Levering v. Board of Supervisors of Elections
Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question j requiring decision on this appeal is whether, under existing legislation, provision can be made for submitting to the voters of Baltimore City, at a general election, an ordinance of that municipality, relating to an exercise of its police power. On Tune 24, 1916, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore passed an ordinance repealing section 3 of Article 31 of the City Code, which prohibited the playing of ball or any other game on the Sabbath Day within the limits of the city, and re-enacting the section with amendments so as to except from such prohibition the playing of amateur-, baseball, golf, lawn tennis, croquet, basketball, football, lacrosse, quoits, soccer and field and track exercises, on Sunday afternoons, in the parks of the city, and on open lots under permits from the Mayor and the owner, provided that no compensation was received by the players and no admission fees were paid by the spectators. This ordinance, hy its terms, was not to become effective until it should be submitted to and approved by the voters of Baltimore at the general election in November, 1916.
The Supervisors of Election of Baltimore City, upon the certification of the ordinance to them by the City Register, were preparing to submit to the voters the question of its approval, by an appropriate form of referendum to be printed on the official ballots for use at the general election on November 7th, 1916, but their action to that end was prevented by this proceeding. In a per curiam order, filed soon after the hearing of the case on appeal, it was ruled by this Court 337 that no authority existed, on the part of thei Mayor and City Council, or of the Supervisors of Election, to provide for the submission of the question as to the approval of the ordinance at the general election of this year, and that it should consequently be omitted from the official ballots. The reasons for this conclusion are now to he stated. It is the exclusive right and function of the Legislature to prescribe the objects for which the general State elections shall be held.
The only offices to bo filled, and the only questions to be submitted, at such elections, are those specified or approved for that purpose by the General Assembly. The inquiry before us, therefore1, was. whether any legislative sanction could he found for the proposed referendum. ETo specific grant of power to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to refer questions of that nature to the popular vote at a general election has been discovered in the Baltimore City Charter, or in any other statutory enactment, but it was argued that authority for such a submission was afforded by certain provisions of the general election laws. By section 52 of Article 33 of the Code it is provided: “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 he certified to said Supervisors of Elections within said period” (thirty days before the election) “by the County Commissioners or the Register of the City of Balti.more, as the case may he, and shall be advertised as herein provided in the case of nominees for county or city offices.” There are provisions also that “the official ballots shall contain a statement of every constitutional amendment or other question to be submitted to the vote of the people at any election,” that “a constitutional amendment, or any question to be submitted to the popular vote, shall be printed in a separate column to follow immediately after the names, of the candidates,” and that “if at any election there be a constitutional question, or any other question, to be submitted to the popular vote, the said question shall be placed upon 338 said ballot in the form following: ‘For Constitutional Amendment,’ ‘Against Constitutional Amendment,’ ‘Eor Proposition,’ ‘Against Proposition.’ * * *” Code, Article 33, sections 54, 55, 57.
It was not the purpose of these provisions to admit indiscriminately to a place on the official ballots, every issue which any county or municipality of the State might propose to have submitted to a vote of the people. The quesr tions of local concern, to which the election law refers, are those which the Legislature has authorized or required to be subjected to the test of popular approval or rejection. Familiar instances of such provisions are the “local option” laws for various sections of the State, and acts permitting the issuance of county or municipal bonds, in certain cases, when sanctioned by the voters of the locality affected. If it could be held that, without antecedent authority from the General Assembly, all questions of local interest to a county or municipality must be printed and submitted on the official ballots, when certified by a Board of County Commissioners or by the
This is a preview of Levering v. Board of Supervisors of Elections. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.