State elections officials are asking an Anne Arundel County judge to stay her order on a ballot question in Baltimore City pending an appeal before the Supreme Court of Maryland. File photo by Bryan P. Sears.
State elections officials are asking an Anne Arundel County judge to delay her order striking a question on the future of the Inner Harbor from the Baltimore City ballot, so that the state’s highest court can review the case.
The request for a stay from Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Cathleen Vitale comes four days after she sided with plaintiffs who are seeking to have a question on the redevelopment of Harborplace stricken from the ballot.
Ballots have already been sent out to voters including to those overseas. The Maryland State Board of Elections argued that a stay of Vitale’s order would protect the ability of city voters to cast a vote on the issue. If the Supreme Court of Maryland later affirms her order, the votes on the redevelopment question would not be counted.
“The State Board seeks to avoid the inadvertent disenfranchisement that this court’s nullification order will cause,” Daniel Kobrin, an assistant attorney general for the board, wrote in his motion. “Having learned about the order and its effect on the election, voters may choose to not vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ a proposed charter amendment that they believe has been canceled.”
State Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis said a stay would create a “no harm, no foul” scenario while the state Supreme Court reviews Vitale’s ruling. The board filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Maryland on Friday.
“Because Baltimore City voters now have the ability to cast ballots, we don’t want to have them not cast a vote on question F while it’s being determined at the Supreme Court,” said DeMarinis in an interview Friday. “Once a voter has cast their ballot and put it in the drop box, there are no redos. It’s been cast and will be counted.”
The ballot question, if approved by voters, would clear the way for redevelopment of the city’s Inner Harbor area. Developers and the city want to redevelop the existing retail pavilions. Built by The Rouse Company, the pavilions opened in 1980 and signaled a renaissance for the downtown area. In recent years, the pavilions have lost their luster and tenants.
City officials and MCB Real Estate want to replace the current buildings with mixed use retail and residential. The plan has drawn criticism as a developer giveaway that will limit public access to the waterfront.
A group of city voters led by Anthony J. Ambridge, a former Baltimore City Council member, filed suit on Sept. 5 in Anne Arundel County seeking to have the question stricken from the ballot. The group challenged both the legality of the question and the wording.
Legal challenges to ballots must be filed in Anne Arundel County where the Maryland State Board of Elections is located.
Earlier in the day, attorneys representing Baltimore City and MCB Real Estate, the developer for the Harborplace, filed motions to intervene in the case and have Vitale’s decision reconsidered. P. David Bramble, owner of MCB Real Estate, is a Baltimore native.
“We appreciate the opportunity to intervene and will be asking the Supreme Court to give the people of Baltimore City the right to vote on this issue,” said a MCB spokesperson in a statement.
Vitale, a former Republican state delegate who was appointed to the bench by Democratic former Gov. Martin O’Malley, rejected the motions to intervene by the city and MCB. She also rejected the city’s motion for reconsideration.
Thiru Vignarajah, attorney for the plaintiffs and a former candidate for Baltimore mayor, said the appeal was not unexpected.
“I think it was quite telling that we learned in court for the first time today that part of the negotiation, apparently, way back when, during the development, was either a wink, wink, nod, nod, or a explicit affirmation by the city that they would amend the charter,” Vignarajah said.
“It’s quite an extraordinary development, but I think it only underscored why this is the classic legislative act, and even if it was comprehensible, is probably not the right subject for a city charter,” he said.