Town of La Plata v. Faison-Rosewick LLC

GREENE, J. The ultimate issue presented by this case is what may be placed on a petition for referendum pertaining to land annexation under Maryland Code (1957, 2011 RepLVoL), Article ⁵⁰⁰ 23A, § 19(g). 1 Additionally, the parties present questions regarding a Town Manager’s 2 authority to create procedures for the validation and verification of signatures on a referendum petition, whether the administrator in this particular case observed his own procedures, and to what extent, if any, the Election Law Article of the Maryland Code and Maryland common law should apply to municipal land annexation referenda. We shall hold that a petition for referendum, pertaining to land annexation, shall present foremost a land annexation resolution, but the inclusion of additional legislative enactments that, although non-referable, do not obfuscate the subject matter of the petition for referendum, will not invalidate the petition. See Maryland Code (1957, 2011 Repl.Vol.), Article 23A, § 19(g), (o); Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14 , 63 A.3d 582 (2013); Anne Arundel Cnty. v. McDonough, 277 Md. 271 , 354 A.2d 788 (1976). Moreover, we hold that the chief executive and administrative officer in the present case acted within his authority when he published Town policies for the' validation and verification of signatures on a petition for referendum.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 27, 2011, the La Plata Town Council passed four resolutions, one of which was an annexation resolution acquiring a 14.1 acre tract of land. The annexed land consisted of a 4.1 acre right-of-way along Route 301, and a ten-acre parcel owned by one of the Appellees in this case, Johel ⁵⁰¹ Limited Partnership (hereinafter, “Johel”). The annexed land was intended as the site to erect a Wal-Mart store and other retail and office spaces. This annexation resolution, Resolution No. ll-12a, passed by a vote of 3-2.

The other Resolutions, 11-11 a (approving a 2011 annexation agreement to the extent it set out certain conditions under which the Town agreed to consider the 2011 annexation), 11-13 (approving an annexation plan as required under Article 23A, § 19(o) containing the Town Manager’s analysis of the consequences of the annexation with regard to Town services such as water and sewer), and ll-14a (approving an amendment to an earlier annexation agreement) all passed by a unanimous vote of the Town Council. Thereafter, several citizens of La Plata and other interested persons (hereinafter, “the Referendum Supporters”), Appellants in this case, published and circulated a petition to refer the Town Council’s annexation resolution to referendum. See Article 23A, § 19(g) of the Maryland Code (describing the municipal annexation referenda process) (hereinafter, all references to Art. 23A, Section 19 of the Code will be cited as “§ 19”). The petition signature page stated: We, the undersigned voters of the Town of La Plata, hereby petition to refer Resolutions No. 11-11 a Approval of Annexation Agreement and Amendment to Existing Annexation Agreement; No. ll-12a Johel Limited Partnership and FCD-Development, LLC Annexation — 14.111 Acres; No. 11-13 Johel Limited Partnership and FCD Development, LLC Annexation Plan — 14.111 Acres; No. ll-14a Amendment of the Rosewick Annexation Agreements adopted September 27, 2011 to a vote of the registered voters of the Town of La Plata for approval or rejection at the earliest election.

If the full text of the bill/ordinance or part of the bill/ordinance referred (the “proposal”) does not appear on the back of the signature page or as an attachment, a fair and accurate summary of the substantive provisions of the proposal must appear on the back or be attached, and the full text of the proposal must be immediately available from the petition circulator.... By signing ⁵⁰² this petition, you agree that the aforementioned proposal should be placed on the ballot as a referendum question at the next general election.... On November 8, 2011, several days before the petition signature pages were due for filing with the chief executive and administrative officer of La Plata, Town Manager Daniel Mears (“Mears”), published on the Town’s website an eight-page document entitled “Procedures for Validation and Verification of Signatures on Annexation Referendum Petition Signatures Submitted Pursuant to Maryland Annotated Code, Article 23A, Section 19(g)” (“procedures”). The procedures established the process and criteria to guide the Town Manager in validation and verification of signatures on a petition for the purpose of submitting the annexation question to the voters.

Included in the procedures are guidelines on the filing, acceptance and preliminary review of the petitions, signature removal, signature validation and reporting results. For example, with regard to the filing, acceptance and preliminary review of petitions, the procedures note that if the Town Manager determines that the petition form is not legally sufficient, he or she will reject the petition. Alternatively, if the form of the petition is determined to be legally sufficient, or if “the Town Manager determines that the legal sufficiency of the petition cannot reasonably be determined ... but that verification of the petition is in the interest of the orderly management of the election and referendum process,” the Town Manager will begin to validate the signatures. The procedures also contain a provision allowing the Town Manager to reserve the right to modify the procedures on an as-needed basis.

On November 10, 2011, the Referendum Supporters submitted their petition for referendum to Mears. Thereafter, Mears conducted an initial review regarding the legal sufficiency of the form of the petition. Early in his review, Mears requested assistance from counsel for the interested parties as to whether the petition was invalid on its face because its signatories sought to petition to referendum four resolutions ⁵⁰³ when only one of the resolutions was referable. On December 30, 2011, Mears responded: ...

Based upon these collective arguments and views, no judicial precedent has been cited to me that definitively answers the question that I posed. Based upon review of the case law and relevant statutes and the arguments submitted by counsel, my best assessment is that the form of the petition is not legally sufficient. However, because the matter is not free from doubt, I have concluded that the judicial system is the more appropriate forum to resolve this question if and when a person with standing chooses to file a lawsuit at the appropriate time. In the meantime, I shortly will begin the process of reviewing, validating and verifying the signatures on the petition sheets.

Any further determinations regarding the petition and a referendum election will be made after the conclusion of the signature validation and verification process. Subsequently, both Mears and the Charles County Board of Elections 3 separately reviewed the referendum petition pages. Following the reviews, Mears issued a thirteen-page document entitled “Report of Johel Annexation Petition Referendum Review,” in which he concluded that “[t]he petition for referendum contained the legally sufficient signatures of more than 20% of individuals qualified to vote in Town elections.” The report also noted, however, that “[significant questions remain regarding the legal sufficiency of the petition as submitted, and the implications of possible irregularities and improprieties in the petition circulation and signature gathering process that do not violate clear principles of Maryland statutory or case law.” Mears noted, however, that “[t]he judicial system is the more appropriate forum to resolve these legal questions if and when a person with standing chooses to file a lawsuit.” ⁵⁰⁴ On March 13, 2012, the Town, through Mears, issued a proclamation stating that sufficient signatures had been submitted. As such, the annexation resolution was suspended, and all four resolutions were referred to referendum.

The Town then drafted a referendum ballot for an election to be held on April 18, 2012, asking the citizens of La Plata to approve or reject “all four Resolutions.” 4 Appellees, Faison-Rosewick, LLC, FCD-Development, LLC, John D. Mitchell, III, John Latimer, Sandra L. Latimer, and Johel, a group consisting of voters and taxpayers of the Town, and “some selling landowners and out-of-state contract purchasers and developers” (hereinafter, collectively, “the Referendum Opponents”), filed in the Circuit Court for Charles County a “Petition or Complaint for Judicial Review” of Mears’s report validating the signatures and advancing the referendum to a vote. The Town, also an Appellant, moved to dismiss the Referendum Opponents’ judicial review petition. The Referendum Opponents then filed an “Amended Petition for Judicial Review; [an] Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and for Administrative Mandamus.” At that point, the Referendum Supporters filed a motion to intervene, and thereafter filed legal memoranda, a motion to dismiss, and a motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court held a scheduling conference on March 27, 2012, where it enjoined the election, set a schedule for full resolution of the case, and ordered that no discovery be permitted.

On April 2, 2012, the Referendum Opponents filed an “Amended Petition for Judicial Review; and, a Second Amended Complaint by Interlineation for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, for Administrative Mandamus, and Mandamus,” which essentially added a count for common law mandamus. Additionally, on April 9, 2012, the Circuit Court granted the Referendum Supporters the conditional right to intervene. ⁵⁰⁵ On May 3, 2012, a judge of the Circuit Court heard argument and announced from the bench his ruling in favor of the Referendum Opponents. The trial judge later issued a written order and opinion. 5 The judge’s opinion first discussed whether all of the resolutions could be placed on the petition. The trial judge opined: Case law is clear that whether it’s an ordinance or an annexation, as in this case, there should be only one subject.

Many cases involve statutes that have more than one subject, then they’re struck down; if they do contain more than one subject, then it’s because of a failure to competently notify the public as to the subject of the particular ordinance. The Court need not rule on this issue. The trial judge also reviewed the referendum process. He noted that the dispositive issue in this case “deals with the guidelines ... that the Town Manager put together two days before the petition had to be filed.” According to the trial judge, while § 19(g) is clear in terms of granting the Town Manager the responsibility and duty of verifying the signatures and ascertaining that the signatures reflect 20% of the qualified voters, the statute does not tell the Town Manager how to do it.

The trial judge concluded that Mears put together guidelines for the voters, that would, in effect, “give him carte blanche approval in determining his responsibility, namely the verification of the petitions.” After explaining that the court is “required to uphold the administrative decision[] as long as [it] is not arbitrary, capricious or illegal,” the trial judge found that Mears did not have the power to determine his own verification process under the statute. Rather, according to the trial judge, “[t]hat’s an action that the Town could have done in exercising its governmental power, but it never did so ... [and] [t]his was a non-delegable governmental power.” Moreover, according to the court, Mears did not have the implied power to create these verification procedures because “[a]n act of this ⁵⁰⁶ nature which impacts on the election process can hardly be considered ministerial ... [i]t’s up to the Town to promulgate its own guidelines in a matter of this importance ... [a]nd I don’t think [Mears] ... had the right to publish the guidelines on his own.” Finally, the court explained that [the guidelines] were published too late to establish the rules of the road for this petition. Filing the rules ... two days before the final petition was required to be filed makes no sense to me and is an error of law, a violation of any due process that should give the public the notice that it deserves ... and to make such a proposal known to it. It was never done.

The failure to do so taints this whole process .... I note that [Mears] himself, abandoned some of his own procedures after the guidelines were adopted ... [also] evidence discloses that after the guidelines were published, [Mears] felt that the form of the petition for referendum was not legally sufficient, but was not his call, ultimately. So accordingly ... the Petition for Referendum is flawed and therefore has to fail. Thereafter, the Town and Referendum Supporters appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and Referendum Opponents cross-appealed.

The Referendum Opponents filed a petition for certiorari to this Court, and the Town and Referendum Supporters filed cross-petitions, all of which were granted prior to any proceedings in the intermediate appellate court. Town of La Plata v. Faison-Rosewick, LLC, 428 Md. 543 , 52 A.3d 978 (2012). We have rephrased the underlying questions posed by the parties for purposes of brevity and clarity: 6 ⁵⁰⁷ 1. Whether the referendum petition is invalid under Article 23A, § 19(g) because it includes, in addition to the land ⁵⁰⁸ annexation resolution, three other non-referable, but related resolutions? 2.

Under Article 23A § 19(g), does the Town Manager, rather than the Town Council, have the authority to publish petition verification criteria? 3. To what extent, if any, is State-based common law and the Election Law Article applied to the municipal petition verification process in Article 23A, § 19(g)? We hold that the statute allows for a “petition ... for a referendum on the resolution.” Article 23A, § 19(g). The statutory scheme clarifies that the resolution refers to a decision that adds to the corporate boundaries of the municipal corporation.

We hold, however, that where the petition for referendum contained legislative enactments that were collateral to the land annexation resolution but did not obfuscate the subject matter of the petition for referendum, such additions do not invalidate the petition. Additionally, we hold that Mears, the Town Manager of La Plata, acted within his authority as Town Manager when he published Town policies for the validation and verification of signatures on a petition for referendum, and that there was no violation of due process when those policies were published several days prior to the petition deadline. DISCUSSION I. We address first the Parties 7 preliminary legal questions raised in their briefs.’ For instance, the Referendum ⁵⁰⁹ Opponents contend that the Town may not bring this challenge before this Court because doing so is an indirect attack against the four resolutions it enacted. The Referendum Opponents cite Harford Cnty. v. Schultz, 280 Md. 77 , 371 A.2d 428 (1977), and State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., 301 Md. 9 , 481 A.2d 785 (1984), two cases where we held that government officials could not directly attack the validity of their own duly enacted legislation.

In Schultz , the County Council proposed a charter amendment that passed over the County Executive’s veto and went to the Elections Board for submission to the voters. The County then brought an action against the Board to have the bill declared invalid. We noted the peculiarity of an “attack on the validity of [an] ordinance ... by the political subdivision which enacted it,” holding that the lack of a controversy made the issue non-justiciable. Schultz, 280 Md. at 85-86 , 371 A.2d at 432-33 .

Similarly, in Burning Tree, we held that the Attorney General could not challenge the constitutionality of a law passed by the General Assembly because part of his duty as “lawyer of the State” is to defend and protect the State’s policies. 301 Md. at 34 , 481 A.2d at 797 . The present case bears little resemblance to Schultz or Burning Tree. Namely, this action deals with the petition for referendum and petition verification process, not the actual resolutions themselves. Moreover, the Town is defending, not challenging, what it believes is its administrator’s duty under Article 23A, § 19 with regard to the petition verification and referendum process.

Therefore, the Town is not challenging ⁵¹⁰ its own laws and the principles of Burning Tree are not at issue. Next, we review the Referendum Supporters’ jurisdictional challenge. The Referendum Supporters contend that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review Mears’s determination. They argue that the pleadings filed for judicial review, administrative and common law mandamus, must be considered by a tribunal with “the requisite legal authority to hear those questions----” The Referendum Supporters contend that the trial court “lacked the power to hear [the Referendum Opponents’] challenges as anything other than a ‘properly framed’ complaint for declaratory judgment” and that the claims should have been dismissed.

The Referendum Opponents filed, in addition to a complaint for judicial review, requests for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and mandamus. Although the Circuit Court decided the merits as a judicial review action, the parties do not identify any statute or ordinance that grants a right to seek judicial review in this case. 8 This fact does not end the discussion of the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction in this case, however. Rather, this Court has held that mandamus and/or injunctive relief are also appropriate avenues for reviewing and correcting an arbitrary or unreasonable agency decision where no statute or local ordinance provides the right to seek ⁵¹¹ judicial review. See Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md. 372, 379 , 45 A.2d 73, 76 (1945) (noting that “[c]ourts have the inherent power, through the writ of mandamus, by injunction, or otherwise, to correct abuses of discretion and arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable acts”).

Generally, mandamus is initiated as an “original action .... used ‘to compel inferior tribunals, public officials or administrative agencies to perform their function, or perform some particular duty imposed upon them which in its nature is imperative and to the performance of which duty the party applying for the writ has a clear legal right.’ ” Goodwich v. Nolan, 343 Md. 130, 145 , 680 A.2d 1040, 1047 (1996) (citation omitted); see also Talbot Cnty. v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md. 372, 394 , 2 A.3d 344, 357 (2010) (acknowledging “the concept of administrative mandamus as an extension of the common law writ of mandamus”) (citations omitted). Two types of mandamus are available as equitable remedies to an individual challenging the decision of an administrative agency: common law mandamus and administrative mandamus. Administrative mandamus is limited to quasi-judicial agency actions. See Talbot Cnty., 415 Md. at 394 , 2 A.3d at 357 (noting that “for administrative mandamus to lie in any given case, the underlying action being reviewed must be quasi-judicial in nature, where quasi-judicial action is synonymous with administrative adjudication”).

Administrative mandamus is not an available remedy to the Referendum Opponents in this case, because Mears was not engaged in adjudicating any dispute. On the other hand, a common law mandamus action is appropriate where “the relief sought involves the traditional enforcement of a ministerial act (a legal duty) by recalcitrant public officials,” but not where there is any “vestige of discretion” in the agency action or decision. South Easton Neighborhood As s’n v. Town of Easton, 387 Md. 468 , 477 n. 3, 876 A.2d 58 , 63 n. 3 (2005). “Ministerial acts are ‘duties in respect to which nothing is left to discretion [and are] distinguished from those [allowing] freedom and authority to make decisions ⁵¹² and choices.’” Talbot Cnty., 415 Md. at 397 , 2 A.3d at 359 (quoting State, Use, Clark v. Ferling, 220 Md. 109, 113 , 151 A.2d 137, 139 (1959)). Gisriel v. Ocean City Board of Supervisors of Elections, 345 Md. 477 , 693 A.2d 757 (1997) provides a relevant example of the types of actions that are considered in such an analysis.

In Gisriel , a registered voter of Ocean City sought to compel the Board of Elections to comply with the Ocean City Charter voter qualification terms and procedures for validating referendum petitions, after the City Council had allegedly improperly refused to validate the petition based on an insufficient number of signatures. This Court noted that, “whenever a referendum petition is filed, ... the Board must determine whether or not such registered voters are unqualified, and delete the names of those found to be unqualified” before making a determination on the validity of the petition, and that “this is a ministerial duty imposed as a matter of law .... [and] is an appropriate subject for a common law mandamus action.” Gisriel, 345 Md. at 498 , 693 A.2d at 767-68 . Similarly, in this case, Mears and the Town’s review and decision to approve the petition for referendum were actions taken pursuant to the ministerial duty of determining the validity of a petition for referendum under Article 23A, § 19(g). Additionally, Mears’s published procedures were intended to further the requirements of § 19(g).

Therefore, common law mandamus is an available remedy for the Referendum Opponents in this case. Although the Circuit Court characterized the case as an action for judicial review, this Court in Gisriel pointed out that, “even where a particular action against an administrative agency was allegedly brought under a statutory judicial review provision ... this Court has looked to the substance of the action, [holding] that it could be treated as a common law mandamus or certiorari action, and has exercised appellate jurisdiction.” Gisriel, 345 Md. at 500 , 693 A.2d at 768 . The common law mandamus action, therefore, may serve as a basis for this Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction. See id. ⁵¹³ (explaining that where the action was “in substance a common law mandamus action, the Court of Special Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under § 12-301 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article”).

In addition to common law mandamus, the Referendum Opponents specifically invoked the Declaratory Judgment Act in their amended complaint. 9 Generally, the Referendum Opponents asked that the court declare that “the referendum election cannot be held based on [this petition].” 10 As such, the Referendum Opponents properly invoked the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, sitting in Charles County, to hear and decide the issues raised in the application for declaratory judgment. Therefore, in our review of the case, the trial judge had, at least in substance, original jurisdiction to decide this case based on the request for declaratory judgment, or in the alternative, a common law mandamus action. Accordingly, we review the trial judge’s legal conclusion that the petition was flawed as a final judgment entered in the Circuit Court. 11 ⁵¹⁴ Specifically, we review the legal question of whether a valid petition “for a referendum on the resolution” was submitted under Article 23A, § 19(g). Additionally, we review whether, under § 19(g), the Town Manager had the authority to promulgate referendum validation procedures for the Town.

II

The question of the sufficiency of the petition for referendum turns on the construction and interpretation of Md.Code (1957, 2011 Repl.Vol.), Article 23A, § 19(g). The issue is what did the General Assembly intend to be presented to the voters in a petition for referendum under § 19(g). The Referendum Opponents argue that the petition pages were legally insufficient and that the Town Manager did not verify that they complied with Article 23A, § 19. As a result, they contend, the invalid petition and petition process rendered the referendum effort in the instant case fatally flawed.

First, the Referendum Opponents assert, as a matter of law, that the signature pages were not a “petition” under Article 23A, § 19. They argue that the statute is a precise rubric and authorizes a petition for referendum only on an annexation resolution. In the present case, however, the Referendum Opponents contend that the petition submitted to voters contained non-referable resolutions. Additionally, the resolutions ⁵¹⁵ cannot be considered “a single package” pertaining to the annexation resolution, the Referendum Opponents note, because the Town Council voted on each individual resolution separately and recorded different votes for different resolutions.

Moreover, they contend that the petition, as it stands, misleads the voters which ultimately undermines the integrity and reliability of the petition process. In response, the Referendum Supporters argue that Article 23A supplies broad grants of legislative power to the citizens of the State’s municipalities, including the right to petition their local legislative bodies to enact charter amendments or annex land, and the power of direct democracy through referendum. As such, the “mere mention — on the petition and ballot — of the three subsidiary resolutions as well as the [referable] annexation resolution [does not] violate[ ] the Annexation Statute and ... the referendum.” Specifically, they argue that the resolutions are “four interrelated parts of a single legislative objective, all four parts of which stand or fall together” and were presented to the voters for a single vote of approval or disapproval of the annexation. According to the Referendum Supporters, the inclusion of the subsidiary resolutions with the annexation resolution amounts to mere surplus-age, and to strike the petition down because of the subsidiary resolutions’ inclusion would exalt form over substance.

We begin our analysis by reviewing the applicable statute and statutory scheme at issue. Article XI-E of the Maryland Constitution governs all municipalities except Baltimore City, which is constitutionally the same as a home rule county. See Art. XI-A (relating to home rule counties and Baltimore City). A municipal corporation established pursuant to Art. XI-E is also subject to the provisions of Article 23A, § 19.

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Mayor of Rockville, 272 Md. 550, 558 , 325 A.2d 748 , 753 (1974). For example, although “[t]he extension of the boundaries of a municipality is a political matter ... regulated by the constitution or the legislature of the State ... the power to annex is delegated to the city or town by statute, ⁵¹⁶ since those political entities [would otherwise] have no inherent powers to add to their size.” Mayor of Rockville v. Brookeville Tpk. Constr. Co., 246 Md. 117, 128-29 , 228 A.2d 263, 270 (1967) (citation omitted).

The General Assembly has provided in Article 23A, § 19 the power to annex and the manner of exercising that power. Brookeville Tpk. Constr. Co., 246 Md. at 129 , 228 A.2d at 270 ; see also Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14, 26 , 63 A.3d 582, 590 (2013).

Section 19 further provides that municipal corporations have the power to annex land to municipal boundaries upon the initiative of the municipality's legislative body or upon presentation of a written petition by the residents of the area to be annexed. Mayor of Oakland v. Mayor of Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301, 322 , 896 A.2d 1036, 1049 (2006); Brookeville Tpk. Constr. Co., 246 Md. at 129 , 228 A.2d at 270 ; see also Article 23A, § 19(a), (b) and (c).

The proposal for annexation shall be by “resolution.” § 19(b)(1), (c). Section 19 specifies in several subsections that the “resolution” shall concern the enlargement of municipal boundaries. See, e.g., § 19(a); (b)(1) (“The proposal for change [enlarging the municipality’s corporate boundaries] may be initiated by resolution____”); § 19(j) (referring to the “resolution proposing a change in the corporate boundaries of the municipal corporation”); § 19(Z) (suggesting that the resolution is a “proposal for change”); § 19(m) (“The provisions of this section shall authorize an increase in the area within any municipal corporation only as to land which is not then within the corporate limits of any other municipal corporation.”) (emphasis added); § 19(n) (discussing “[t]he resolution to add to the corporate boundaries of a municipal corporation ... ”). Section 19 also provides for what is to be included in the resolution.

See, e.g., § 19(b)(1) (“The resolution shall describe “by a survey of courses and distances ... the exact area proposed to be included in the change, and shall contain complete and detailed provisions as to the conditions and circumstances applicable to the change in boundaries and to the residents and property within the area to be annexed.”). ⁵¹⁷ Additionally, in subsection (n), the nature of an annexation resolution is further explained: The resolution to add to the corporate boundaries of a municipal corporation shall provide generally that the persons residing in the area to be annexed, and their property, shall be added to the corporate boundaries, generally subject or not subject, as the case may be, to the provisions of the charter of the municipal corporation.... See § 19(n). We also note that § 19 provides for an “annexation plan” separate and apart from the resolution. See § 19(o)(l) (“In addition to, but not as a part of the resolution, the legislative body of the municipal corporation shall adopt an annexation plan for the area proposed to be annexed.”); see also Koste, 431 Md. at 34 , 63 A.3d at 594 (citations and quotations omitted) (noting that subsection (o) “provides that an annexation plan, containing additional information (not contained in the resolution necessarily), ... be made available at the public hearing[,]” and that the “amendments to the annexation plan may not be construed in any way as an amendment to the resolution, nor may they serve in any manner to cause a reinitiation of the annexation procedure then in process”).

The section of the Maryland Code on annexation also provides voters or the county in which the municipality is located with the opportunity to petition for a referendum election on the enacted annexation resolution. Article 23A, § 19(f), (g), and (h); see also Mayor of