Liddy v. Lamone - Maryland state court system

specifically on Melendez v. O’Connor, 654 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2002), dismissed the
appellees’ laches argument, concluding that “it would be 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.” We do not agree. To
be sure, this Court has stated, see Ross, 387 Md. at 671 n.9, 876 A.2d at 705 n.9, that there
may be instances where laches would be inapplicable, and even further, that, perhaps, a
dispute concerning the eligibility requirements of a candidate to run for office should not be
given a laches analysis, id., the facts presented by the case sub judice, however, do not
constitute such an instance.
In Melendez, the court held that a petition brought by citizens to have a candidate for
state representative removed from the ballot on the grounds that he did not meet the
residency requirements was not barred by laches. 654 N.W.2d at 117. The court reasoned
that “regardless of whether there has been an unreasonable delay by petitioners in filing their
petition, there would be no prejudice to [the candidate] or others in granting the
relief...[t]here is nothing in the record indicating that [the candidate] was prejudiced by the
timing of the filing of the petition.” Id. Melendez is distinguishable from the case sub judice
for two distinct reasons.
First, the citizens’ petition in Melendez was filed on October 2, 2002, over a month
before the November 5, 2002 general election was to take place. Here, the appellant brought
his challenge on October 20, 2006, only 18 days before the November 7, 2006 general
election, claiming that it was proper under the statutory provisions governing the election.
The case was heard October 25, 2006 in the Circuit Court and then on November 2, 2006 in
this Court, leaving only 5 days remaining before the general election. The time constraints
20