Liddy v. Lamone - Maryland state court system

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 71 September Term, 2006 NIKOS STANFORD LIDDY v. LINDA H. LAMONE, ET AL. Bell, C. J. Raker *Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. Opinion by Bell, C. J. Filed: March 29, 2007 *Wilner, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.
This is the second of two cases involving the eligibility requirements of a candidate for the office of the Attorney General of Maryland. In Abrams v. Lamone, __ Md. __, __ A.2d __ (2007), this Court considered a petition by Stephen A. Abrams (“Abrams”) 1 challenging the eligibility of Thomas E. Perez (“Perez”) to hold the office of the Attorney General. In Abrams, a case of first impression for this Court, this Court was required to interpret Article V, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution, which provides: “No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney-General, who is not a citizen of this State, and a qualified voter therein, and has not resided and practiced Law in this State for at least ten years.” (Emphasis added). Concluding that Perez had not met the eligibility requirements, i.e., he had not been a member of the Maryland Bar for the requisite period, we reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, __ Md. at __, __ A.2d at __, which had ruled that Perez met the necessary qualifications to run in the 2006 Gubernatorial Primary Election. 2 1 Abrams filed his action in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on July 13, 2006. In it, he sought an order declaring that Perez did not have the qualifications required for the office of the Attorney General and injunctions requiring Perez to withdraw his certificate of candidacy and prohibiting Linda H. Lamone, in her official capacity as the State Administrator of Elections, and the State Board of Elections from placing Perez’s name on the ballot as a candidate for the office of the Attorney General. 2 This Court filed a Per Curiam Order on August 25, 2006, holding that Perez was not qualified to run for the office of the Attorney General and that his name was to be removed from the primary election ballot. The appellees sought modification of the portion of the Order that required Perez’s name to be removed from the ballot because they claimed, with only 18 days remaining before the primary election, that it was impossible for them to reprogram voting machines or reorder paper ballots for absentee and provisional voters in order to prepare an entirely new ballot. This Court granted the appellees’ motion and issued a modified Per Curiam Order on August 29, 2006. That Order directed the local boards of elections to post notices conspicuously in each polling
Page 1: Nikos Stanford Liddy v. Linda H. La
Page 5 and 6: As stated earlier, in order for one
Page 7 and 8: Liddy brought a challenge to Gansle
Page 9 and 10: On the issue of laches, the appelle
Page 11 and 12: esponse, noted an appeal to this Co
Page 13 and 14: defense in equity against stale cla
Page 15 and 16: that “in awarding or withholding
Page 17 and 18: v. Perez, 394 Md. 691, 708, 908 A.2
Page 19 and 20: issue is whether a party is preclud
Page 21 and 22: election cases and its own institut
Page 23 and 24: thus placed on this Court, as well
Page 25 and 26: sub judice threaten the exercise of

Liddy v. Lamone - Maryland state court system

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?