Koste v. Town of Oxford

HARRELL, J. This case presents the novel question of whether a petition seeking to bring a municipal annexation resolution to referendum may be circulated and signed by members of the relevant electorate before final enactment of the targeted resolution. Depending on the answer to that question, there may lurk an additional related query: may the petition be circulated before the commencement of the public hearing on the resolution? Our story begins with the legislative body of the Town of Oxford, Maryland (“Oxford”), introducing a resolution that proposes to annex a sizable number of acres of submerged lands adjacent to the Town’s boundaries. Following first publication in a local newspaper of a legal notice of the pendency of the resolution and of the date and time of a public hearing, as required by the governing annexation statute, 1 petition circulators among the voters of Oxford prepared and began circulating promptly a petition for referendum regarding the proposed resolution.

Three days before expiration of the statutory deadline to submit the referendum petition to the Town fathers following adoption of the resolution, the circulators submitted the petition containing enough signatures for a referendum. 2 In achieving the required number of signatures, the petition contained a number of signatures that were affixed patently before the public hearing on the annexation resolution was held and others after that event, but before the final enactment of the resolution. 3 If the signatures affixed prior to enactment of the resolution were deemed ¹⁸ invalid, the petition would not have sufficient signatures to place the resolution on the ballot. The Commissioners of the Town of Oxford (the “Commissioners”) determined that a referendum was not required because the signatures affixed before final enactment of the resolution were invalid. Petitioner Constantine Koste (“Koste”), 4 a resident and registered voter of Oxford, filed in the Circuit Court for Talbot County a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and a Writ of Mandamus contending that referendum petition signatures may be obtained lawfully before final enactment of an annexation resolution and, thus, the referendum petition was valid. Koste filed also a Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Koste, holding, as a matter of law, that signatures on a referendum petition may be collected before final enactment of the targeted annexation resolution. Oxford appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which, in a reported opinion, reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment, holding that the referendum petition was insufficient because signatures on a referendum petition may be obtained only after final enactment of the annexation resolution. Town of Oxford v. Koste, 204 Md.App. 578, 593, 42 A.3d 637, 646 (2012). Koste filed timely a petition for writ of certiorari to this Court.

We granted the petition to consider the following question: Are signatures valid on a petition for referendum under Md.Code Ann. Article 23A, § 19(g) where the signatures ¹⁹ were obtained after the publication of notice of the annexation resolution, the resolution was finally enacted without modification and the petition was presented to and filed with the chief executive and administrative officers of the town within 45 days after final enactment? Koste v. Town of Oxford, 427 Md. 606 , 50 A.3d 606 (2012). For reasons to be explained, we answer the question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On 14 July 2009, the Commissioners introduced Resolution 1001 (the “Resolution”), which purported to annex 142 acres of submerged lands under public waters adjacent to the then municipal boundary of Oxford.

The object of the proposed annexation was to establish Oxford’s jurisdiction over these adjacent lands and waters of the Tred Avon River in order to regulate, along with the Maryland Department of the Environment, the placement of wharves, piers, mooring piles, mooring buoys, floating docks, and associated structures. The Commissioners, as required by Article 23 A, § 19(d), 5 published public notice of the pendency of the Resolution (the “Notice”) in a newspaper of general circulation in Oxford, The Star Democrat, for four consecutive weeks, beginning on 10 ²⁰ August 2009. The Notice (1) provided an overview of the Resolution; (2) stated that the Commissioners would be conducting a public hearing on the Resolution on 22 September 2009 at 8:00 p.m.; and (3) stated that “copies of the resolution and exhibits” as well as “[t]he technical legal description of the land proposed for annexation, together with a plat depicting the area to be annexed, and the proposed new boundary of the Town of Oxford, may be inspected in the Town Office.” Early on it became apparent that not everyone in Oxford endorsed the objectives of the Resolution as introduced. Following initial publication of the Notice, certain members of the Oxford electorate prepared promptly a petition seeking to bring to referendum the Resolution, assuming apparently that it would be adopted ultimately by the Commissioners in substantially the same form as introduced.

The petition (the “Petition”) stated: We, the undersigned voters of the Town of Oxford, hereby petition to refer Resolution 1001 entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF OXFORD TO ANNEX SUBMERGED LANDS LOCATED UNDER CERTAIN PUBLIC WATERS ADJACENT TO THE TOWN BOUNDARIES IN ORDER TO REGULATE PLACEMENT OF WHARVES, PIERS, MOORING PILES, MOORING BUOYS, FLOATING DOCKS AND ASSOCIATED OR RELATED STRUCTURES” to a vote of the registered voters of the Town of Oxford for approval or rejection at an election to be held in accordance with Article 23A, Section 19 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. If the full text of the bill/ordinance or part of the bill/ordinance referred (the “proposal”) does not appear on the back of this signature page or as an attachment, a fair and accurate summary of the substantive provisions of the proposal must appear on the back or to be attached, and the full text of the proposal must be immediately available from the petition circulator. ²¹ NOTICE TO SIGNERS: Sign and print gour name (1) as it appears on the voter registration list; OR (2) your surname of registration and at least one full given name AND the initial of any other names. Please print or type all other information other than your signature. (Emphasis in original.) The Petition provided space for each signer to print his or her full name, registration address, signature, and date of signing.

Not appearing on the face of the Petition was any instruction or advice regarding whether a signer could strike his or her signature, once affixed, and under what circumstances that could occur or how it might be accomplished physically. Circulation of the Petition began at some point after publication of the Notice, but before the public hearing was held and, therefore, prior to adoption of the Resolution. On 22 September 2010, the Commissioners held the public hearing on the Resolution, which encompassed several hours of testimony (for and against the Resolution), as well as discussion of the details of and the reasons.for the Resolution. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commissioner held the record open for an additional ten days to receive any additional written comments.

The Commissioners adopted unanimously on 10 November 2009 the Resolution, without any material alteration from the version publicized in the Notice. Consequently, under the terms of the Resolution, 10 November 2009 was the date the Resolution was “finally enacted.” In accordance with Article 23A, § 19(e), 6 the Resolution provided that it would become effective forty-five (45) days after the date of final enactment. In addition, pursuant to Article 23A, § 19(g), members of the Oxford electorate were able to “petition” for referendum the ²² Resolution “any time within the 45 day period following the final enactment of the resolution.” On 22 December 2009, forty-two (42) days after final enactment of the Resolution, the Petition was presented to the Commissioners. The next day, Oxford’s Town Clerk submitted the Petition to the Oxford Board of Supervisors of Elections (the “Board”) for verification of the signatures, pursuant to Article 23A, § 19(g).

The Board determined, in short order, that: (1) there were 616 registered voters in Oxford as of 25 December 2009; (2) the Petition contained 195 signatures, of which 177 were verified and valid signatures; (3) sixty-two (62) of the verified signatures were obtained after the final enactment of the Resolution; and (4), the remaining 115 signatures were acquired before final enactment, of which eighty-three (83) were obtained between the first date of publication of the Notice and the public hearing. The 177 verified signatures represented 28.73% of the qualified voters of Oxford, which was in excess of the twenty (20) percent needed to bring to referendum the Resolution pursuant to Article 23A, § 19(g). The ninety-four (94) signatures obtained after the public hearing was conducted, including the sixty-two (62) signatures obtained after final enactment of the Resolution, however, were insufficient by themselves to justify a referendum on the Resolution. The Commissioners requested a legal opinion from the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland in aid of determining whether the signatures obtained prior to the final enactment of the Resolution could be counted properly to satisfy the threshold necessary to petition to referendum the Resolution and, alternatively, whether signatures obtained prior to the commencement of the public hearing could be used to satisfy that threshold.

Before the advisory opinion could be issued, however, Koste filed his complaint in the Circuit Court, which sought declarations (1) that all of the 177 verified signatures were valid; (2) that all of the 177 signatures, including those obtained before the public hearing, may be counted to satisfy the threshold requirement contained in Article 23A, § 19(g); and, (3) that the number of valid signa ²³ tures represented at least twenty (20) percent of the registered voters in Oxford. The complaint further sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Commissioners, pursuant to Article 23A, § 19(g), to place the Resolution on the ballot and suspend the effectiveness of the Resolution, contingent upon the results of the referendum. The Commissioners filed an answer requesting an order declaring that the Petition failed to meet the legal requirements of Article 23A, § 19(g) and, as a result, the Resolution became effective on 26 December 2009. Soon after, Koste filed his motion for summary judgment.

The Circuit Court conducted a hearing on Koste’s motion for summary judgment on 3 December 2010. Ultimately, the trial judge granted Koste’s motion, determining that the requirement that citizens must “petition” within forty-five (45) days after final enactment of the Resolution “is there for the time within which the petition must be presented [to the Commissioners] and [does not have] any bearing on when the signatures are obtained, or whether the signatures are obtained prior to that 45 days.” Finding that the plain language of Article 23A, § 19(g) did not require expressly that signatures be obtained only after final enactment of the Resolution and opining “we ought to give the people the opportunity to be heard,” the judge held valid the verified signatures obtained before final enactment. Accordingly, the Circuit Court ordered the Commissioners to suspend the effect of the Resolution, contingent upon the results of a referendum vote. The Commissioners noted timely an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.

In a reported opinion filed on 26 April 2012, a panel of the intermediate appellate court began its analysis by considering the plain language of Article 23A, § 19(g). Town of Oxford, 204 Md.App. at 586-88 , 42 A.3d at 642-43 . Determining that the statute’s plain language “creates an ambiguity,” the Court turned its consideration to the purpose of the forty-five (45) day period. Id. at 588-92 , 42 A.3d at 643-45 .

It opined that, in light of Article 23A, § 19(d), which provides that a public hearing shall be scheduled within fifteen (15) days of the final publication of Notice, and Article 23A, ²⁴ § 19(o), which provides that an annexation plan shall be open to public review at the hearing, it is likely that the Legislature intended for voters to have a chance to study the perhaps more fully developed issues at the public hearing before being approached by petition circulators. Id. at 589-91, 42 A.3d at 644-45 . Moreover, the panel of the intermediate appellate court expressed concern about the possibility of voters signing a referendum petition regarding a resolution that could be revised substantially as a result of the public hearing, but before final enactment. Id. at 591 , 42 A.3d at 645 .

The Court concluded: [B]ased on our examination of the text of the entire statute, its purpose and the consequences of Koste’s proffered interpretation, we believe that the General Assembly intended the 45-day period of § 19(g) to be a restriction on the circulation of petitions that does not permit signatures to be gathered before final enactment of the resolution. Id. at 592, 42 A.3d at 645 . As a result, the Court of Special Appeals: (1) reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court; (2) held that the Petition did not contain a sufficient number of valid signatures to submit to referendum the Resolution; and, (3) held that the Resolution became effective as enacted. Id. at 593 , 42 A.3d at 646 .

Koste filed a timely petition for a writ of certiorari. We issued a writ of certiorari on 20 August 2012 to consider the following question: Are signatures valid on a petition for referendum under Md.Code Ann. Article 23A, § 19(g) where the signatures were obtained after the publication of notice of the annexation resolution, the resolution was finally enacted without modification and the petition was presented to and filed with the chief executive and administrative officers of the town within 45 days after final enactment? Koste v. Town of Oxford, 427 Md. 606 , 50 A.3d 606 (2012). ANALYSIS “On review of an order granting summary judgment, our analysis ‘begins with the determination [of] whether a ²⁵ genuine dispute of material fact exists; only in the absence of such a dispute will we review questions of law.’ ” D’Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549, 574 , 36 A.3d 941, 955 (2012) (quoting Appiah v. Hall, 416 Md. 533, 546 , 7 A.3d 536, 544 (2010)); O’Connor v. Balt.

Cnty., 382 Md. 102, 110 , 854 A.2d 1191, 1196 (2004). If no genuine dispute of material fact exists, this Court determines “whether the Circuit Court correctly entered summary judgment as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Council of Unit Owners of the Gables on Tuckerman Condo., 404 Md. 560, 571 , 948 A.2d 11, 18 (2008) (citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he standard of review of a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment on the law is de novo, that is, whether the trial court’s legal conclusions were legally correct.” D’Aoust, 424 Md. at 574 , 36 A.3d at 955 . There are no disputes of material fact in the present case, genuine or otherwise.

Rather, the parties’ disagreement revolves solely around a question of law, i.e., whether the signatures obtained by the petition circulators (Oxford voters themselves) prior to the public hearing and the final enactment of the Resolution may be counted toward petitioning the Resolution to referendum. See Tribbitt v. State, 403 Md. 638, 644 , 943 A.2d 1260, 1263 (2008) (When an issue “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or case law, an appellate court must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions are ‘legally correct’ under a de novo standard of review.”); see also Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519, 535 , 907 A.2d 175, 184 (2006). As we observed recently in Whitley v. Maryland State Board of Elections, 429 Md. 132, 149 , 55 A.3d 37, 47-48 (2012): The primary goal of statutory construction is “to discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by a particular provision[.]” Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157, 172 , 935 A.2d 699, 708 (2007). In so doing, we look first to the “normal, plain meaning of the language of the statute,” read as a whole so that “no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, ²⁶ meaningless or nugatory[.]” Doe v. Montgomery County Bd. of Elections, 406 Md. 697, 712 , 962 A.2d 342, 351 (2008) (quoting Barbre, 402 Md. at 172 , 935 A.2d at 708 ).

If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we “need not look beyond the statute’s provisions and our analysis ends.” Barbre, 402 Md. at 173 , 935 A.2d at 709 . Where the language of the statute is ambiguous and may be subject to more than one interpretation, however, we look to the statute’s legislative history, case law, purpose, structure, and overarching statutory scheme in aid of searching for the intention of the Legislature. Doe, 406 Md. at 712 , 962 A.2d at 351 . Our analysis begins, as did that of the Court of Special Appeals, by looking to the plain meaning of the statutory language in question.

The process by which we ascertain the plain meaning of a statute is guided by the following precepts: We, however, do not read statutory language in a vacuum, nor do we confine strictly our interpretation of a statute’s plain language to the isolated section alone. Rather, the plain language must be viewed within the context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs, considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the Legislature in enacting the statute. We presume that the Legislature intends its enactments to operate together as a consistent and harmonious body of law, and, thus, we seek to reconcile and harmonize the parts of a statute, to the extent possible consistent with the statute’s object and scope. Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Marcas, L.L.C., 415 Md. 676, 685 , 4 A.3d 946, 951 (2010) (quoting Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 275-76 , 987 A.2d 18, 29 (2010)).

Article 23A, § 19(g), governs the process by which a municipal corporation may annex land not yet within its boundaries. The parties in this case, each relying on grammatical nuances, assert that the language of Article 23A, § 19(g) supports unambiguously their respective interpretations of the statute. Article 23A, § 19(g) provides: ²⁷ Petition for referendum by residents of municipality. — At any time within the forty-five (45) day period following the final enactment of the resolution, a number of persons equal to not less than twenty per centum (20%) of the qualified voters of the municipal corporation may, in writing, petition the chief executive and administrative officer of the municipal corporation for a referendum on the resolution. Upon the presentation of a petition to the officer, he shall cause to be made a verification of the signatures thereon and shall ascertain that the persons signing the petition represent at least twenty per centum (20%) of the qualified voters of the municipal corporation.

Upon verifying that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with, the officer shall by proclamation suspend the effectiveness of the resolution, contingent upon the results of the referendum. Koste argues, “[i]t is clear from reading this entire section as a whole” that the phrase “may, in writing, petition” refers to the act of presenting a written petition. Under this view of the statute, it would be of no moment, once a resolution is introduced, when the signatures on a petition were obtained as long as a petition with the requisite number of signatures was presented to the designated body within forty-five (45) days of the final enactment of the pertinent legislative act. In support of this interpretation, Koste notes that the statute lacks language requiring expressly that voters sign a referendum petition only after final enactment of an annexation resolution.

Koste notes further that the sentence immediately after the sentence containing “may, in writing, petition” begins with the phrase “[u]pon the presentation of a petition.” Koste contends that, applying parity principles of English grammar, the term “petition” in the first sentence of Article 23A, § 19(g) is equivalent to the term “presentation of a petition” in the second sentence of Article 23A, § 19(g). In addition, Koste presses the notion that Article 23A, § 19(g) does not direct the officers of municipal corporations to verify that the signatures were collected within any specified time frame upon receiving a referendum petition, but instead re ²⁸ quires the officers to verify only that the petition contains twenty (20%) percent of the qualified voters in the municipality. This, in Koste’s view, supports the premise that the Legislature did not intend in the relevant statutory scheme to require that the petitioning process begin only after enactment of the Resolution (or completion of the public hearing). In contrast, the Commissioners argue that the phrase “may, in writing, petition” embraces more than the mere physical act of presenting a petition; rather, it encompasses the entire process of petitioning the Resolution to referendum.

Under this interpretation, the entire petitioning process (circulating petitions, obtaining signatures, and submitting the petitions) must be completed solely within the forty-five (45) days between final enactment of the Resolution and the effective date of the Resolution. In support of their interpretation of the statute, the Commissioners direct our attention to Article 23A, § 19(d) and (e), which require the municipality’s legislative body to advertise publicly and conduct a public hearing on a proposed annexation resolution before the resolution may be enacted. The Commissioners would have us focus also on Article 23A, § 19(o ), 7 which provides that an annexation plan, containing a ²⁹ description of the land use pattern proposed for the area to be annexed, will be made available for public viewing at the hearing. The Commissioners assert that the public hearing provisions of the statute would be rendered superfluous, or at least marginalized, if the referendum process could begin before the hearing was held because it would enable voters to make a decision whether to seek a referendum before they received complete information about the proposed annexation.

The Commissioners conclude that requiring the petitioning process to begin after final enactment of the annexation resolution would give effect to the purposes of the public hearing provisions of the annexation statute, which are designed to inform completely voters about a resolution before they decide whether they wish to petition the resolution to referendum. When the plain language of a statute is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation,” the statutory language is ambiguous. Lockshin, 412 Md. at 276 , 987 A.2d at 29 . Here, both Koste and the Commissioners proffer distinct interpretations of Article 23A, § 19(g).

We conclude that the language of Article 23A, § 19(g) is ambiguous because we conclude both of these interpretations of the statute are, at the threshold, reasonable. The Court of Special Appeals reached the same conclusion. There is merit in Koste’s view that, under accepted principles of English grammar, the phrase “may, in writing, petition” refers to the act of presentment of a petition to the legislative body. That merit, however, derives somewhat from ³⁰ viewing the phrase in isolation from the rest of the statutory scheme of Article 23A, § 19.

The plain language of a statutory provision is not considered in isolation, however, but rather “the plain language must be viewed within the context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs.” Lockshin, 412 Md. at 276 , 987 A.2d at 29 . When the statutory language is read with Article 23A, § 19(d), (e), and (o) in mind, it becomes perhaps more reasonable to interpret “may, in writing, petition” as encompassing the entire petitioning process. This is because such an interpretation gives greater effect to the public hearing provisions designed to inform more fully the electorate about the overall effects of a proposed annexation resolution. Nonetheless, concluding that the plain language of Article 23A, § 19(g) is ambiguous, we turn our attention to other indicia probative of legislative intent.

As we stated in Doe , “[wjhere the language of the statute is ambiguous and may be subject to more than one interpretation, however, we look to the statute’s legislative history, case law, purpose, structure, and overarching statutory scheme in aid of searching for the intention of the Legislature.” 406 Md. at 712 , 962 A.2d at 351 . I. Legislative History The legislative history of the annexation statute is of no assistance in our analysis. Article 23A, § 19(g) was enacted in 1955 by the General Assembly. There have been no material changes to the relevant statutory language since then.

The legislative history of Article 23A, § 19(g) is scant. In our search for relevant legislative history regarding Article 23A, § 19(g), we found no records that provided any insight as to whether the Legislature contemplated the petitioning process beginning before final enactment of (or the public hearing regarding) an annexation resolution, or whether the Legislature contemplated for the petitioning process to begin only after final enactment. Moreover, neither party directed our attention to any such records.

II

Case Law Koste points to Mayor and Town Council of Oakland v. Mayor and Town Council of Mountain Lake, 392 Md. 301 , ³¹ 896 A.2d 1036 (2006), in support of his interpretation of Article 23A, § 19(g). Oakland involved dueling annexations of the same land by two competing municipalities. 392 Md. at 305-09 , 896 A.2d at 1039-41 . Which municipality enacted first and lawfully its annexation resolution was key to which would prevail. The Oakland Court addressed how many days after the final day of the public notice advertising must pass before a public hearing on an annexation resolution may be held under Article 23A, § 19(d).

Id. at 309-21, 896 A.2d at 1041— 48. The Court determined that the date of the final public notice should be excluded in the computation of the relevant fifteen (15) day period, but that the fifteenth day after the date of the final public notice may be included in the computation under Article 23A, § 19(d). Id. The Court addressed then whether a referendum election may occur before the expiration of the forty-five (45) day period during which referendum petitions may be collected under Article 23A, § 19(g), if the legislative body of a municipality receives a valid referendum petition before the forty-five (45) day period concludes.

Id. at 321-28, 896 A.2d at 1041-52 . The Court held that “the plain language of the referendum provisions of Art. 23A § 19, subsections (f)-(h), makes clear that the General Assembly intended for a referendum election to occur after the [full] forty-five day period following the enactment of the annexation resolution.” Id. at 326, 896 A.2d at 1051 . Although Oakland did not address the question of whether signatures on a referendum petition may be obtained before final enactment of an annexation resolution, Koste asserts that the case provides persuasive support for his interpretation of the statute. As Koste points out, the Oakland Court