Liddy v. Lamone - Maryland state court system

inging such claims. The court stated that “[t]ime is of particular importance because all
disputes must be resolved before the printing of absentee ballots.” 144 P.3d at 512. The
court went on to say that “[u]nreasonable delay can therefore prejudice the administration of
justice by compelling the court to ‘steamroll through...delicate legal issues in order to meet’
the ballot printing deadlines.” Id., quoting Mathieu v. Mahoney, 851 P.2d 81, 84 (Ariz.
1993); State ex rel. Fidanque v. Paulus, 688 P.2d 1303, 1308 (Or. 1984).
While we recognize and respect the seriousness of the appellant’s claim, we hold that
the Circuit Court erred in failing to apply the equitable doctrine of laches to bar the
appellant’s claim, as his actions, coupled with the less favorable position in which Gansler,
the State Board, and the electorate as a whole were placed, were too disruptive of the election
apparatus to be consistent with the objective of an orderly election. Allowing challenges to
be brought at such a late date would call into question the value and the quality of our entire
elections process and would only serve as a catalyst for future challenges. Such delayed
challenges go to the core of our democratic system and cannot be tolerated.
It is for the forgoing reasons that we vacated the judgment of the Circuit Court.
24