Allen v. Mayor of Baltimore

Hbnderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order in a tax payer’s suit declaring that an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, authorizing the issuance and sale of certain school bonds, had been validly submitted to and approved by the voters at the municipal election of May 5, 1959, despite an admitted failure of the City to advertise the complete text of the Ordinance in advance of the election, as required by the terms of the Ordinance itself. It should be noted at the outset that there was full compliance with State law. Code (1957), Art. 33, sec. 167 (a) provides: “If questions of local concern are to be submitted for approval to the vote of the people of a county or a municipality the same shall be certified to said supervisors of elections within said period by the county commissioners, county councils or the treasurer of the City of Baltimore, as the case may be, and shall be advertised as herein provided in the case of nominees for county or city offices.” Article 33, sec. 72 (a) states the requirement of advertising in the case of nominees for county or city offices as follows: “(A) General provisions.

Within not less than two or more than ten days before an election to fill any public office, the supervisors of elections of each county and in the City of Baltimore shall cause to be published by one insertion in two or more newspapers within such county, and in all the daily papers published in said city which will publish the same at the current rate of commercial advertising, the nominations to office which have been filed with or certified to them under the provisions of this article. If in any county there be but one newspaper published, publication in such one newspaper shall be sufficient. Such publication shall be made in newspapers devoted to the dissemination of general news; and the two newspapers selected if possible, shall represent the political parties which at the last preceding election cast the largest and next ⁵¹⁷ largest number of votes. The list of nominations published by the supervisors of elections shall be arranged, so far as practicable in the order and form in which they are to be printed upon the ballots.” Art. 33, sec. 94 (i) provides: “(i) Constitutional amendments and referenda.—Each ballot shall contain a condensed statement in understandable language of every constitutional amendment or other question to be submitted to the vote of the people at any election.” In this case, Ordinance 1835 appeared in summary form on the specimen ballot that was published in The Sun, the Evening Sun, and The Baltimore News Post, one insertion in each, prior to the election.

Article XI of the Maryland Constitution, sec. 7, provides, in effect, that no debt shall be created by Baltimore City unless such debt “be authorized by an Act of the General Assembly of Maryland, and by an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, submitted to the legal voters of the City of Baltimore, at such time and place as may be fixed by said ordinance, and approved by a majority of the votes cast at such time and place.” Here again, there was full compliance. Chapter 42 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1959 authorized the indebtedness in question, subject to the passage of an ordinance and submission to and approval by the voters. Ordinance 1835 was duly passed and duly submitted. The Ordinance was approved by 58,664 votes in favor and 15,552 votes against.

However, Sec. 5 of the Ordinance imposing the additional requirement of four insertions of the complete text, was overlooked and not complied with. That Section provided: “And be it further ordained. That a copy of this ordinance and notice of the time for holding said