Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin . October 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 20 MARYLAND (08/28/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a referendum petition "fairly and accurately" described the challenged portions of an ordinance as required to certify the petition. The case also addressed the issue of what the language of a referendum petition must include to be "fair and accurate" as required by Election Law Article § 6-201(c)(2). The Background/Facts: In August 2013, the Howard County Council enacted Ordinance 32-2013 (the "Ordinance"). The Ordi- nance adopted the 2013 Comprehensive Zoning Plan of Howard County. Soon thereafter, Citizens Working, to Fix Howard County (the "Citizens") (whose officers included Jane Gray and Lisa Markovitz) submitted a proposed referendum petition to the County Election Director. After the Citizens tendered the required number of signatures, within the prescribed time period, the Election Direc- tor reviewed the referendum petition. In November 2013, the Election Director determined that the pe- tition did "not meet all legal requirements as set forth in 6-201(c)(2)(i) of the election law [(Md. Code § 6-201(c)(2) of the Election Law Article)]." Section 6-201(c)(2) states that a petition that seeks to place a question on the ballot must provide: "a fair and accurate summary of the substantive provisions of the proposal." The Election Director determined that the referendum petition did not contain "a fair and accurate summary of the substantive provi- sions of the proposal." In December 2013, the Citizens filed a petition for judicial review. The Citizens challenged the Election Director's determination. The circuit court affirmed the Election Director's determination. The judge found a number of deficiencies in the Citizen's summary of the contested portions of the ordinance. More specifically, the judge determined that some provisions of the Citizen's petition were either "not accurate," "misleading," "lacking in precision" or "clar- ity," and/or "intended to create an emotional reaction" from potential signatories. The judge therefore concluded that "[t]aken as a whole, the attempt to summarize the portions of the Ordinance for the referendum [fell] well short of the fair and accurate standard." The Citizens appealed. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that the Citizens' referendum petition did not fairly and accurately describe the chal- lenged portions of the Ordinance as required by the Election Law Article § 6-201(c)(2). ©2014 Thomson Reuters 3