVI. Id. Article XVI, §5 deals with 5

how the voters are to be notified about issues put to referendum, how

the referred laws are to be placed or described on official ballots,

and how the results of a referendum are to be returned and

announced.

The General Assembly has implemented Article XVI of the

Constitution through laws that are gathered, since the 1998

recodification of the Election Code, primarily in Titles 6 (Petitions)

and 7 (Questions) of Article 33. These titles apply not only to

referenda on acts of the General Assembly under Article XVI of the

Constitution, but also to questions submitted to the voters pursuant

to petition under other provisions of the Constitution, and to

referenda on public local laws enacted by the legislative bodies of

home rule counties. Article 33, §7-101. See also Annotated Code

of Maryland, Article 25A, §8 (permitting citizens of a chartered

county to reserve in their charter the right of referendum); Article

25B, §10(h) (authorizing citizens of a code home rule county to

petition to referendum public local laws enacted by the board of

county commissioners). Among other things, Titles 6 and 7 provide

for the content of petitions and specify how determinations about the

sufficiency of petitions are to be made and how referendum

questions are to be placed on the ballot.

The petition process laid out in Title 6 allows the sponsors of

a petition drive to submit the format of their petition to election

officials for an “advance determination” of sufficiency. Article 33,

§6-202. After the sponsors collect the signatures of registered voters
Gen. 120] 123

 The General Assembly is expressly forbidden by Article XI-A of 6

the Constitution to pass public local laws for a chartered county like

Baltimore County “on any subject covered by the [Express Powers Act]”.

Article XI-A, §4. However, it may still enact public local laws for

chartered counties on subjects not within the counties’ express powers.

in an effort to obtain the required number of verifiable signatures,

the sponsors attach an “information page” and formally file the

petition in the office of “the appropriate election authority” specified

in §6-205(a). The chief election official of that election authority

determines the sufficiency of the petition as to matters other than the

validity of signatures. Section 6-206. This determination must be

consistent with any advance determination made under §6-202.

Article 33, §6-206(d).

The staff of the election authority, or if the election authority

is the State Board of Elections, the staffs of the local election boards,

then verify and count the signatures on the petition. Article 33, §§6-

205(b), 6-207. At the conclusion of the verification and counting,

the chief election official of the election authority certifies the result

of the petition process – in the case of a referendum petition,

whether the question has qualified to be placed on the ballot. Article

33, §6-208. Anyone aggrieved by a decision made under Article 33,

§6-202, §6-206, or §6-208 may seek judicial review. Article 33, §6-

209.

C. “Local Petition”

Your specific question involves the application of Title 6 in the

context of a petition concerning Chapter 75, a public local law

passed by the General Assembly and applicable to Baltimore

County. More particularly, it arises because of the different 6

treatment of statewide and local petitions under Title 6. Central to

your question is the definition of “local petition” that appears in §6-

101(g) :

(g) Local petition. – “Local petition”

means a petition:

 (1) On which the signatures from only

one county may be counted; and
124 [85 Op. Att’y

 It is noteworthy that local boards of elections have authority 7

under Article 33, §2-205 to retain their own attorneys, who are typically

not on the staffs of the county attorneys. The reason for assigning to

county attorneys the task of advising the local boards on petition matters

is not entirely apparent, although it no doubt relates to the involvement of

local legislative and executive officials in the submission of local

questions to the voters.

 (2) That does not seek to:

(i) Refer a public general law

enacted by the General Assembly; or

(ii) Nominate an individual for an

office for which a certificate of candidacy is

required to be filed with the State Board.

Read literally, this definition would appear to include within

the term “local petition” a petition, such as the one now being

circulated with respect to Chapter 75, that seeks to refer a public

local law enacted by the General Assembly. Under paragraph (1) of

§6-101(g), signatures from only one county would be counted in

connection with such a petition, and under paragraph (2) of that

section, the petition would seek neither to refer a public general law

nor to nominate an individual for an office for which a certificate of

candidacy would be filed with the State Board of Elections.

If a petition seeking to refer a public local law enacted by the

General Assembly is a “local petition,” then the “election authority”

responsible for making determinations about the sufficiency of that

petition is the local board of elections, §6-101(e)(2), with the advice

of the county attorney or county law department, §6-101(f)(2). See 7

Article 33, §6-202 (calling for format of petition to be submitted to

the chief election official of “the appropriate election authority,”

who makes an advance determination on its sufficiency with the

advice of “the legal authority”). However, the design of the

Constitution and the rest of the Election Code leads us to the

conclusion that the Legislature intended that a referendum petition

concerning a public local law enacted by the General Assembly be

processed by the State Board of Elections with the advice of the

Attorney General.
Gen. 120] 125

 Section 6-205(a) cannot reasonably be read to require, under

8

paragraph (2), that a petition under Article XVI of the State Constitution

be delivered to the State Board of Elections and then, under paragraph (4),

that the petition be processed as if it had been filed with the local board

of elections. If the General Assembly had intended to make the local

board the decision-maker, there would have been no reason not to direct

the Secretary of State, in paragraph (2), to deliver the petition directly to

the local board.

II

Analysis

The Constitution assigns to State officials various tasks

involved in processing and assessing a referendum petition on any

act of the General Assembly. Article XVI of the Constitution

requires that such a petition, whether its object is a public general or

a public local law, be filed with the Secretary of State, a State

constitutional officer. If the Secretary of State determines that the

petition requirements of the Constitution have been met, the

Secretary refers the law either to the voters of the entire State or, in

the case of a public local law, to the voters of a single county.

Article XVI, §§2, 3. See Barnes v. State, ex rel. Pinkney, 236 Md.

564, 576, 204 A.2d 787 (1964). The Constitution likewise assigns

to State constitutional officers other tasks involved in the referral of

laws enacted by the General Assembly: the Attorney General is to

approve any summary to be included as part of a petition, Article

XVI, §4; and the votes cast for and against the referred law are to be

returned to the Governor, who is to proclaim the result of the

election, Article XVI, §5(b).

Consistent with the Constitution, the Election Code typically

assigns to State officers tasks involved in the referral of acts of the

General Assembly. For example, Article 33, §6-205(a) provides

that, if the Constitution requires the filing of a petition with the

Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is to deliver the petition to

the State Board of Elections, §6-205(a)(2), and the petition is to be

processed as if it had been filed with “the election authority” (i.e.,

the election authority referred to in §6-205(a)(2), the State Board of

Elections), §6-205(a)(4). Under §6-206, it is the chief election 8

official of the election authority with which a petition is filed (i.e.,

in the case of a petition for the referral of any act of the General

Assembly, whether public general or public local law, the State

Board of Elections) who reviews the petition and determines its
126 [85 Op. Att’y

This construction of §6-202 is consistent with Constitution, 9

Article XVI, §4, which, as noted above, makes it the task of the Attorney

General to approve the summary to be included as part of any petition to

refer an act of the General Assembly.

 Section 7-104(b) tracks Article XVI, §5, of the Constitution, 10

which assigns to the Secretary of State the task of preparing and

submitting a ballot title in connection with any law referred under Article

XVI.

sufficiency. Because, under §6-206(d), this determination must be

consistent with an advance determination made under §6-202, it

logically follows that the State Administrator, acting with the advice

of the Attorney General, must also make the advance determination

under §6-202 on any petition seeking to refer an act of the General

Assembly.9

The responsibility that §6-205(a) apparently allocates to State

officers accords with several provisions in Title 7 of Article 33

(Questions). Under §7-104(b), it is the duty of the Secretary of State

to certify the text to appear on the ballot with respect to “all

statewide ballot questions and all questions relating to an enactment

of the General Assembly which is petitioned to referendum,” while

“[e]ach question to be voted on in a single county or part of a

county, except a question relating to an enactment of the General

Assembly which has been petitioned to referendum”(emphasis

added), is to be prepared by the county attorney unless some other

process is mandated by law. See also §7-103(a) (treating the 10

certification to local boards of elections of questions for submission

to the voters of one county or part of one county: certification is to

be done by a local official, except that questions referred to the

voters by the General Assembly itself are to be certified by the State

Board of Elections, and questions petitioned to referendum under

Article XVI of the Constitution are to be certified by the Secretary

of State); §7-106 (Secretary of State to provide for publication of

notice of all questions submitted under Article XVI of the

Constitution, although cost of publication may be paid by the county

if the question is submitted to voters in only one county).

The same allocation of responsibility is also embodied in §9-

211 of the Election Code, which deals with the arrangement of

questions on the ballot. Under §9-211(b), the Secretary of State is

to certify the form of “statewide questions, and any question relating
Gen. 120] 127

to an enactment of the General Assembly,” whereas the appropriate

local authority is to certify the form of “a question to be voted on by

voters in a single county, other than a question pursuant to an

enactment of the General Assembly” (emphasis added). See also

Anne Arundel County v. McDonough, 277 Md. 271, 290, 354 A.2d

788 (1976) (recognizing distinction between referenda arising under

Articles XI-A and XVI of the Constitution and those arising on local

questions).

These various provisions demonstrate a constitutional and

legislative scheme that generally assigns to State officials

determinations respecting the referral of acts of the General

Assembly, be they public general or public local laws. Indeed, §6-

101(g), insofar as it would classify as a “local petition” one seeking

to refer a public local law enacted by the General Assembly, and

thus assign to local officials determinations about the sufficiency of

such a petition, is so incompatible with all related provisions of the

current Election Code that it appears to be the result of a drafting

error.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that provisions

dealing with the same subject, especially if enacted at the same time,

should be harmonized if at all possible. In re Criminal Investigation,

307 Md. 674, 690, 516 A.2d 976 (1986); Scott v. State, 297 Md. 235,

245-46, 485 A.2d 1126 (1983), appeal after remand, 310 Md. 277,

529 A.2d 340 (1987); State v. Loscomb, 291 Md. 424, 432, 435 A.2d

764 (1981). If §6-101(g)(2)(i) is read literally so that a petition

seeking a referendum on a public local law enacted by the General

Assembly constitutes a “local petition,” and if as a consequence the

sufficiency of such a petition is to be determined by the local board

of elections with the advice of the county attorney, this would be a

unique instance within the pertinent provisions of the Election Code

where the General Assembly assigned to local officials judgments

touching on the validity and effectiveness of one of its own acts.

This appears at odds with the roles in the petition process

constitutionally assigned to the Secretary of State, the Attorney

General, and the Governor, as well as with the provisions in Titles

7 and 9 of the Election Code for certifying the text to appear on the
128 [85 Op. Att’y

 We need not attempt to delineate what, if any, functions 11

associated with a referendum on an act of the General Assembly the

Legislature could assign to local officials consistent with Article XVI of

the Constitution.

ballot when any act of the General Assembly is petitioned to

referendum.11

In addition, the Court of Appeals has declared that, where a

literal construction of statutory language would dictate a result at

variance with the apparent legislative goal or purpose, “the plainmeaning rule is not rigid.” Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309

Md. 505, 513, 525 A.2d 628, 632-33 (1987). See also Catonsville

Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman, 349 Md. 560, 709 A.2d 749 (1998);

Taylor v. Friedman, 344 Md. 572, 582, 689 A.2d 59 (1997). In such

situations, if the legislative purpose can be derived by a thorough

examination of the statute’s context, a non-literal construction that

effectuates the evident purpose is to be adopted, even if that

construction varies from unambiguous but ill-drafted text.

Kaczorowski, supra, 309 Md. at 515. See also 84 Opinions of the

Attorney General 138 (1999) (concluding that Maryland Hospital

Bond Program was available for bonds issued by the Maryland

Industrial Development Financing Authority even though definition

section could be read to restrict program to political subdivisions);

82 Opinions of the Attorney General 165 (1997) (concluding that

retailers could continue to collect a “bad check fee” notwithstanding

the apparent repeal of legislation authorizing such fees). 

In our opinion, the intent underlying §6-101(g)(2)(i) was to

exclude from the term “local petition” public local laws, rather than

public general laws, enacted by the General Assembly. If the single

word “general” in §6-101(g)(2)(i) were changed to “local,” the

inconsistencies noted above would be resolved. The term “local

petition” would then include all petitions on which signatures from

a single county are counted, with the exception of petitions to refer

public local laws enacted by the General Assembly and petitions

making nominations for offices where certificates of candidacy are

filed with the State Board of Elections.

This reading of §6-101(g)(2)(i) would also resolve an internal

problem with §6-101(g). Paragraph (1) of the subsection defines a

“local petition” as one on which the signatures from only one county

may be counted. Paragraph (2) then excludes from the group

established by paragraph (1) two specific types of petitions, those
Gen. 120] 129

seeking the referral of “a public general law enacted by the General

Assembly,” and those nominating individuals for certain offices.

Because a public general law by definition applies statewide or to

more than one county, a petition seeking the referral of such a law

would necessarily include the signatures of voters from more than

one county, and the petition would thus be excluded from the

definition of “local petition” under §6-101(g)(1). Excluding it again

under §6-101(g)(2) would be mere surplusage. The Court of

Appeals has repeatedly admonished against statutory constructions

that render certain words of a statute “surplusage, superfluous,

meaningless or nugatory.” E.g., Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md.

351, 359, 643 A.2d 906 (1994). See also Giant Food, Inc. v.

Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, 356 Md. 180, 194,

738 A.2d 856 (1999); Holman v. Kelly Catering, Inc., 334 Md. 480,

485, 639 A.2d 701 (1994).

Moreover, reading the definition of “local petition” to exclude

petitions that seek to refer any act of the General Assembly would

accord with the legislative history of the 1998 recodification of the

Election Code. See Chapter 585, Laws of Maryland 1998. That

recodification consolidated provisions concerning petitions that

appeared throughout the former code in sections dealing with the

formation of new parties, with various types of nominations, and

with questions. Before the recodification, there was no definition

section analogous to current §6-101. The provision dealing with the

form of, and procedures for verifying, “petitions filed under Article

XI-A or Article XVI of the Constitution,” Former Article 33, §23-3,

clearly assigned authority over those matters to the State

Administrative Board of Election Laws, the predecessor to the

current State Board of Elections.

Nothing in the January 8, 1998 Report of the Commission to

Revise the Election Code, or in the bill, Senate Bill 118 (1998), that

was introduced on behalf of the Commission, contained language to

alert the General Assembly of any reassignment from the State to the

local level of responsibility for handling referenda on public local

laws enacted by the General Assembly. Nor did the report or the bill

highlight the other incongruities that would result from reading §6-

101(g) literally.
130 [85 Op. Att’y

The 1998 revision was not, for the most part, intended to make

substantive changes in prior election law, but to better organize

Article 33 and make it more understandable, and to make the State

Board of Elections a stronger and more effective body with authority

to establish election-related policies within the broad parameters of

the law. Report of the Commission to Revise the Election Code, at

pp. 2-4. The bill analysis for Senate Bill 118, in its “Highlights of

Changes in Law” for Title 6 of proposed Article 33, gave no

indication of any substantive change in the allocation of

responsibility for handling petition determinations. It merely stated

that the State Board of Elections would adopt regulations covering

the form and content of petitions, circulation procedures, and

verification and counting of signatures, and that verification by

random sample would be permitted, if approved by the State Board.

Thus, the legislative history also supports the conclusion that use of

the phrase “public general law” in §6-101(g)(2)(i) was a drafting

error.

III

Conclusion 

Article 33, §6-101(g), if read literally, would allocate to a local

board of elections, advised by the county attorney, determinations

about the legal sufficiency of a petition seeking to refer a public

local law enacted by the General Assembly. However, such a

reading would deviate from the legislative scheme manifested in

other provisions of the Election Code and would vary significantly

from prior law in a way neither noted nor explained by the

recodifiers of the Election Code. Reading §6-101(g) in this way

would also depart from the constitutional pattern of allocating to the

Secretary of State and other State constitutional officers

responsibility for referenda on all acts of the General Assembly.

Finally, under this reading, §6-101(g)(2)(i) itself would be mere

surplusage. For these reasons, we believe that the reference to

general “public law” in §6-101(g)(2)(i) represents a drafting error

that should not be given effect.
Gen. 120] 131

If §6-101(g) is read to embody the apparent legislative intent,

the related provisions of the Election Code can be harmonized, and

paragraph (2)(i) of §6-101(g) is not mere surplusage. In our opinion,

the Legislature intended that sufficiency determinations with respect

to a petition seeking to refer a public local law enacted by the

General Assembly be handled by the State Board of Elections with

the advice of the Attorney General. We recommend that the General

Assembly enact clarifying legislation to correct the drafting error in

§6-101(g) by changing “public general law” in paragraph (2)(i) to

“public local law.”

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

Judith A. Armold

Assistant Attorney General

Robert N. McDonald

Chief Counsel

 Opinions and Advice

Editor’s Note:

Subsequent to this opinion, the General Assembly recodified

the State Election Law in a new Election Law Article (“EL”). It also

amended the law to exclude the referral of a public local law from

the definition of “local petition” and to designate the local election

board’s counsel as the “legal authority” with respect to local

petitions. See EL §6-101(f)(2), (g). Chapter 49, Laws of Maryland

2001; Chapter 380, Laws of Maryland 2003.