Opinion ID: 2349933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The McGucken Case

Text: Candidate McGucken filed his certificate of candidacy for the Democratic nomination as a representative in Congress from the Sixth Congressional District on June 3, 1966. During July of 1966, the Secretary of State notified the candidate twice to promptly file the name of his campaign treasurer. On August 1, 1966, a telegram was sent to the candidate advising him that the Secretary was required to certify candidates on August 3 and that if he was not advised of the name and address of the candidate's treasurer at once, the name of the candidate would not be certified. On August 8, 1966, the candidate advised the Secretary that he had appointed Robert A. Seidel as his campaign treasurer. After consulting the Office of the Attorney General, the Secretary notified the candidate that he was unable to certify him, and the candidate filed suit. The only questions we need consider on appeal are whether the Secretary of State was required to certify a candidate who had failed to appoint a campaign treasurer pursuant to the requirements of § 213 (a) of Article 33 and whether that section violates the Constitution of the United States with regard to the qualifications of a candidate for Congress. Section 213 (a) of Article 33 provides: Each candidate for nomination for, or election to, public office, upon filing as such candidate or within seven (7) days thereafter shall appoint one campaign treasurer and shall file the name and address of the campaign treasurer with the clerk of the circuit court of the county or Baltimore City in which the candidate resides or, if he is a candidate for State-wide office or representative in Congress, with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State contends that a candidate must appoint a campaign treasurer within seven days or at least within a reasonable time thereafter in order to be certified as a candidate for public office. Citing a nisi prius decision filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on July 18, 1966, in the case of Kelmartin, et al. v. Curran, wherein it was held that, although the statutory requirement was mandatory, a candidate was only required to file the name of his treasurer within a reasonable time in order for his name to be placed on the ballot and that the ultimate cutoff date would be not later than the time when the name of the candidate should be placed on the ballot or set up in the election machines, the Secretary of State further contends that the cutoff date in this instance was forty days prior to the primary, or August 3, 1966, after which date he was not required by law to certify a candidate who had failed to appoint a campaign treasurer. McGucken, on the other hand, contends that the Secretary of State lacked authority to refuse to certify a candidate, even a belated one, who had complied with the provisions of the statute. With respect to the mandatory or declaratory character of the time requirement, we need not decide in this case whether a candidate must appoint a campaign treasurer within the time specified in the statute or within a reasonable time thereafter; nor what would be a reasonable time in a case such as this. For, assuming that the statutory requirement as to the time is declaratory, we think it is obvious that under the facts of this case the failure of McGucken to appoint a treasurer before he did was unreasonable by any standard. Cf. Andrews v. Secretary of State, 235 Md. 106, 200 A.2d 650 (1964), with respect to congressional candidates filing their certificates of candidacy within the prescribed time limit. Also see Chamberlain v. Supervisor of Elections, 212 Md. 342, 129 A.2d 121 (1957). Regarding a candidate for Congress, we are also of the opinion that § 213 (a) does not violate the Federal Constitution in any way. The contention that the section is unconstitutional because it constitutes an additional qualification for office beyond those set out in Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States is without merit. [2] As stated in the preceding Albaugh case, the Corrupt Practices Act has no bearing on the eligibility of a candidate for office. Moreover, neither the State nor Federal Corrupt Practices Act begin to operate until after a candidate has filed for office. For this reason the instant case is clearly distinguishable from both Shub v. Simpson, 196 Md. 177, 76 A.2d 332 (1950) and Hellman v. Collier, supra , relied on by McGucken. Moreover, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution specifically provides that the manner of holding elections for Representatives (as well as Senators) shall be prescribed by the State Legislature subject to Congress enacting preemptive legislation with respect thereto. And while Congress, pursuant to the manner of holding elections clause, has enacted a Federal Corrupt Practices Act, the term election therein is specifically defined to exclude primary elections. [3] Other than this the Federal Act expressly provides that it shall not be construed to annul the laws of any State relating to the nomination or election of candidates, unless directly inconsistent with the provisions of [the law] or to exempt any candidate from complying with such State laws. [4] Clearly § 213 (a), requiring the appointment of a campaign treasurer, does not impose additional qualifications for congressional candidates. Cf. Barnes v. State ex rel. Pinkney, 236 Md. 564, 204 A.2d 787 (1964). Nor does it violate any provision of the federal constitution or federal law enacted pursuant thereto.