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

Heading: duty to file petition

Text: The holding of the majority is that the sponsor of a petition for a county charter amendment ordinarily [3] must file the petition once the requisite number of signatures have been obtained. Majority Op. at 628. The apparent authority for this holding is Article XI-A, § 5 of the Maryland Constitution, which provides that the petition shall be filed with ... the President of the County Council and shall be submitted to the voters. It seems to me that the constitutional provision, Article XI-A, § 5, merely specifies where petitions shall be filed; it is not intended to, and does not, create a duty to file. I suspect that there are literally hundreds of statutes or constitutional provisions like the one in the instant case which specify when or where something shall be filed. One can speculate on the mischief that would result from construing enactments indicating when or where something shall be filed as creating an enforceable duty that it shall be filed. For example, Maryland Code (1974, 1989 Repl.Vol.), Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art., § 5-101 states: A civil action at law shall be filed within three years from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a different period of time within which an action shall be commenced. (Emphasis added). Based on the majority's reasoning, this statute requires that everyone with a civil cause of action must file suit. My interpretation that Article XI-A, § 5 does not create any duty to file a petition is further supported by analogous provisions of law. For example, Md.Code (1957, 1990 Repl. Vol.), Art. 33, § 7-1 (the Election Code), provides for nomination of candidates to public office by petition. Section 7-1(b)(2) provides that a candidate shall file petitions which are signed by no less than three percent of the registered voters, and § 7-1(c) further provides that such petitions shall be filed with the Board of Supervisors of Elections by a specified date. This provision has never been interpreted as requiring the filing of the petitions if a prospective candidate, after securing the signed petitions, decides not to run. Further, this Court has held that, absent an express statutory prohibition, a candidate for office has a natural or inherent right to ... have his name deleted from the ballot. Black v. Bd. of Supervisors, 232 Md. 74, 79, 191 A.2d 580, 582 (1963). Other courts have held that sponsors have the right to undo what they have done. Clark v. Patterson, 68 Cal. App.3d 329, 137 Cal. Rptr. 275, 279 (1st Dist. 1977). In Clark, the City's Board of Supervisors voted to place on the ballot a charter amendment. Subsequent to their vote, changed factual circumstances led the Board to withdraw the proposed amendment. In upholding the withdrawal, the court stated: Legislative bodies, no less than private individuals or commercial entities, require a measure of flexibility in their dealings and transactions. They, acting as representatives of the people, must have the ability to undo what they have done, given compelling circumstances.... We believe that such an implied power is necessary, as a Board action which was reasonable and necessary when taken, may become unnecessary and harmful by the time of the election for reasons not readily apparent to the electorate. Id. 137 Cal. Rptr. at 279. In Robinson v. Armstrong, 90 Colo. 363, 9 P.2d 481 (1932), petitioners filed a referendum petition which the Colorado Secretary of State determined was insufficient. Petitioners maintained that their petition was sufficient and sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision, but they also sought to withdraw the petition while pursuing judicial review of the petition's sufficiency. The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the petitioners could withdraw the petition, but could not both withdraw the petition and at the same time seek judicial review. The court stated petitioners could ask to withdraw the petition for amendment, and on the secretary's refusal bring mandamus. If the petition be withdrawn, no review can thereafter be prosecuted, because without the petition no court could adjudicate its sufficiency. Once withdrawn, it passes from official control and may be tampered with, amended, or destroyed. (Emphasis added). 9 P.2d at 482. The majority states [t]he language of Art. XI-A, § 5, clearly contemplates that, when a petition has the requisite number of signatures and therefore is complete, the petition is to be filed.... Majority Op. at 632. I disagree. Circulators of petitions should have discretion to forebear filing complete petitions with exactly 10,000 signatures. They should be entitled to, at least, defer filing until they reasonably believe they have 10,000 valid (or in this case 10,000 still valid ) signatures. It is reasonable to assume that, if circulators collect 10,000 signatures, not all of the signers will be registered voters nor all the signatures valid. Some discretion should exist to allow a circulator who, for example, on the filing deadline has collected 10,010 signatures, to determine that there is a reasonable probability that there are less than 10,000 valid signatures, and it would be a waste of time and effort to file the petition, attempt to verify the signatures, and ultimately have the petition rejected for insufficient signatures. The Constitution gave Denny the right to file his amendment petition, and it provided when and where the petition should be filed. The Constitution did not create the obligation that Denny file this petition. Denny and FIT initiated the petition and led the effort to collect the signatures. They ought to have the right to make a good faith decision not to file their petition.