(The Center Square) – Maryland’s highest court explained why it removed a legislative candidate from this year’s Democratic primary ballot, saying he invalidated his certificate of candidacy by listing a residence where he did not live when he filed to run.
In a 40-page opinion filed Monday, the Supreme Court of Maryland explained the legal reasoning behind its April order removing John Calvin Dove Jr. from the District 12B Democratic primary ballot.
Dove challenged incumbent Del. Gary Simmons, D-Anne Arundel. Although Dove had been living in Gambrills, he listed a Pasadena address on his certificate of candidacy after changing his voter registration.
The court said Maryland election law requires candidates to list either the address on their voter registration or, if different, their current address. Because the Pasadena address was not where Dove resided when he filed, the court concluded his certificate of candidacy was invalid.
The case also centered on when Maryland’s constitutional six-month residency requirement takes effect. Simmons argued Dove was ineligible because he was not a District 12B resident when he filed to run. Dove argued the Constitution gave him until six months before the general election to establish residency.
The majority did not answer that constitutional question. Instead, it ruled the inaccurate address on Dove’s certificate of candidacy was enough to decide the case.
The majority said the Circuit Court correctly found that the Pasadena address “was not Mr. Dove’s domicile, residence, or his place of abode,” making the information on his certificate of candidacy a material misrepresentation. The opinion said a candidate who makes “a material misrepresentation on a certificate of candidacy,” including about a residential address, has an invalid certificate of candidacy.
Justice Peter Killough agreed Dove should remain off the ballot but disagreed with how the majority reached that result. In a concurring opinion, he said Dove made a good-faith mistake about when the residency requirement had to be satisfied rather than making a factual misrepresentation about where he lived.
“What Mr. Dove may have had wrong was the law: when he was obliged to be a District 12B resident. What he stated was the truth,” Killough wrote.
He said the majority “converted a mistake about a legal deadline into a misstatement of fact.”
