Turf Valley grocery store critics have day in court
Argue that elections board unfairly rejected names on petitions
By Jennifer Broadwater
jbroadwater@patuxent.com
Posted 11/13/09
A group of Howard County residents appeared in Circuit Court Friday to fight for the likes of Dave, Chris, Lisa and Wm.
And to continue their battle against County Council approval of a large grocery store planned for Turf Valley, in Ellicott City.
The rights of the residents — whose proper names are David, Christopher, Elisabeth and William — were unfairly disregarded by county officials because of the way those residents chose to sign a petition, according to members of Howard County Citizens For Open Government.
“It’s a fundamental act of our democratic process — to be involved, to sign a petition,” said attorney Walter Carson, who represents the residents’ group. “We really do believe there was fundamental unfairness here in how this was carried out.”
At a civil, non-jury trial, Circuit Court Judge Timothy McCrone heard the residents’ arguments, and those of the county Board of Elections, whose attorney argued that the board was simply following the letter of the law in disqualifying the residents’ signatures.
“It’s been a matter of law since the elections laws were passed,” said board attorney Gerald Richman.
McCrone said he would issue a written opinion at an unspecified later date.
The lawsuit, filed March 20 by Howard County Citizens For Open Government and its leaders, Ellicott City residents Marc Norman and Angela Beltram, concerns the residents’ efforts to block construction of an expanded grocery store at Turf Valley.
Residents launched the referendum initiative after the County Council unanimously approved, in November 2008, 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.
The residents collected signatures on a petition that sought to overturn the County Council’s approval of the store by taking the matter to referendum on the November 2010 general election ballot.
The group submitted one batch of signatures in January and another in February to the Board of Elections.
However, the board ultimately concluded that more than 80 percent of the signatures were invalid, causing the petition for referendum to fail for lack of enough valid signatures.
Board of Elections Director Betty Nordaas said many of the signatures did not meet criteria set forth in a December 2008 decision by the state’s high court, which stated that voters must sign petitions using the exact name that is on their voter registration, or their full first and last names, along with a middle initial. Variations on a name — Joe instead of Joseph, for example — are not acceptable.
During Friday’s trial, Carson argued that citizens’ fundamental rights were violated because their petition seeking referendum was unfairly disqualified — an action they contend is tantamount to being denied the right to vote.
Petition drive organizers worked closely with the elections board in an effort to meet all requirements, Carson said, adding that those who signed the petition did “the best they can to have their voices be heard. They signed their names to these petitions, provided by the Board of Elections. They did so in good faith.”
Carson added that he and his clients believe the Board of Elections staff members are good people who work hard, but that, in this case, events “went terribly wrong.”
The group asked McCrone to order the Board of Elections to revalidate the first batch of signatures and resume counting those in the second batch.
But Richman told McCrone the case should be dismissed.
“I don’t see this as a right-to-vote case. It just isn’t,” Richman said. “We didn’t do anything but carry out the dictates of the law. ... I don’t see how fundamental fairness is an issue.”
He added that the residents’ complaints do not provide enough specificity or evidence that their rights were violated.
Richman also took issue with Carson’s contention that the resident group “worked closely” with the board staff. He said the staff fulfilled their duties, but would not, in any case, go so far as to “look over the shoulder” of any signature-gathering efforts.
McCrone asked Richman to explain how “the average citizen” would know how each signer’s name was precisely recorded in county records.
Richman responded that the residents could have asked for a print-out of all registered voters in the county to verify the signatures, and could have requested that each signer to use the proper form of their name.
In his closing statement, Carson said it would be “impractical” for any petitioner to carry around hundreds of thousands of signatures.
Brandon Holmes, grassroots director for the Citizens in Charge Foundation, a Virginia-based non-profit committed to expanding ballot initiatives and the referendum process, attended the Nov. 13 trial to support the ciizens’ group.
Regulations for certifying signatures in other states are not as strict as the requirements applied to the group’s petition, he said in an interview before the trial, and denying the petition could set a nation-wide precedent.
“We think the will of the signer should be honored,” Holmes said.
Staff writer Sarah Breitenbach contributed to this report.
And to continue their battle against County Council approval of a large grocery store planned for Turf Valley, in Ellicott City.
The rights of the residents — whose proper names are David, Christopher, Elisabeth and William — were unfairly disregarded by county officials because of the way those residents chose to sign a petition, according to members of Howard County Citizens For Open Government.
“It’s a fundamental act of our democratic process — to be involved, to sign a petition,” said attorney Walter Carson, who represents the residents’ group. “We really do believe there was fundamental unfairness here in how this was carried out.”
At a civil, non-jury trial, Circuit Court Judge Timothy McCrone heard the residents’ arguments, and those of the county Board of Elections, whose attorney argued that the board was simply following the letter of the law in disqualifying the residents’ signatures.
“It’s been a matter of law since the elections laws were passed,” said board attorney Gerald Richman.
McCrone said he would issue a written opinion at an unspecified later date.
The lawsuit, filed March 20 by Howard County Citizens For Open Government and its leaders, Ellicott City residents Marc Norman and Angela Beltram, concerns the residents’ efforts to block construction of an expanded grocery store at Turf Valley.
Residents launched the referendum initiative after the County Council unanimously approved, in November 2008, 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.
The residents collected signatures on a petition that sought to overturn the County Council’s approval of the store by taking the matter to referendum on the November 2010 general election ballot.
The group submitted one batch of signatures in January and another in February to the Board of Elections.
However, the board ultimately concluded that more than 80 percent of the signatures were invalid, causing the petition for referendum to fail for lack of enough valid signatures.
Board of Elections Director Betty Nordaas said many of the signatures did not meet criteria set forth in a December 2008 decision by the state’s high court, which stated that voters must sign petitions using the exact name that is on their voter registration, or their full first and last names, along with a middle initial. Variations on a name — Joe instead of Joseph, for example — are not acceptable.
During Friday’s trial, Carson argued that citizens’ fundamental rights were violated because their petition seeking referendum was unfairly disqualified — an action they contend is tantamount to being denied the right to vote.
Petition drive organizers worked closely with the elections board in an effort to meet all requirements, Carson said, adding that those who signed the petition did “the best they can to have their voices be heard. They signed their names to these petitions, provided by the Board of Elections. They did so in good faith.”
Carson added that he and his clients believe the Board of Elections staff members are good people who work hard, but that, in this case, events “went terribly wrong.”
The group asked McCrone to order the Board of Elections to revalidate the first batch of signatures and resume counting those in the second batch.
But Richman told McCrone the case should be dismissed.
“I don’t see this as a right-to-vote case. It just isn’t,” Richman said. “We didn’t do anything but carry out the dictates of the law. ... I don’t see how fundamental fairness is an issue.”
He added that the residents’ complaints do not provide enough specificity or evidence that their rights were violated.
Richman also took issue with Carson’s contention that the resident group “worked closely” with the board staff. He said the staff fulfilled their duties, but would not, in any case, go so far as to “look over the shoulder” of any signature-gathering efforts.
McCrone asked Richman to explain how “the average citizen” would know how each signer’s name was precisely recorded in county records.
Richman responded that the residents could have asked for a print-out of all registered voters in the county to verify the signatures, and could have requested that each signer to use the proper form of their name.
In his closing statement, Carson said it would be “impractical” for any petitioner to carry around hundreds of thousands of signatures.
Brandon Holmes, grassroots director for the Citizens in Charge Foundation, a Virginia-based non-profit committed to expanding ballot initiatives and the referendum process, attended the Nov. 13 trial to support the ciizens’ group.
Regulations for certifying signatures in other states are not as strict as the requirements applied to the group’s petition, he said in an interview before the trial, and denying the petition could set a nation-wide precedent.
“We think the will of the signer should be honored,” Holmes said.
Staff writer Sarah Breitenbach contributed to this report.
user comments (2)
user independent says...
Subjective law enforcement is corrupt. In order to 'uncorrupt', all past decisions must be reversed, or this law must be repealed back to the first challenge. Rights provided by our US Constitution are at stake and were heard for one hour yesterday. One hour is not nearly enough to lay out the numbers of ways that subjective law enforcement is destructive to our democracy. Many people are watching, and this will not end any time soon.
Posted 7:07 AM, 11.14.09 | Permalink
user citizentaxpayerjane says...
This is not about Turf Valley. None of us can petition our government if some judge does not have the backbone to realize it's an attack on our freedoms.
Posted 6:45 AM, 11.16.09 | Permalink
Advertisement
most popular
- read
- emailed
Advertisement
Advertisement