(4/18) As a result of a letter sent by the town's lawyer, and not revealed by Burgess Barnes until the closing of the polls on Saturday, and was used in justifying the nullification of all ballots that where cast that included votes for Williams for both Burgess and Town council has been found by this paper to be without merit - resulting in the nullification of the votes in question in violation of the Town code.
Specially, the letter sent by the town's lawyer asserts that "Maryland Law expressly prohibits a person from being a simultaneous candidate for more than one public office." Further, the letter cites Maryland elections code requiring that a write-in candidate must file a certificate of candidacy. Both assertions fail to recognize that the Maryland State Election laws cited do not apply to municipal elections, such as those recently held in Woodsboro.
However, The Summary Guide, Maryland Candidacy & Campaign Finance Laws, issued by the Maryland State Board of Elections in November, 2022 states: "Maryland election law does not regulate the conduct of municipal elections"
The General Assembly of Maryland, Department of Legislative Services Fact Sheet: Elections in Maryland reinforces the Summary Guide, stating that "Municipal elections (other than the Baltimore City elections) are primarily governed by each municipality's law...."
Therefore, municipal elections in Woodsboro are governed by the town's code, which does not prohibit a candidate from running for two offices as Williams did.
The letter provided by the town lawyer acknowledges that there is no Maryland Case Law regarding a case like this, and they cite Florida case law Fair vs Adams (139 So.2d 879 (1962)) and provide a select quote from the conclusion of the justices. However, the letter fails to acknowledge that the same case judgement recognizes other state courts (Nevada and Illinois) have issued rulings that do not prohibit candidates from seeking election to more than one public office.
While it may be prudent or even advisable to restrict a candidate from running for more than one elected public office, doing so without the appropriate steps to codify that restriction undermines the confidence in the election itself. Lacking specific Maryland Case Law, invoking such a requirement without a change to the Woodsboro municipal code would seem to violate the requirement that such changes receive public notice and hearings, and therefore in itself, is a violation of town code.
The lack of jurisdiction of state election law over town codes was confirmed by the Town Managers of Thurmont, Walkersville and Taneytown. Interestingly enough, the town of Walkersville noticed the disconnect and inserted such language into their code, but without it "It would be legal for someone to run for both Burgess and Town council." The lack of jurisdiction of Maryland election, and/or county election laws over municipal elections was also affirmed by County Executive Jessica Fitzwater and County Council Brad Young.
The basis of nullifying the votes of 78 residents of Woodsboro in the election on Saturday is not supported by either Maryland Election statutes or Woodsboro municipal election codes. The facts supporting the actions need to be brought to light so that there is transparency and confidence in our process to conduct elections.
For the record, it was quite easy to find the sources cited about the Maryland election laws and to determine that those laws, specifically those that apply to candidacy, do not apply to municipalities, which raises serious questions concerning the legal advice provided to the town.
Though the nullified votes won’t change the result of the burgess or council races, we must address the reasons for their rejection to maintain confidence in our elections. Specifically, the paper intends - in time for the next edition - to determine what instructions were given to the election judges with regards to nullifying ballots, and specifically who provided those directions and when.
If it is determined that the election judges were directed by the current Burgess to nullify the ballots, then there is a clear ethical concern that needs to be addressed as he was a candidate in the election and had a vested personal interest in its outcome
It is the papers intention to reach out to the County Board of Elections - even though they have no oversight over Woodsboro's election - to seek guidance as we proceed. The paper will also seek the advice and counsel of a Frederick County lawyer with municipal law expertise.
As we conduct our investigation into the events leading up to the nullification of 78 resident votes, we will update their website accordingly.
Read other news articles on Woodsboro
