Maryland case law › ANDREWS AND JOHNSON v. Secretary of State

ANDREWS AND JOHNSON v. Secretary of State

235 Md. 106 (1964) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedPrescott, J.✓ Good law
HoldingAndrews and Johnson filed ex parte petitions in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, sitting in equity, seeking an order compelling the Secretary of State to certify their names as candidates for Congress in the May 19, 1964 primary election, despite their failure to file…

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We frequently, because of the time element involved in election cases, decide them by per curiam orders, and set forth later our reasons for the decisions. This has occurred in these two appeals in one record. The narrow issue involved is whether the appellants were entitled to be certified as candidates for Congress in the Primary Elections to be held (they have since been held) on May 19, 1964, notwithstanding the fact that they failed to file their certificates of candidacy within the time prescribed by Code (1957), Article 33 § 56 (a). 1 There was no appeal taken from the action of the trial court in permitting certain other candidates, who had filed their candidacies, to withdraw their names; hence no question relating thereto is before us. 108 Appellants filed ex parte petitions on the equity side of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, seeking an order of that court requiring the Secretary of State, the appellee, to certify their names as candidates in the Primary Elections.

This attempt was resisted by the appellee, and, after a hearing, the court denied the appellants’ petitions. (No question is raised as to the propriety of seeking such relief in a court of equity, so we shall not deal with it, as the case must be decided against the appellants on the merits.) Appellants’ only contention seems to be that because of certain litigation pending in the Federal District Court at the time of the statutory deadline for filing and efforts on the part of the General Assembly to redefine the boundaries of the then existing Congressional districts, they were deprived of their rights to file before the expiration of the statutory deadline, as they had no way of knowing whether or not they would be filing in an election to be conducted in districts not then defined, or an election to be conducted in the State at large. In their briefs, they cite no case, nor any other authority, to support their contention. The General Assembly did not redraft the lines of the Congressional districts, and,

This is a preview of ANDREWS AND JOHNSON v. Secretary of State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.