Source: https://www.citizensoversightmaryland.com/cindy-walsh-vs-maryland-board-of-elections.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:23:04+00:00

Document:
Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie S. Mack , Chairman Maryland Board of Elections; Doug Gansler, Maryland State Attorney General; and Democratic Primary candidates for Governor of Maryland, Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur.
6. Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing in Maryland Circuit Court of Baltimore because plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore and the election irregularities identified in the Federal Court case include businesses located and operating in Baltimore. The plaintiff claims Maryland agencies tasked with oversight and enforcement, the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General’s Office, failed to oversee Maryland elections and enforce Maryland and Federal election laws.
7. The US Constitution and Maryland Constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to free and fair elections. This includes the rights of citizens to run for elected office and the rights of citizens to go to the polls educated on the issues and candidates in an election race so they may cast an intelligent vote. The FCC and IRS regulate businesses under their venue and have laws that protect elections and how businesses may participate in elections. These laws state that if a business decides to participate in elections it must do no damage to one candidate or oppose a candidate and it must educate voters on the issues and candidates in an election race excluding no candidate because of platform. These laws protect Federal, State, and local elections. This case does not address a third party candidate; it addresses a candidate in a Democratic Primary and has the protection of major party status. Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland was systematically excluded from election coverage by Maryland media and election events by major 501c3 organizations and this exclusion was complete in the City of Baltimore. The plaintiff will prove these widespread election irregularities without a doubt changed the results of the Democratic Primary election for Governor of Maryland and denied the citizens of Maryland the information on a campaign platform that in all probability included issues valuable to their decision to vote and for whom to vote. This case claims that Bobbie Mack of the Maryland Board of Elections and Doug Gansler of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office willfully and deliberately failed in their duties of oversight and enforcement of Maryland and Federal Election Law and refused to respond to plaintiff’s requests for relief from said election irregularities. Rather, they allowed them to continue creating the conditions now necessitating the invalidation of the election results in the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland. This case claims as well that Democratic Primary candidates Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur and their campaign committees knowingly violated election law and ignored and participated in election venues that violated election law.
8. Cindy Walsh claims election irregularities; requests to invalidate an election result can be taken to Maryland Circuit Court.
9. Cindy Walsh claims Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler has the power to investigate election violations through the State Prosecutor’s Office and as an elected politician has taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law. Doug Gansler failed to respond to requests from plaintiff to investigate claims of election irregularities and participated in election irregularities so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.
Chapter 612, Acts of 1976; Code Criminal Procedure Article, secs. 14-101 through 14-114; Sec. 6 (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).
10. Cindy Walsh claims the Maryland Board of Elections Chairman Bobbie Mack is tasked with ensuring that elections are free and fair and to respond to candidate’s complaints identifying election irregularities and as an appointed state official has taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law. Bobbie Mack failed to respond to complaints of election irregularities and this candidate's request for relief from those irregularities.
These irregularities were so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.
11. Cindy Walsh claims Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur willfully, knowingly, and with malice violated FCC and IRS election laws and as elected politicians having taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law, have violated that oath of office.
ARTICLE I SEC. 6; SEC. 9.
12. Invalidate the 2104 Democratic Primary due to election irregularities so widespread as to without a doubt changed the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.
13. Find the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General’s Office guilty of failing to perform the duties of their office and of obstruction of justice placing these agencies under court supervision for a probationary period of several election cycles until the citizens of Maryland are assured free and fair elections.
14. Find the Democratic Primary candidates for Governor of Maryland, Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur guilty of failing to honor their oath of office by upholding all Federal and State Constitutional laws especially election law and actively violating these election laws.
15. Provide the Democratic Primary candidate Cindy Walsh an election venue after being denied one in this Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland. Disqualifying Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur for knowingly committing election irregularities and knowingly participating in election venues violating election law would place Cindy Walsh the next highest in votes and therefore the winner of this Democratic Primary. If the court deems the entire primary invalid then allow Cindy Walsh a spot in the 2014 general election for Governor of Maryland running as a Green Party candidate. This would require the court for one time to suspend general election filing date requirement date of February 2014 and suspending the law that precludes a candidate losing a primary from running in a general election. If this is the solution, then the court would need to protect Cindy Walsh from the same kind of media and 501c3 organization censure through the general election this time because of being a third party candidate.
2) may change or has changed the outcome of the election.
3) an appeal shall be taken directly to the Court of Appeals within 5 days of the date of the decision of the circuit court.
2) may change the outcome of a pending election.
2) order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy.
2) if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy,, direct that the elections for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court.
Title 2 Subtitle 1 Section 2-102 - Powers and duties. Listen § 2-102. Powers and duties.
(a) In general-The State Board shall manage and supervise elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process.
Contesting the 2013 Maryland Statute assigning Anne Arundel County as the only court to hear election contests.
-named court. A state statute cannot undermine Federal law. This is not an official capacity lawsuit.
The plaintiff filed this election lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baltimore because that is where the plaintiff lives, that is where much of the election irregularities occurred, and the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler, a defendant in this case has his office in Baltimore. The plaintiff has legal history as the one deciding jurisdiction. I am sending this contest to constitutionality to the Maryland Attorney General as part of this lawsuit. The Circuit Court of Baltimore must rule on jurisdiction in this particular case in an expedited manner as Maryland law places urgency on any contest of election for Maryland Governor. This is an ongoing election and a ruling of jurisdiction cannot wait. The case was filed and summons served to the original defendants over 30 days ago giving defendants time to petition the court. As yet no trial date has been set damaging the plaintiff's right to due process and expedited trial. This court can rule on jurisdiction before the Maryland Attorney General makes a ruling on constitutionality. If the Baltimore Court finds it does not have jurisdiction it will dismiss the case as such allowing the plaintiff to appeal.
Jurisdiction may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.
Universal Citation: MD Cts & Jud Pro Code § 1-501 (2013) §1-501.
The circuit courts are the highest common-law and equity courts of record exercising original jurisdiction within the State. Each has full common-law and equity powers and jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases within its county, and all the additional powers and jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and by law, except where by law jurisdiction has been limited or conferred exclusively upon another tribunal.
ARTICLE IV Part III - Circuit Courts.
SEC. 20. (a) There shall be a Circuit Court for each County and for Baltimore City. The Circuit Courts shall have and exercise, in the respective counties, and Baltimore City, all the power, authority and jurisdiction, original and appellate, which the Circuit Courts of the counties exercised on the effective date of these amendments, and the greater or lesser jurisdiction hereafter prescribed by law.
By rule, each of the Circuit Courts is required to have a differentiated case management plan “for the prompt and efficient scheduling and disposition of actions[.]” Such plans vary by jurisdiction, but include the classification of cases by complexity and priority, to be assigned to particular scheduling “tracks” based on that classification. Consistent with applicable court rule, the Circuit Courts have endeavored to make their differentiated case management plans as similar as possible; in practice, however, the plans do vary somewhat among the Circuit Courts.
In a federal and state civil law suit, the plaintiff decides where a case is going to be heard by filing the complaint at whatever court she chooses. An individual or a company may file a claim in any jurisdiction for any reason.
(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.
(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.
(d) No Forfeiture. A party's failure to file and serve the notice, or the court's failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.
Rule 5.1 implements 28 U.S.C. §2403, replacing the final three sentences of Rule 24(c). New Rule 5.1 requires a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing in question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute to file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The party must promptly file and serve the notice of constitutional question. This notice requirement supplements the court's duty to certify a constitutional challenge to the United States Attorney General or state attorney general. The notice of constitutional question will ensure that the attorney general is notified of constitutional challenges and has an opportunity to exercise the statutory right to intervene at the earliest possible point in the litigation. The court's certification obligation remains, and is the only notice when the constitutionality of a federal or state statute is drawn in question by means other than a party's pleading, written motion, or other paper.
Moving the notice and certification provisions from Rule 24(c) to a new rule is designed to attract the parties’ attention to these provisions by locating them in the vicinity of the rules that require notice by service and pleading.
Unless the court sets a later time, the 60-day period for intervention runs from the time a party files a notice of constitutional question or from the time the court certifies a constitutional challenge, whichever is earlier. Rule 5.1(a) directs that a party promptly serve the notice of constitutional question. The court may extend the 60-[day] period on its own or on motion. One occasion for extension may arise if the court certifies a challenge under §2403 after a party files a notice of constitutional question. Pretrial activities may continue without interruption during the intervention period, and the court retains authority to grant interlocutory relief. The court may reject a constitutional challenge to a statute at any time. But the court may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the attorney general has responded or the intervention period has expired without response. This rule does not displace any of the statutory or rule procedures that permit dismissal of all or part of an action—including a constitutional challenge—at any time, even before service of process.
Changes Made After Publication and Comment. Rule 5.1 as proposed for adoption incorporates several changes from the published draft. The changes were made in response to public comments and Advisory Committee discussion.
The Advisory Committee debated at length the question whether the party who files a notice of constitutional question should be required to serve the notice on the appropriate attorney general. The service requirement was retained, but the time for intervention was set to run from the earlier of the notice filing or the court's certification. The definition of the time to intervene was changed in tandem with this change. The published rule directed the court to set an intervention time not less than 60 days from the court's certification. This was changed to set a 60-day period in the rule “[u]nless the court sets a later time.” The Committee Note points out that the court may extend the 60-day period on its own or on motion, and recognizes that an occasion for extension may arise if the 60-day period begins with the filing of the notice of constitutional question.
The method of serving the notice of constitutional question set by the published rule called for serving the United States Attorney General under Civil Rule 4, and for serving a state attorney general by certified or registered mail. This proposal has been changed to provide service in all cases either by certified or registered mail or by sending the Notice to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
The rule proposed for adoption brings into subdivision (c) matters that were stated in the published Committee Note but not in the rule text. The court may reject a constitutional challenge at any time, but may not enter a final judgment holding a statute unconstitutional before the time set to intervene expires.
The published rule would have required notice and certification when an officer of the United States or a state brings suit in an official capacity. There is no need for notice in such circumstances. The words “is sued” were deleted to correct this oversight.
Several style changes were made at the Style Subcommittee's suggestion. One change that straddles the line between substance and style appears in Rule 5.1(d). The published version adopted the language of present Rule 24(c): failure to comply with the Notice or certification requirements does not forfeit a constitutional “right.” This expression is changed to “claim or defense” from concern that reference to a “right” may invite confusion of the no-forfeiture provision with the merits of the claim or defense that is not forfeited.
The language of Rule 5.1 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
This bill specifies that if a party in a civil action commenced in the District Court or a circuit court alleges in a pleading, motion, or other paper that a State law violates the State or federal constitution,the party must immediately serve the Attorney General bycertified mail with the pleading, motion, or other paper alleging the unconstitutionality of the State law. The notice requirement only applies if the State is not a party to the case.The bill also authorizes the Attorney General to be heard in the case and take certain actions and extends this notice requirement and these rights to counties and municipalities in cases alleging that a county or municipal law, ordinance, or resolution is unconstitutional.Fiscal SummaryState Effect: None. The bill is procedural and does not materially affect State finances.Local Effect:None. The bill is procedural and does not materially affect local finances.Small Business Effect:None.AnalysisBill Summary: After receiving the appropriate notice, the Attorney General has the right to (1) be heard in court regarding the constitutionality of the statute at issue; (2) submit the views of the Attorney General in writing to the court within a reasonable time period, as determined by the court; or (3) seek intervention in the action in accordance with the Maryland Rules.
The same notice requirement applies in a civil case in which a pleading, motion, or other paper alleges that county or municipal law, ordinance, or resolution violates the State or federal constitution. The notice requirement applies if the State or a county or municipality is not a party to the case. In such cases, the Attorney General and the chief legal officer of the county or municipality must receive the notice and have the same rights specified above.The bill repeals a statutory provision that a municipality or county (1) must be made a party to an action involving the validity of a municipal or county ordinance or franchise and (2) has the right to be heard in such cases.Current Law: A municipality or county must be made a party to and is entitled to be heard in any declaratory judgment proceeding involvingthe validity of a municipal orcounty ordinance or franchise. If the statute, municipal or county ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General doesnot need to be made a partyto the case; however, immediately after the suit has been filed the Attorney General mustbe served with a copy of theproceedings by certified mail. The Attorney General is entitled to be heard, submit views in writing within a time deemed reasonable by the court, or seek intervention pursuant to the Maryland Rules.The Maryland Rules authorize the federal government, the State, a political subdivision of the State, or any officer or agency of those entities to intervene in an actionin the District Court or a circuit court in which the validity of any of the following is drawn into question or relied upon as grounds for a claim or defense: a constitutional provision, charter provision, statute, ordinance, regulation, executive order, requirement, or agreement. The court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and a person desiring to intervene must file and serve a timely motion to intervene.The same notice requirement applies in a civil case in which a pleading, motion, or other paper alleges that county or municipal law, ordinance, or resolution violates the State or federal constitution. The notice requirement applies if the State or a county or municipality is not a party to the case. In such cases, the Attorney General and the chief legal officer of the county or municipality must receive the notice and have the same rights specified above.The bill repeals a statutory provision that a municipality or county (1) must be made a party to an action involving the validity of a municipal or county ordinance or franchise and (2) has the right to be heard in such cases.Current Law: A municipality or county must be made a party to and is entitled to be heard in any declaratory judgment proceeding involvingthe validity of a municipal orcounty ordinance or franchise. If the statute, municipal or county ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General doesnot need to be made a partyto the case; however, immediately after the suit has been filed the Attorney General mustbe served with a copy of theproceedings by certified mail. The Attorney General is entitled to be heard, submit views in writing within a time deemed reasonable by the court, or seek intervention pursuant to the Maryland Rules.The Maryland Rules authorize the federal government, the State, a political subdivision of the State, or any officer or agency of those entities to intervene in an actionin the District Court or a circuit court in which the validity of any of the following is drawn into question or relied upon as grounds for a claim or defense: a constitutional provision, charter provision, statute, ordinance, regulation, executive order, requirement, or agreement. The court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and a person desiring to intervene must file and serve a timely motion to intervene.Current Law: A municipality or county must be made a party to and is entitled to be heard in any declaratory judgment proceeding involvingthe validity of a municipal orcounty ordinance or franchise. If the statute, municipal or county ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General doesnot need to be made a partyto the case; however, immediately after the suit has been filed the Attorney General mustbe served with a copy of theproceedings by certified mail. The Attorney General is entitled to be heard, submit views in writing within a time deemed reasonable by the court, or seek intervention pursuant to the Maryland Rules.The Maryland Rules authorize the federal government, the State, a political subdivision of the State, or any officer or agency of those entities to intervene in an actionin the District Court or a circuit court in which the validity of any of the following is drawn into question or relied upon as grounds for a claim or defense: a constitutional provision, charter provision, statute, ordinance, regulation, executive order, requirement, or agreement. The same notice requirement applies in a civil case in which a pleading, motion, or other paper alleges that county or municipal law, ordinance, or resolution violates the State or federal constitution. The notice requirement applies if the State or a county or municipality is not a party to the case. In such cases, the Attorney General and the chief legal officer of the county or municipality must receive the notice and have the same rights specified above.The bill repeals a statutory provision that a municipality or county (1) must be made a party to an action involving the validity of a municipal or county ordinance or franchise and (2) has the right to be heard in such cases.Current Law: A municipality or county must be made a party to and is entitled to be heard in any declaratory judgment proceeding involvingthe validity of a municipal orcounty ordinance or franchise. If the statute, municipal or county ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General doesnot need to be made a partyto the case; however, immediately after the suit has been filed the Attorney General mustbe served with a copy of theproceedings by certified mail. The Attorney General is entitled to be heard, submit views in writing within a time deemed reasonable by the court, or seek intervention pursuant to the Maryland Rules.The Maryland Rules authorize the federal government, the State, a political subdivision of the State, or any officer or agency of those entities to intervene in an actionin the District Court or a circuit court in which the validity of any of the following is drawn into question or relied upon as grounds for a claim or defense: a constitutional provision, charter provision, statute, ordinance, regulation, executive order, requirement, or agreement. The court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and a person desiring to intervene must file and serve a timely motion to intervene.
The court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and a person desiring to intervene must file and serve a timely motion to intervene.
Today, I want to examine the Rules of Statutory Construction that are considered by the courts when a constitutional challenge to legislation is raised.
"The organic and fundamental law of a nation or a state...establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people ... of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments (ie. branches) and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until is shall be changed by the authority which established it (ie. by amendment), and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void."
1) The Legislature enacts the law.
2) The Executive enforces the law.
3) The Judiciary interprets the law.
Thus, when a law is challenged as being unconstitutional -- an affront to the constitution -- it is the judiciary which makes the final decision.
A party has standing to challenge a statute's constitutionality if that party has a sufficient interest in the outcome of a justiciable controversy to obtain a judicial resolution of that controversy. Standing involves a two step analysis. The court must determine whether the plaintiff has suffered threatened or actual injury and the interest asserted must be recognized by law. see State v. Oak Creek, 232 Wis.2d 612 (2000).
2) All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality.
3) Therefore, a party challenging a statute's constitutionality bears a heavy burden and must demonstrate the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.
see Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 284 Wis.2d 573 (2005).
The only exception to the challenger bearing the burden of proof is when a statute infringes on a First Amendment Right. In this instance, the State has the burden of proving constitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. see State v. Trochinski, 253 Wis.2d 38 (2002).
2) An "as applied" challenge; that is, the law is unconstitutional as to the challenger alone.
see State v. Smith, 323 Wis.2d 377 (2010).
1) Overbreadth -- a statute is overbroad when its language is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the State is not permitted to regulate. see County of Kenosha v. C & S Management Inc., 223 Wis.2d 373 (1999). In order to assert a claim of overbreadth, it is not necessary that a person's own conduct be constitutionally protected. The overbreadth analysis reflects the conclusion that possible harm to society from allowing unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech will be muted. Thus, if a statute included in its prohibition conduct which is constitutionally protected, it is void even if the person's own conduct is unprotected and may be prohibited by a more narrowly drawn law. see State v. Johnson, 108 Wis.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1982). The danger in overbroad statutes is that they provide practically unbridled administrative and prosecutorial discretion that may result in selected prosecution based on certain views deem objectionable law enforcement. However, overbreadth must be real and substantial. Marginal infringement or fanciful hypotheticals of inhibition which are unlikely to occur will not render a statute unconstitutional on overbreadth grounds. see State v. Stevenson, 236 Wis.2d 86 (2000).
2) Vagueness -- a statute is vague if it fails to afford proper notice of the conduct it seeks to proscribe. The test for vagueness is whether a statute is so obscure that men of ordinary intelligence must guess as to its meaning and differ as to its applicability. To withstand a vagueness challenge it must be sufficiently definite so that potential offenders are able to discern boundaries of proscribed conduct. see Johnson, supra. Procedural due process is at issue. see County of Kenosha, supra.
3) Procedural Due Process -- requires that a person who has life, liberty or property at stake must be afforded the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Failure of a statute to so provide renders a statute unconstitutional. see Estate of Makos v. Masons Health Care Fund, 211 Wis.2d 41 (1997).
4) Substantive Due Process -- the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause is a guarantee of "more than a fair process." It contains a substantive sphere as well barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. The threshold inquiry when analyzing an alleged violation of substantive due process is whether the challenger has established a deprivation of a liberty or property interest protected by the constitution. see Dowhower v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co., 236 Wis.2d 113 (2000).
5) Equal Protection -- a statute which treats members of similarly situated classes differently violates the Fourteenth Amendment. If the challenge implicates a fundamental right or suspect classification the statute is subject to a strict scrutiny test. It must be shown by the State that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. see State v. Baron, 318 Wis.2d 60 (2009). If the challenge does not implicate a fundamental right or suspect classification then the statute is subject to a rational basis test. It must be shown buy the challenger that the regulation is not rational. All doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality. see Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 245 Wis.2d 86 (2001).
Whenever there is a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, notice must be given to the Wisconsin Attorney General under 806.04(11) so he/she can decide whether the State wishes to be heard above and beyond the parties to the lawsuit.
Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) also Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct.
factual allegations of the Complaint."
Censure in media and 501c3 events of my candidacy and platform damaged my campaign and denied the voters the right to freedom and intelligent casting of a vote. This was a huge factor in election results and directly changed the course of this primary election. Anthony Brown with 12% of registered democratic voters left 72% of those voters deciding not to participate. Cindy Walsh with 1% of registered democratic voters could have easily won the 15% more of voters needed to win this election if not for the systemic election violations that left my campaign out of primary election events and media.
Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing suit in Federal Court because of violations to Federal Election laws carried in FCC and IRS organization requirements.
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection.
FCC Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] (1) (2) (3) (4) Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.
Below we see the FCC statute for 501c3 media entities participating in elections. Again, it is clear that these media outlets will not oppose-----which complete exclusion as opposition-----any one candidate. This was systemic in all 501c3 media in Maryland.

References: § 2
 § 1
 §1
 §2403
 §2403
 §2403
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 §315