Baker v. O'Malley

MEREDITH, J. On October 16, 2012, Ramona Moore Baker, appellant, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against Governor Martin O’Malley, appellee, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the Governor to issue her a commission to serve as a judge of the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City based upon the certified results of the 2010 general election. In that election, for which results were certified on December 1, 2010, Ms. Baker received sufficient votes to be one of three people chosen by the voters of Baltimore City to serve as judges of the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City. But, in that same election, the voters of Baltimore City voted to approve an amendment to the Maryland Constitution requiring judges of the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City to be attorneys “who have been admitted to practice law in this State and are members in good standing of the Maryland Bar.” Md. Const., Art. IV, § 40(b). Ms. Baker is not an attorney, and does not meet that criterion.

Acting upon advice from the Attorney General of Maryland, Governor O’Malley declined to issue a commission to Ms. Baker, and eventually appointed another ²⁹⁰ person who is a Maryland attorney to serve on the Orphans’ Court in the position that would have otherwise been held by Ms. Baker. In response to the present suit, which Ms. Baker filed in October 2012, the Governor’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Baker’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and laches, and were otherwise without legal merit. After conducting a hearing, the circuit court agreed that the case should be dismissed. Ms. Baker then noted this appeal.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ms. Baker presents three questions for review: 1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus on the grounds that Appellant lacked a clear legal right to the issuance of the writ[?] 2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellant’s petition on the grounds that the petition was time barred[?] 3. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellant’s petition on the grounds that her action for common law damages was barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity [?] For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the court did not err in dismissing Ms. Baker’s complaint as barred by laches, and we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Prior to the 2010 general election, the only eligibility requirements for the office of judge on the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City were Maryland citizenship and residency in Baltimore City for at least one year. See Md. Const. Art. IV, § 40(a). In the November 2010 election, however, voters approved an amendment to the Maryland Constitution that added to the minimum qualifications for judges on the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City a requirement that such judges be attorneys.

The amended provision reads: ²⁹¹ The qualified voters of the City of Baltimore shall elect three Judges of the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City who shall be citizens of the State and residents, for the twelve months preceding, in Baltimore City and who have been admitted to practice law in this State and are members in good standing of the Maryland Bar. Md. Const. Art IV, § 40(b) (emphasis added). Ms. Baker is not an attorney; nor has she ever been a member of the Maryland Bar.

Prior to the passage of the 2010 amendment, however, Ms. Baker met the minimum qualifications for the office of judge on the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City, and she was one of three candidates on the ballot for the three positions on that court. Had the constitutional amendment not been approved by the voters in the November 2010 election, there would have been no question about Ms. Baker meeting the minimum qualifications for the office. On December 1, 2010, the Board of State Canvassers certified to the Governor the results of the November 2010 election—including both the ratification of the constitutional amendment and the fact that Ms. Baker was one of the three candidates to receive enough votes to be elected to one of the three positions on the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City. Pursuant to Md. Const., Art. IV, § 11, Governor O’Malley issued commissions to the two candidates who met the newly approved requirement of being Maryland attorneys.

But the Governor declined to issue a commission to Ms. Baker, and instead, requested an opinion from the Attorney General as to whether Ms. Baker should receive her commission. On December 13, 2010, the Attorney General issued a written opinion to the Governor, advising the Governor not to issue a commission to Ms. Baker. See 95 Op. Att’y Gen.

Md. 209 (2010). The opinion was signed by Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and Chief Counsel Robert N. McDonald (who is currently a Judge serving on the Maryland Court of Appeals). The opinion stated: You have asked for our opinion concerning the issuance of a commission for a position on the Orphans’ Court for ²⁹² Baltimore City. At the election this past November, the voters approved a constitutional amendment that requires judges of the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City to be members of the Maryland bar.

At the same election a candidate not admitted to practice law in Maryland received a sufficient number of votes to be elected to the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City. You ask whether the State Constitution permits the issuance of a commission to that individual under these circumstances. In our opinion, the issuance of a commission in these circumstances would be at odds with the Maryland Constitution. Accordingly, the commission should not be issued. 95 Op.

Att’y Gen. at 209 (emphasis added). The Attorney General’s opinion noted that the amendment to the Maryland Constitution requiring membership in the Maryland bar—Article IV, § 40(b)—became effective on December 1, 2010, pursuant to Article XIV, § 1, of the Constitution. That is the same date that the results of the November election were certified to the Governor. The Attorney General’s opinion observed that “[t]he general rule is that eligibility for an office is a continuing requirement,” id. at 211, and the opinion further stated: There is no dispute that Ms. Baker garnered the requisite number of votes to win one of the three Orphans’ Court seats at issue in the election.

There is also no dispute that she lacks one of the constitutional qualifications for the position. Accordingly, as indicated above, she cannot serve as an Orphans’ Court judge in Baltimore City. In the circumstances, the issuance of a commission to her, although a ministerial act, would be at odds with the State Constitution. ... [I]t is our opinion that a commission should not be issued to a successful candidate who indisputably lacks a ²⁹³ continuing qualification for Orphans’ Court judge in Baltimore City. Id. at 213-14.

On the basis of the above-quoted opinion of the Attorney General, the Governor refused to issue a commission to Ms. Baker to become a judge on the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City. On October 16, 2012, Ms. Baker filed the present civil action against the Governor in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Ms. Baker sought a writ of mandamus compelling Governor O’Malley to issue her a commission to serve as a judge on the Orphans’ Court, and she also claimed money damages for the loss of salary during the time she had been excluded from the court. Appellee moved to dismiss the petition, and argued: 1) the suit was barred by the statute of limitations and laches; 2) Ms. Baker was not entitled to the writ; and 3) appellee was immune from suit pursuant to the Maryland Tort Claims Act (Maryland Code, State Government Article § 12-101 et sec/.).

In her opposition to the motion to dismiss, Ms. Baker apprised the circuit court that she had previously filed suit against the Governor and others in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on June 1, 2011, but, because she never served the defendants, that suit was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-507(b) on January 4, 2012. In the meantime, on July 25, 2011, the Governor had appointed attorney Michele Lowenthal to fill the position of the third judge on the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City, and Ms. Lowenthal had taken the seat which Ms. Baker sought. On January 14, 2013, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County held a hearing on the Governor’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the present case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court granted appellee’s motion and indicated it accepted all of the arguments made by the appellee, including the statute of limitations, laches, and the lack of any basis for the issuance of the requested writ of mandamus, all ²⁹⁴ of which would obviate any claim for money damages for loss of salary.

This appeal followed. DISCUSSION The Court of Appeals has described our standard of review of the grant of a motion to dismiss as follows: “Upon appellate review, the trial court’s decision to grant such a motion is analyzed to determine whether the court was legally correct.” RRC v. BAA, 413 Md. 638, 644 , 994 A.2d 430 (2010). The circuit court agreed with appellee’s assertion that Ms. Baker’s claims for relief were barred by the applicable statute of limitations as well as the doctrine of laches. Appellee asserts that the applicable statute of limitations for all claims related to an election is found in Maryland Code (2003, 2010 Repl.Vol.), Election Law Article (“EL”), § 12-202, which provides that a registered voter may seek judicial relief