Liddy v. Lamone - Maryland state court system

Elections, 387 Md. 649, 671, 876 A.2d 692, 705 (2005), held that application of laches was
inappropriate in a situation such as the case sub judice. It determined that Liddy was “not
responsible for any inexcusable delay in the processing of his complaint [and found] it
inappropriate to allow the general election to go forward without examining whether a
candidate who may become this State’s next Attorney General is constitutionally eligible to
hold that office.” The court further noted, on the issue of prejudice, that “Mr. Gansler
cannot be prejudiced because if, in fact, he does not meet the eligibility requirements, he
ought not to be on the ballot. The S[tate] B[oard of] E[lections] is not prejudiced because
it is undisputed that at this late date, there is nothing that can be done to alter the makeup of
the ballot for this election.” On the other hand, the court noted that “Plaintiff [Liddy] and
similarly situated voters would be prejudiced if an ineligible candidate were to remain on the
ballot because of a delay in finding out about the lack of eligibility.”
Although the appellant prevailed on the dispositive motions, the Circuit Court
ultimately ruled in favor of Gansler and his continued candidacy for the office of the
Attorney General. The appellant, pursuant to § 12-203(a) 11 of the Election Law Article, in
11Maryland Code (2003, 2006 Cum. Supp.) § 12-203(a) of the Election Law Article
provides:
“(a) In general. A proceeding under this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance
with the Maryland Rules, except that:
“(1) the proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury and as
expeditiously as the circumstances require;
“(2) on the request of a party or sua sponte, the chief administrative judge
of the circuit court may assign the case to a three-judge panel of circuit
court judges; and
8