The Maryland Supreme Court building. File Photo by Bennett Leckrone.
State elections officials are asking the Supreme Court of Maryland to overturn a lower court ruling that would block them from counting votes on a Baltimore City ballot question, and could derail the redevelopment of the Inner Harbor area.
In a 63-page brief filed Friday, attorneys for the Maryland State Board of Elections said a group of city voters waited too long to challenge the ballot question, Question F, in court.
“The voters could have brought their challenge much sooner, because the Baltimore City solicitor drafted and certified the language of Ballot Question F on August 2, 2024, 37 days before the voters filed,” attorneys for the state board wrote in their brief filed Friday. “And the mayor and City Council enacted the resolution creating the charter amendment that the voters assail as inappropriate ‘charter material’ six months earlier, on March 11, 2024.”
The plaintiffs are a group of city voters led by Anthony J. Ambridge, a former Baltimore City Council member, who wanted to block a ballot question that, if approved by voters, would allow for the private redevelopment of Harborplace.
Plaintiffs filed their challenge in Anne Arundel County — as is required by law for cases involving elections — days after ballots had been printed. Those ballots are now reaching voters.
The opponents argued that Question F was not “charter material,” suitable for a ballot question, but is a zoning issue that should be handled by the Baltimore City Council.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Cathleen Vitale last week agreed with the opponents that Question F should not be on the ballot. Because ballots had already been printed and mailed, however, she did not order that the question be stricken from the ballot, only that election officials “not certify the results” for Question F when counting ballots.
The elections board last week appealed Vitale’s ruling, and the case has been fast-tracked for a hearing before the Supreme Court in less than two weeks.
The ongoing legal battle has the potential to confuse voters, state Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis said last week.
Attorneys for the state board also argue that Vitale erred when she sided with those plaintiffs and ordered the Baltimore City Board of Elections not to count votes on the issue.
Built by The Rouse Company, the Inner Harbor pavilions opened in 1980 and signaled a renaissance for the downtown area. But those pavilions today are a shadow of their former selves.
City officials and MCB Real Estate want to replace the current buildings with mixed-use retail and residential. Question F would clear the way for the public land to be privately redeveloped.
Critics see it as a developer giveaway. They fear public access to the waterfront will be eliminated.
The state board of elections is joined in its appeal by Baltimore City and MCB HP Baltimore LLC, the developer of the proposed Harborplace project.
“This court need not and should not reach the merits of either the ‘charter material’ issue or the ballot language issue. Neither were properly before the circuit court because of the lateness,” Timothy Maloney, a former state delegate and attorney for the developer, wrote in a brief filed Friday.
Attorneys for the city argue in their brief that Vitale’s order “is both procedurally improper and legally incorrect.” The brief goes on to argue that Vitale’s “substantive rulings were legally erroneous” and that Ambridge and his group waited too long to challenge the ballot question.
Briefs from attorneys representing Ambridge are due on Oct. 3, with any reply briefs due on Friday, Oct. 4. Oral arguments on the case are set for Monday, Oct. 7, a little more than four weeks before Election Day.