Shapiro v. Sherwood

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the action of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, dismissing petitions filed under Maryland’s Fair Election Practices Act, Maryland Code (1957, 1967 Repl. Vol., 1967 Cum. Supp,)' Art. 33 § 26-1 if (the Act) and entering judgment for the defendants for costs.

On 7 September 1967, primary elections were held in the City of Baltimore. The appellant, Samuel Shapiro, unsuccessfully sought to be nominated as the Republican candidate for the office of mayor. The appellant, Leonard. J. Kerpelman, was a similarly unsuccessful candidate for the same office in the Democratic primary.

Relying on the provisions of § 26-23 (a) of the Act, enacted by Ch. 392 of the Laws of 1967 “At any time within thirty days after any election held under the laws of this State, any defeated candidate at such election ? * * may . ■. present * * * to the Superior Court of Baltimore City, a petition setting forth under oath that corrupt practices * * * were committed by the successful candidate * * * naming the successful candidate or candidates as defendants, ²³⁷ and praying that the fact alleged may be inquired into.” (Emphasis supplied) Shapiro filed a petition against Arthur W. Sherwood, the winner of the Republican primary; Kerpelman filed a petition against Thomas J. D’Alesandro, III, the winner of the Democratic primary; and Shapiro filed a petition against David Blum and David Shay, who were neither identified as candidates nor as the agents of candidates. The petitions filed against Sherwood and D’Alesandro alleged that while § 26-8 (c) of the Act placed a limit of $15,000 on the amount which a candidate for city-wide office in Baltimore could expend from his own funds, Sherwood had reported campaign contributions of “at least $19,000”, and D’Alesandro, of “at least $150,000.” The petition filed against Blum and Shay alleged a violation of § 26-19 (b) of the Act which made the giving, offering or promising of “any money, gift, advantage, preferment, aid, emolument or any valuable thing whatever, for the purpose of inducing or procuring any person to vote”, a corrupt practice. To the petitions was appended an affidavit, reciting that Shapiro and Kerpelman «* * * ma(je 0ath in due form of law, as follows : “Samuel Shapiro: “As to [Sherwood], his allegations of violations are based on inferences he believes he has reasonably drawn from examination of the reports referred to; other facts are alleged on information and belief, and he believes them to be true. “As to [Blum and Shay], his allegations are made on information and belief, and he believes them to be true. “Leonard J. Kerpelman: “As to [D’Alesandro], his allegations of violation are based on inferences he believes he has reasonably drawn from examination of the re ²³⁸ ports referred to; other facts are alleged on information and belief.” Before the petitions were answered, Shapiro and Kerpelman, by leave of court, filed amended petitions identical with those previously filed save in two respects: in the petitions filed against Sherwood and D’Alesandro, it was alleged that § 26-13 (a)', 1 of the Act, which details the manner in which account books of campaign treasurers must be kept, had been violated, since,