Turf Valley referendum halted after review of signatures
Campaign was aimed at blocking larger grocery store
By Derek Simmonsen
dsimmonsen@patuxent.com
Posted 3/13/09
A referendum drive to block an expanded grocery store at Turf Valley has been blocked after a review concluded that many of the signatures collected were invalid.
The review by the county Board of Elections was prompted by a recent Maryland Court of Appeals decision that clarified how signatures on petition forms are verified.
The decision to stop the referendum stunned the leader of the drive, who said he was investigating ways to keep the effort alive, including asking state legislators to address the issue before they close this year’s session next month.
“It’s not just about Turf Valley,” said Turf Valley resident Marc Norman, the referendum campaign's leader. “This is a serious statewide issue.”
In November, the County Council unanimously approved a zoning change that allows developer Greenberg Gibbons Commercial to build a grocery store of up to 55,000 square feet, more than three times the previous permissible size of 18,000 square feet, at a planned shopping center in Turf Valley in Ellicott City.
In response, Howard County Citizens for Open Government launched a referendum drive to overturn the council decision. The group had to submit signatures in two batches — one batch of 2,500 in January and another 2,500 in February — in order for the referendum to be on the November 2010 general election ballot.
The group submitted the required number of signatures in January, and Norman said they submitted enough in February to place the referendum on the ballot.
However, the elections board put a hold on verifying the second batch of signatures after Greenberg Gibbons sued the county and Norman’s group.
Board of Elections Director Betty Nordaas said March 13 that the board went back and reviewed the initial batch of signatures in light of a December Maryland Court of Appeals decision.
While waiting for the state elections office to create new guidelines based on that decision, the local board asked the board attorney to review it. He concluded that it had a significant impact on the referendum, and after getting advice on some specific questions from the state attorney general’s office, Nordaas said they went back and reviewed the signatures again.
Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, confirmed that they clarified some legal questions raised by the Howard County board, but did not give them any specific directives on what to do.
The Court of Appeals decision that led Nordaas to review the signatures is Jane Doe v. the Montgomery County Board of Elections. It dealt with citizen efforts to overturn a Montgomery County law that added “gender identity” as a protected class under the county’s anti-discrimination laws.
One part of the opinion deals with what type of information people must put down when they sign their names on a petition form. The court said voters must use the exact name that is on their voter registration, or use their full first and last names, along with a middle initial. Variations on a name — Joe instead of Joseph, for example — are not acceptable.
The opinion states the requirement is “mandatory, not suggestive.”
After elections workers invalidated more than 1,000 signatures using this criteria, Nordaas said the referendum failed because there was no way for Norman’s group to get the 2,500 signatures needed as part of the first batch.
Nordaas said she told Norman’s group about the decision during an evening meeting March 12.
Norman said his group communicated with state and local elections officials throughout the process to make sure they were doing everything proper, and argued that it was unfair for the board to retroactively invalidate signatures.
He said the high court’s decision could make it harder for other citizen groups to win a referendum.
Norman said his own signature on the petition form may be invalid because he did not use his middle name, which is part of his voter registration.
Meanwhile, Paul Kendall, a Turf Valley resident and local activist, filed a lawsuit in federal court March 16 against the county and the county and state boards of elections. Kendall said his signature is among those that would be invalid because he did not sign his full name or include his middle initial.
In his complaint, Kendall, who is representing himself, said the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision relating to the form of signatures was not an essential part of the overall opinion and therefore can be ignored by the local elections board.
The decision to apply a strict standard on reviewing signatures effectively disenfranchised thousands of people who signed the petitions between December and February, his complaint states.
This story has been updated.
The review by the county Board of Elections was prompted by a recent Maryland Court of Appeals decision that clarified how signatures on petition forms are verified.
The decision to stop the referendum stunned the leader of the drive, who said he was investigating ways to keep the effort alive, including asking state legislators to address the issue before they close this year’s session next month.
“It’s not just about Turf Valley,” said Turf Valley resident Marc Norman, the referendum campaign's leader. “This is a serious statewide issue.”
In November, the County Council unanimously approved a zoning change that allows developer Greenberg Gibbons Commercial to build a grocery store of up to 55,000 square feet, more than three times the previous permissible size of 18,000 square feet, at a planned shopping center in Turf Valley in Ellicott City.
In response, Howard County Citizens for Open Government launched a referendum drive to overturn the council decision. The group had to submit signatures in two batches — one batch of 2,500 in January and another 2,500 in February — in order for the referendum to be on the November 2010 general election ballot.
The group submitted the required number of signatures in January, and Norman said they submitted enough in February to place the referendum on the ballot.
However, the elections board put a hold on verifying the second batch of signatures after Greenberg Gibbons sued the county and Norman’s group.
Board of Elections Director Betty Nordaas said March 13 that the board went back and reviewed the initial batch of signatures in light of a December Maryland Court of Appeals decision.
While waiting for the state elections office to create new guidelines based on that decision, the local board asked the board attorney to review it. He concluded that it had a significant impact on the referendum, and after getting advice on some specific questions from the state attorney general’s office, Nordaas said they went back and reviewed the signatures again.
Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, confirmed that they clarified some legal questions raised by the Howard County board, but did not give them any specific directives on what to do.
The Court of Appeals decision that led Nordaas to review the signatures is Jane Doe v. the Montgomery County Board of Elections. It dealt with citizen efforts to overturn a Montgomery County law that added “gender identity” as a protected class under the county’s anti-discrimination laws.
One part of the opinion deals with what type of information people must put down when they sign their names on a petition form. The court said voters must use the exact name that is on their voter registration, or use their full first and last names, along with a middle initial. Variations on a name — Joe instead of Joseph, for example — are not acceptable.
The opinion states the requirement is “mandatory, not suggestive.”
After elections workers invalidated more than 1,000 signatures using this criteria, Nordaas said the referendum failed because there was no way for Norman’s group to get the 2,500 signatures needed as part of the first batch.
Nordaas said she told Norman’s group about the decision during an evening meeting March 12.
Norman said his group communicated with state and local elections officials throughout the process to make sure they were doing everything proper, and argued that it was unfair for the board to retroactively invalidate signatures.
He said the high court’s decision could make it harder for other citizen groups to win a referendum.
Norman said his own signature on the petition form may be invalid because he did not use his middle name, which is part of his voter registration.
Meanwhile, Paul Kendall, a Turf Valley resident and local activist, filed a lawsuit in federal court March 16 against the county and the county and state boards of elections. Kendall said his signature is among those that would be invalid because he did not sign his full name or include his middle initial.
In his complaint, Kendall, who is representing himself, said the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision relating to the form of signatures was not an essential part of the overall opinion and therefore can be ignored by the local elections board.
The decision to apply a strict standard on reviewing signatures effectively disenfranchised thousands of people who signed the petitions between December and February, his complaint states.
This story has been updated.
user comments (0)
Advertisement
most popular
- read
- emailed
Advertisement
Advertisement