Opinion ID: 2383493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: filing deadline separation of powers

Text: To realize what was decided by this Court, and how quickly it was decided, it would be helpful to chronologize the events that led to this Court's precipitous action in the instant case. 7/24/90 Ficker's petition for injunction filed with a request that the summons be returned to Ficker's attorney for service. 7/25/90 Ficker's hearing on his request for an ex parte and/or preliminary injunction. Hearing was continued for one week. 8/01/90 Denny files an answer, and a hearing is held on Ficker's request for ex parte or preliminary injunction. Judge Mitchell denies Ficker's request for preliminary injunction. 8/08/90 Notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals is filed. A motion for injunction pending appeal is also filed. 8/10/90 Court of Special Appeals denies Ficker's request for injunction pending appeal. 8/13/90 DEADLINE FOR FILING CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITIONS 8/16/90 Ficker petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari and for an injunction pending appeal. 8/20/90 This Court issues an order that oral argument on the petition for certiorari be set for August 28, 1990 and that the motion [for injunction pending appeal] shall be granted and the petition to amend the Charter of Montgomery County shall be filed with the Montgomery County Board of Elections forthwith.... 8/22/90 Denny's attorney receives this Court's injunction pending appeal. 8/23/90 Denny complies with this Court's order and files the petition under protest. 8/24/90 Denny's opposition to petition for writ of certiorari is filed. 8/28/90 Hearing on petition for certiorari held. 8/29/90 Order of this Court granting the writ of certiorari, vacating the judgment of the circuit court for Montgomery County, and remanding to that court with directions that it enter a judgment requiring that the referendum petitions be filed and verified.... One of the major problems with both the injunction pending appeal as well as the permanent injunction issued by the majority is that they order Denny to file the petition long after the filing deadline has passed. Md.Code (1957, 1990 Repl.Vol.), Art. 33, § 23-1(b) provides that the deadline for filing the amendment petition with the President of the County Council is the second Monday in August, which was August 13, 1990. When the deadline for filing passed, the FIT petition had not been filed. The circuit court, as well as the Court of Special Appeals, had denied preliminary injunctive requests and refused to order that the petition be filed. On August 20, prior to receiving Denny's answer to Ficker's petition for certiorari and motion for injunction pending appeal, this Court ordered a hearing be set to determine whether we should grant certiorari and also granted Ficker's motion for injunction pending appeal. This Court's August 20th order (received by Denny's attorney on August 22), as well as its August 29th order, required Denny to file the petition substantially after the August 13, 1990 filing deadline. Denny complied with this Court's first order the day after its receipt by his attorney; he filed the petition under protest on August 23, 1990. I question our authority to order Denny to file the petition after the filing deadline has passed, especially when the President of the County Council and the Board of Supervisors of Elections are not parties to this action. This Court, at least indirectly, ordered two non-parties, the President of the County Council and the Board of Supervisors of Elections, to violate the Election Code filing deadline. The injunction, in effect, forced the President of the County Council to accept a petition filed after the filing deadline. An injunction cannot give State or County officials extra legal powers. See Air Lift, Ltd. v. Bd. of Co. Comm'rs, 262 Md. 368, 404, 278 A.2d 244, 262-63 (1971).