NEIL C. PARROTT, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN MCDONOUGH, et aI.,
*
IN THE
*
CIRCUIT COURT
*
FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
*
Case No. : 02-C-12-172298
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF GROUNDS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Paul J. Orfanedes
Md. Bar No. 9112190026
Chris Fedeli
Md. Bar No. 0012120179
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*
Plaintiffs Neil C. Parrott and MDPetitions.com ("Plaintiffs"), by counsel, respectfully
submit this Statement of Grounds and Authorities in Support of their motion for summary
judgment. As grounds thereof, Plaintiffs state as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION.
Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the ballot language for Question 5 of the
November 2012 General Election Ballot. Question 5 purports to describe Senate Bill 1, Chapter
1 of the 2011 Special Session of the Maryland General Assembly, also known as the
Congressional Districting Plan ("Senate Bill 1"). In the Summer of 2012, Plaintiffs successfully
led a petition drive to put Senate Bill 1 to referendum in the November 2012 General Election.
Senate Bill 1 has been described as both a "barefaced manipulation that stands as an
embarrassment to the state" and a blatant act of "impermissible political gerrymandering that
'crossed the line.'" See "Righting the tilted system of a gerrymandered map in Maryland," The
Washington Post, July 21, 2012; Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F. Supp. 2d 887,905 (D. Md. 2011)
(Titus, J., concurring). On July 20,2012, the State Board of Elections certified the measure for
placement on the November 2012 ballot. The Court of Appeals affirmed the placement of
Senate Bill 1 on the ballot in a per curiam order entered on August 17,2012. Only one business
day later, the Secretary of State prepared and certified the ballot language for Question 5.
The language of Question 5 is plainly insufficient as a matter of law. It fails to present
the purpose of Senate Bill 1 concisely or intelligently or otherwise permit an average voter to
exercise an intelligent choice in a meaningful way. At a mere 23 words, the substantive portion
of Question 5 is even shorter than the legislative title of Senate Bill 1. Question 5 states, in its
entirety, as follows:
1
displaying, or printing any ballots containing the ballot language prepared and certified by the
Secretary for Question 5 on August 20,2012; (3) ordering the Secretary to prepare revised ballot
language for Question 5 that complies with the requirements of the law and certify such language
to the State Board of Elections without further delay; (4) ordering the Administrator and the
State Board of Elections to certify, display, and print a revised ballot after the Secretary has
prepared and certified revised ballot language for Question 5 that complies with the requirements
ofthe law; and (5) granting Plaintiffs such other other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: September 4,2012
Respectfully submitted,
~~¥~
Paul J. OrfaJedes
.9112190026
C~
Chris Fedeli
Md. Bar No. 0012120179
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street, SW, Ste. 800
Washington, DC 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18