DENNIS WHITLEY III 14706 Northfield Court Laurel, Maryland 20707 ANNE NEAL 7 Coldwater Court Baltimore, Maryland

21204 KARREN JO POPE-ONWUKWE 6001 43rd Street Hyattsville, Maryland 20781 JOANNA HANES-LAHR 6 Stehle Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401 MATTHEW THOMAS 7810 New Ascot Lane Clinton, Maryland 20735
-and-

* * *

*

* * *
* *

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

* *
* *

* * *
* * *

* *
* * *

CASE NO.,

_

MARYLAND DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE 33 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, Maryland 21401
1-.-

* *
* *

lJi

,' ,

,.

N

". C. 'rr--:-~

Q..

V.

L,"if" -

~l-'

:::s
('oJ

L~ L-J ...

__ _'_

(_)

1

_J
r-'

::.:> --,

MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS 151 West Street Suite 200 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 JOHN P. MCDONOUGH in his official capacity as Secretary of State 16 Francis Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401
-and-

* *

* * *

~

.-J

*
* *

* *

* * * *
*

LINDA H. LAM ONE in her official capacity as State Administrator of Elections 151 West Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Defendants.

* * * *

* * * *

**

**************
COMPLAINT

******

************
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

*****

FOR DECLARATORY

Plaintiffs Dennis Whitley III, Anne Neal, Karren Jo Pope-Onwukwe, Joanna Hanes-Lahr, Matthew Thomas and Maryland Democratic State Central Committee, by and through their undersigned attorneys, file this Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Judicial Review against the Maryland State Board of Elections, Honorable John P. McDonough, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Maryland, and Linda Lamone, in her official capacity as the Maryland State Administrator of Elections. In support thereof, Plaintiffs allege the following: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for declaratory relief and judicial review of a determination made by the Maryland State Board of Elections (the "State Board") that that the number of signatures on petitions to place Senate Bill 1, Chapter 1 of the 2011 Special Session of the General Assembly, the Congressional Districting Plan ("Senate Bill 1"), on the November 2012 general election ballot in Maryland met the minimum requirements for holding a referendum on that law; and for declaratory and injunctive relief to reverse and set aside that determination and enj oin the referral of the law to referendum. 2. As set forth below, the petition submitted by the petition sponsors to the Secretary of State (the "Petition") contained substantially fewer valid signatures than the 55,736 required under

2

the Maryland Constitution to refer an act of the General Assembly to referendum. Specifically, ofthe signatures submitted to and validated by the State Board, a number of signatures appear on forms on which the signer's information was computer generated, rather than provided by the signer, and lacked any review of whether the person signing was actually the voter whose information had been filled in by computer. A number of other persons signed petition forms (not computer generated) that they had also signed as circulator, attesting to the signatures affixed to the petition. Finally, a number of additional signatures determined to be valid by the State Board are invalid because they failed to meet the requirements of state law and regulations in numerous other respects, as alleged below. Significantly, more than 5,000 of the total number of signatures found valid by the State Board are actually invalid. 3. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained below, (1) the State Board's determination under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-208(a) that the validated signatures contained in the petition are sufficient to satisfy the requirements established by law, and (2) the State Board's certification that the petition has qualified Senate Bill 1 to be placed on the 2012 general election ballot, are not supported by substantial evidence and are premised upon erroneous conclusions of law. 4. Plaintiffs bring this action in accordance with Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 1-501 and 3-403, and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law. §§ 6-209(a) and 6-210(e), seeking: (1) an order reversing the determination and certification of the State Board made on July 20, 2012; (2) judgment declaring that the petition for referral of Senate Bill 1 to referendum has not satisfied all requirements necessary to refer an Act of the General Assembly to the 2012

3

general election ballot; and (3) an order permanently enjoining the Secretary of State from referring Senate Bill 1 to referendum.

II. BACKGROUND
5. Based on the 2010 federal census, Maryland is entitled to eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the same number that it had after the 2000 census. In July 2011, Governor Martin O'Malley appointed the Governor's Redistricting Advisory Committee, which held twelve public meetings across the state between July and September 2011 and received hundreds of comments from members of the public. The Advisory Committee presented its proposed plan to the Governor on October 4,2011. The Governor posted the plan online;

received additional public comment; and, submitted a plan based on the Committee plan to the General Assembly. 6. On October 20, 2011, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1, as an emergency measure, by more than three-fifths vote in each chamber, and that measure was signed into law by the Governor on that same day. 7. In an action brought in the United States District Court for Maryland, Senate Bill 1 was challenged on the grounds that it violated Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and, section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A three-judge panel held that Senate Bill 1, the Congressional Districting Plan, is constitutional and does not violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F. Supp. 2d 887 (D. Md. 2011). The decision was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2012. Fletcher v. Lamone, _ No. 11-1178 (June 25,2012). 8. An organization named MDPetitions.com subsequently gathered signatures for a petition to refer Senate Bill 1 to the 2012 general election ballot. On July 22,2012, the State Board 4 U.S. _, 2012 WL 1030482,

determined that the validated signatures contained in the petition are sufficient to satisfy the applicable requirements and certified that Senate Bill 1 has qualified to be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot in Maryland. 9. Under Article XVI, section 2 of the Maryland Constitution, because Senate Bill 1 was enacted as an emergency measure, it remains in force through the 2012 general election. If not approved by the voters on the 2012 general election ballot, however, Senate Bill 1 would stand repealed thirty days after the date of that general election. Were this to occur, there would be no congressional districts in effect for the 2014 elections unless and until the entire process of developing a congressional redistricting plan were repeated and the General Assembly enacted a new plan. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 1-501 and 3-406, and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §§ 6-209(a) and (b). 11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 6-102 and 6-103. 12. Venue is proper in this Court, as Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-209(a)(i) directs parties filing an action concerning a statewide petition to do so in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. IV. PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Maryland Democratic State Central Committee ("Maryland Democratic Party") is, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §4-201, the governing body of the Democratic Party of Maryland. A major function of the Maryland Democratic Party is to promote the election of the Democratic nominees for the U.S. House of Representatives.

5

14. The mere placement of Senate Bill 1 on the ballot will inherently cause confusion among voters about what congressional district they are voting in and who the candidates are, thereby frustrating and making less effective the efforts of the Maryland Democratic Party to promote the election of the Democratic nominees for the

u.s.

House. Further, the Maryland

Democratic Party will be required to expend and divert resources from the promotion of the election of its candidates to run a campaign to persuade voters to approve Senate Bill 1. 15. Once elected in their new districts in 2012, successful candidates for the U.S. House will need to know in what districts they will be running in 2014. If Senate Bill 1 is placed on the 2012 general election ballot and not approved by the voters, there will be considerable uncertainty for some time about the districts in which incumbent Members of Congress will be running; and such Members and the Maryland Democratic Party will be disadvantaged because they will have no way of knowing what districts candidates will be running in for the U.S. House in 2014. The Maryland Democratic Party (along with the Maryland Republican Party) will suffer unique and singular injury if Senate Bill 1 is placed on the 2012 general election ballot and is not approved by the voters in the 2012 general election, and there will be no remedy at law for such injury. 16. Plaintiff Dennis Whitley III resides at 14706 Northfield Court, Laurel, Maryland 20707 and is registered to vote in Maryland at that address. 17. Plaintiff Anne Neal resides at 7 Coldwater Court, Baltimore, Maryland 21204 and is registered to vote in Maryland at that address. 18. Plaintiff Karren Jo Pope-Onwukwe resides at 6001 43rd Street, Hyattsville, Maryland 20781 and is registered to vote in Maryland at that address.

6

19. Plaintiff Joanna Hanes-Lahr resides at 6 Stehle Street, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 and is registered to vote in Maryland at that address .. 20. Plaintiff Matthew Thomas resides at 7810 New Ascot Lane, Clinton, Maryland 20735-6116 and is registered to vote in Maryland at that address. 21. Defendant JOM P. McDonough is the Secretary of State of Maryland, who is charged, under Maryland Constitution, Article XVI, § 2, with referring to referendum any act of the General Assembly capable of referral if a petition meeting the requirements of the Constitution and the Md. Code Ann., Election Law Article, has been submitted to the Secretary. 22. Defendant State Board of Elections is the agency mandated by Maryland state law to administer the state election laws. The State Board is required by Md. Code Ann., Elec, Law §§ 6-207 and 6-208 to determine the sufficiency of a petition, to verify and count the validated signatures contained in a petition, to determine whether the petition has satisfied all requirements established by law and, upon such determination, certify that a petition has qualified a law to be placed on the ballot. 23. Defendant Linda Lamone is the State Administrator of Elections and is the "chief election official of the election authority" under and for purposes of Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6208(a), with respect to the petition at issue herein. V. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

Petition to Place Senate Bill 1 on November 2012 Ballot 24. Under the Maryland Constitution Art. XVI, § 3, in order to refer an Act passed by the General Assembly to referendum, a petition must be signed by a number of qualified voters equal to three percent of the whole number of votes cast for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election.

7

25. Based on the vote cast in the 2010 gubernatorial election, the number of valid signatures required on a petition submitted to the Secretary of State to refer a law enacted by the General Assembly to referendum in the 2012 general election is 55,736 signatures from qualified voters, in a form and meeting the requirements of Title 6 of the Election Law Article, Md. Code Ann. and of the regulations issued by the State Board. 26. MDPetitions.com, an organization created by Delegate Neil Parrott (R- Washington County) and others, initiated an effort to collect enough signatures for a petition to refer the repeal of Senate Bill 1 to the 2012 general election ballot. 27. On May 31, 2012, MDPetitions.com submitted to the Secretary of State a total of 28,477 signatures on a petition to refer Senate Bill 1 to referendum. Out of that number, the local boards of election certified a total of26,763 signatures as valid, and 1,714 as invalid. The State Board compiled the numbers of signatures as submitted by the local boards and accepted the local boards' numbers without conducting an independent review of the signatures. 28. On June 30, 2012, MDPetitions.com submitted an additiona136,267 signatures. Out ofthese additional signatures, the local boards of election certified a total of 32,438 signatures as valid, and 5,935 signatures as invalid. The State Board compiled the numbers of signatures submitted by the local boards and accepted the local boards' certifications without conducting an independent review of the signatures. 29. On July 20,2012, the State Board determined that, out of a total of 64,744 signatures submitted by MDPetitions.com, 59,201 valid signatures had been submitted and 7,649

signatures had been rejected as invalid. The Administrator of the State Board, Defendant

8

Linda Lamone, pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-208(b)(1), certified that the petition had qualified Senate Bill 1 to be placed on the 2012 general election ballot. Deficiencies in Petition 30. Plaintiff Maryland Democratic Party requested copies of the petition pages submitted under Maryland's Public Information Act. Plaintiffs have reviewed, to date, approximately 30,000 of the 59,201 signatures determined to be valid by the State Board. Information to be Filled In by Voters hut Filled In By Petition Sponsors' Computer Program Instead 31. MDPetitions.com, the principal petition sponsor, maintained a website that solicited individuals to sign the petition to refer Senate Bill! to referendum. at https://mdpetitions.coml. This website was located

A visitor to the website who clicked on the button to sign the

petition was asked to enter her first name, last name, email address, phone number, date of birth and zip code. The website then displayed the name of the user who entered the information and the names of all members of her household and asked the user to check a box next to the names of the individuals who would sign the petition. 32. After the user selected the names of those household members who purportedly would sign the petition, a new screen appeared informing the user that her petition was ready to be downloaded. That page instructed the user to "Download the petition" and then "Print the petition." The website instructed the user to "Sign and date the petition by your name, have others on the page sign, then sign and date as the circulator last." A separate instruction page instructed the user that, "When complete, and as soon as possible, please mail completed petition to" MdPetitions.com at "PO Box 31, Funkstown, MD 21734." 33. After the user clicked the "Download" button, the petition sponsor's computer program created a "Pre-Filled Petition" (as the document was titled by the sponsors), in the form of a 9

printed document in the form of a petition page, on which the voter's full name, residence address, city, zip code and date of birth had all been pre-printed; and on which the full name, residence address, city, zip code and date of birth of each registered voter in the household at the address provided had also been pre-printed. The name, address and phone number of the user had also been pre-printed next to the circulator's affidavit. All of this information appeared in the state voter registration records. The only thing left for the listed voter(s) to do was fill in the date and his or her signature. 34. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law Art. § 6-203(a) provides that, to sign a petition, "an individual shall," in addition to signing the individual's name, "include the following information, printed or typed, in the spaces provided: (i) the signer's name as it was signed; (ii) the signer's address; (iii) the date of signing; and (iv) other information required by regulations adopted by the State Board." The statute thus makes clear that the individual signer must print in her name and address next to her signature. 35. That requirement is also set forth in the State Board's regulation, COMAR § 33.06.03.06(B), which provides that when signing the signature page, "each signer shall ... (2) Provide the following information to be printed or typed in the appropriate spaces: (a) Date of signing, (b) Signer'S name as it was signed, and (c) Current residence address, including house number, street name, apartment number (if applicable), town and ZIP code" (emphasis added). 36. On the "Pre-Filled Petition" forms generated by MdPetitionis.com, the signer has not, as required by section 6-203(a) "included" her printed name and address, nor has the signer "provided" that information as required by COMAR § 33.06.03.06(B). Rather, the

information has been "included" and "provided" by a computer program created and operated by the petition sponsors, MDPetitions.com, through the Internet.

10

37. The State Board's Procedures for Filing a Statewide or a Public Local Law Referendum Petition-Presidential Election-November 6,2010 (rev. March 2011) state that "[tjhe

petition circulator may fill in the information on the petition page, except for signature, only at the request ofthe signer." (Jd. at 5). 38. That such "Pre-Filled Petitions" violate the requirements of state law even as interpreted by the State Board itself is confirmed by the current version of the State Board's Petition Signature Gathering "Frequently Asked Questions," posted on the State Board's website during 2011, which stated: "Can a petition sponsor pre-print signatures pages with voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voters need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth, and date of signing? No." 39. The current updated version of those Petition Signature Gathering "Frequently Asked Question," posted on the State Board's website as ofthe date hereof, similarly states: "Can a petition sponsor use a 'walking list' containing all registered voters' names and addresses, so that if a voter agrees to sign the petition, the voter need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing? No." The "Pre- Filled Petition" form constitutes precisely such a "walking list." If a voter wanted to sign the pre-filled petitions generated by MdPetitions.com, the voter would "need only fill in his or her signature, date of birth and date of signing." 40. There are sound policy reasons for requiring, as the statute and regulations clearly do, the petition signer to fill in his or her own information on the form, rather than allowing that information to be filled in by someone else. Anyone-including voter-using someone other than the

the MDPetitions.com website who knows the name, zip code and birth date of

11

any Maryland voter could have the website generate a "Pre-Filled Petition Form" with that voter's information pre-printed, both in the signing block and the circulator's affidavit. The user (who is not the voter) could then print out the form, sign the voter's name in the signature space and in the circulator's affidavit and mail the form to MDPetitions.com for submission to the Secretary of State and State Board. 41. In the situation described in the preceding paragraph, there is absolutely no procedure or step in the statute, regulations or State Board practice that could detect the fraud. Nothing in the statute or regulations requires the local boards or State Board to check the signature of the person purportedly signing against the voter registration records, and it is the practice of the local boards and State Board not to do so. 42. Of the signatures already reviewed by Plaintiffs, and determined to be valid by the State Board, a number of signatures appeared on signature lines in which the voter's information was pre-filled by the petition sponsors through the computer program. 43. For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 31 through 42, inclusive, all of those "Pre Filled" signatures included by the State Board as valid, are actually invalid as a matter of law because those signatures violate the requirements of Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-203(a) and COMAR § 33.06.03.06(B). Circulator Witnessed His or Her Own Signature 44. Article XVI, section 4 of the Maryland Constitution provides that, "There shall be attached to each paper of signatures filed with a petition an affidavit of the person procuring those signatures that the signatures were affixed in his presence that that, based upon the person's best knowledge and belief, every signature on the paper is genuine and bona fide .... "

12

45. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-204(a) requires that "Each signature page shall contain an affidavit made and executed by the individual in whose presence all of the signatures on that page were affixed and who observed each of those signatures being affixed." Section 6204(b) provides that, "The affidavit shall contain the statements, required by regulation, designed to assure the validity of the signatures and the fairness of the petition process." 46. The State Board's regulations, COMAR § 33.06.01.08, provides that the circulator's affidavit "shall state that ... (3) The circulator personally observed each signer as the page was signed; and (4) To the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief, all (a) signatures on the petition are genuine, and (b) Signers are registered voters in the State." 47. The manifest purpose ofthe requirements set forth in Md. Constitution Art. XVI, § 4 and Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §§ 6-204(a) and (b) is to help prevent fraud by having an individual witness persons signing the petition and having thatindividual-s- the circulatorswear that the person who signed the petition actually filled in her own information and signed her own name in the presence ofthe circulator. That purpose is utterly defeated by allowing a circulator to attest to his or her own signature. 48. Permitting a circulator to attest to his or her own signature is contrary to the plain language ofMd Const. Art. XVI, § 4 and Md. Code Ann., Elec, Law § 6-204(a) that the signature be affixed "in the presence of the" circulator and that the circulator "personally observe" each signer as the page was signed. No person can serve as a witness to his or her own actions. 49. Nevertheless, the State Board counted as valid a number of signatures of persons who attested to their own signature as the circulator. Those signatures are invalid as a matter of law.

13

Circulator Issues 50. COMAR § 33.06.03.07 provides that the identification of the circulator "shall include that individual's (1) Printed or typed name; (2) Residence address, including house number, street name, apartment number (if applicable), own and ZIP code; and (3) telephone number." 51. COMAR § 33.06.03.0SA requires that each signature page "include an affidavit to be signed and dated by the circulator" (emphasis added). 52. The State Board's Petition Acceptance and Verification Procedures provide that if a signer provided a date later than the date of the circulator's affidavit, the signature is to be invalidated. 53. On information and belief, the petition contains pages on which the circulator failed to sign the circulator's affidavit; circulator information required by the State Board regulation is missing; the circulator failed to date his or her signature; and/or the date of the circulator's signature is earlier than the date of one or more signatures on that page. Voter Signature Missing 54 ..On information and belief, the Petition contains signature lines found valid by the State Board but which actually had not been signed at all by the voter. Name and Signature Not in Compliance With State Law 55. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-203(a)(1) provides that, to sign a petition, an individual "shall ... sign the individual's name as it appears on the statewide voter registration list or the individual's surname of registration and at least one full given name and the initials of any other names." 56. The verification instructions provided by the State Board to the local boards of elections instructed the local boards to consider the printed name and the signature together, to

14

determine whether, taken together, the printed information and signature included the individual's surname, at least one full given name and the initials of any other names. State Board, Local Board of Elections Petition Verification Procedures, Validation of Signer Names, Section 2. 57. Upon information and belief, the Petition contains signatures determined to be valid by the State Board but which are invalid as a matter of law because they did not in fact meet the requirements of section 6-203(a)(l) as interpreted and applied by the State Board. Voter Address 58. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-203(a)(2)(ii) provides that "To sign a petition, an individual shall: ... (2) include the following information, printed or typed, in the spaces provided: ... (ii) the signer's address .... " COMAR § 33.06.03.06 provides that when signing the signature page "each signer shall typed in the appropriate spaces (2) Provide the following information, to be printed or (c) Current residence address, including house number,

street name, apartment number (if applicable), town and ZIP code." 59. Upon information and belief, the petition contains signatures determined to be valid by the State Board but which are invalid as a matter of law because the signer failed to include the address information required by, or in the form required by, the statute and State Board regulations. Date of Signing 60. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-203 (a)(2)(iii) requires each voter signing a petition to include the date of signing. 61. Upon information and belief, the petition contains signatures determined to be valid by the State Board but which are invalid as a matter of law because the date of signing was not

15

included; was entirely illegible; preceded the date of enactment of Senate Bill 1; or, is manifestly incorrect on its face. Forged Signatures 62. On information and belief, the petition submitted to refer Senate Bill 1 to referendum included pages including signatures found valid by the State Board but which are invalid because the signature is fraudulent, in that it is obvious that the one voter had signed both for himself or herself and for another voter, because the two signatures were obviously written by the same person and/or because multiple dates of signatures clearly appeared to be identical. 63. On all the petition pages on which the forged signatures described in paragraph 62 appear, the circulator's affidavit was obviously false, because it clearly was not true that the circulator witnessed each voter signing the petition if one person signed for two voters. 64. The affidavits appearing on one or more petition pages filed by these circulators are demonstrably not true and therefore the affidavits on the other pages filed by these circulators are inherently and necessarily unreliable. 65. The petition submitted by the petition sponsors contains petitions sheets on which other disqualifying errors, not specifically enumerated herein, are contained in violation of the Maryland Constitution, the Md. Code Ann., Election Law Article andlor applicable COMAR regulations. VI. CAUSES OF ACTION JUDGMENT

COUNT I-DECLARATORY

66. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 65 as though fully set forth herein. 67. Plaintiffs maintain that the petition submitted to the Secretary of State to refer Senate Billl to referendum is legally deficient.

16

68. Defendants State Board of Elections and Lamone maintain that the petition submitted to the Secretary of State to refer Senate Bill 1 to referendum is legally sufficient and met the requirements of the Maryland Constitution for placing this Act on the November 2012 general election Ballot in Maryland. 69. There exists an actual controversy of a justiciable nature between Plaintiffs and Defendants State Board and Lamone, within the jurisdiction of this Court, involving the rights and liabilities of the parties. 70. A declaratory judgment by this Court will terminate this controversy. 71. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Md. Code Ann., Cts & Jud. Proc. I § 3-401 et. seq. 72. Plaintiffs Whitley, Neal, Pope-Onwukwe, Hanes-Lahr and Thomas are also entitled to a declaratory judgment under Md. Code Ann. Elec ..Law § 6-209(b) and the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

COUNT II-JUDICIAL REVIEW-JULY 20, 2012 DETERMINATION
73. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fully set forth herein. 74. Of the 59,201 signatures submitted by the petition sponsors and determined to be valid by the State Board, substantially more than 5,000 were invalid for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 31 through 49 inclusive, that is, the voter's name and address had already been filled in by a computer program or the voter had attested to his or her own signature as circulator. This number does not double-count any signature as to which both issues were present.

17

75. On information and belief, thousands of additional signatures determined to be valid by the State Board are invalid as a matter of law for the reasons stated in paragraphs 50 through 65 inclusive. 76. Of the signatures submitted to the State Board by the petition sponsors, significantly less than 55,736 are actually valid-less than the number constitutionally required (55,736) for

placing Senate Bill 1 on the November 2012 general election ballot. 77. For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 74 through 76 inclusive, the State Board's determination, on July 20, 2012, under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-208(a), that the number of accepted signatures exceeds the minimum, is not supported by substantial evidence and/or is premised upon erroneous conclusions of law. 78. Accordingly, the State Board's (1) determination under Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6208(a) that the validated signatures contained in the petition are sufficient to satisfy the requirements established by state law, and (2) the State Board's certification that the petition has qualified Senate Bill 1 to be placed on the 2012 general election Ballot, should be reversed.

COUNT III-INJUNCTION
79. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 78 as though fully set forth herein. 80. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 13 through 15, inclusive, Plaintiff Maryland Democratic Party, for itself and as a representative and advocate for its nominees for U.S. House of Representatives, will suffer irreparable injury if Senate Bill 1 is referred to referendum and/or if it is referred to referendum and not approved by the voters. 81. If an injunction is granted, the Maryland Democratic Party will suffer injury, as alleged, but the Defendants will not suffer any injury; indeed, the State of Maryland will benefit if

18

Senate Bill 1 is not placed on the ballot because there will be no risk of a waste of taxpayer resources and the time of the Governor and General Assembly in developing another congressional districting plan. 82. For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, there is also a substantial public interest in precluding Senate Bill 1 from being referred to referendum. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as relief for the causes of action set forth in Counts I through III herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Enter a judgment declaring that the petition submitted for referral of Senate Bill 1 to referendum has not satisfied all requirements necessary to refer an Act of the General Assembly to the 2012 general election ballot; B. Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 6-209(a) and Maryland Rule 7-209, enter an order reversing the State Board's determination and certification made on July 20, 2012, that the petition submitted to refer Senate Bill 1 to referendum met the requirements of the Maryland Constitution for placing the Act on the November 2012 general election Ballot; C. Enter an order permanently enjoining the Secretary of State from referring Senate Bill 1 to referendum; and, D. Award such additional relief as this Court determines to be just and equitable.

19

Dated July 24,2012

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph E. Sandler (special admission pending) Elizabeth F. Getman SANDLER, REIFF, YOUNG & LAMB, P.e. 1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 479-1111 Fax: (202) 479-1115 amandlaforge@comcast.net sandler@sandlerreiff.com getman@sandlerreiff.com

JO~~~ JON'ATHAN S. SHURBERG, P.C.
8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 906 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: 301-585-0707 Fax: (301) 608-9018 j smdlawyer@verizon.net

I

jI

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 1-313

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 1-313, I hereby certify that I have been admitted to practice law in the State of Maryland and am currently a member in good standing of the Bar.