Laserfiche WebLink
October 25, 2014 1 Volume 8 I.Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin <br />In so holding, the court explained that those seeking a referendum <br />must comply strictly with the conditions prescribed —such as the <br />requirement under Election Law Article § 6-201(c) that the referen- <br />dum petition provide a "fair and accurate summary of the substan- <br />tive provisions of the proposal." When those seeking a referendum <br />fail to strictly comply with conditions prescribed, "the proposed ref- <br />erendum must fail," said the court. <br />Further, as a matter of apparent first impression (i.e., the first time <br />a court in Maryland addressed the issue), the court held that to be <br />"fair and accurate" as required by Election Law Article § 6- <br />201(c)(2), the language of a referendum petition must: "be free from <br />misleading tendency, amplification, or omission" to permit voters to <br />exercise "intelligent and enlightened judgment" as to whether to <br />sign the referendum petition. "In short, it must be, in the words of <br />[Election Law Article] § 6-201(c)(2)(i), 'fair and accurate.' " <br />Here, the court found the Citizens' referendum petition "clearly <br />fail[ed] to meet that standard." For example, the court found the pe- <br />tition was "inaccurate and misleading" in that it suggested that the <br />Ordinance would affect the zoning classification of two specific <br />properties, when, in fact, the Ordinance would not do so. The court <br />also found that the "fairness and accuracy" of the petition was "fur- <br />ther impaired" by the statement that the Ordinance would allow the <br />"application of treated human waste," when, in fact, the Ordinance <br />simply would allow "soil amendments" and made no reference to <br />human waste. <br />See also: Anne Arundel County v. McDonough, 277 Md. 271, 354 <br />A.2d 788 (1976) (addressing standard for language on a ballot). <br />Case Note: <br />In rendering its decision, the Court of Special Appeals noted that the issue <br />of whether the Election Director had correctly ascertained that the peti- <br />tion did not fairly and accurately describe and interpret certain provisions <br />of the county law was a question of law for which the court could substitute <br />its judgment for that of the Election Director. <br />Case Note: <br />Given the "time constraints of this expedited appeal, " the court specifi- <br />cally addressed "only a few" of the petitionary inaccuracies. <br />4 ©, 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />