The Court of Appeals Takes the Case
We just got news through the grapevine that the Court of Appeals will hear the case.
The Montgomery County Board of Elections certified petitions calling for a referendum on the gender identity nondiscrimination law, even though there were very many errors on them, including apparent fraud and forgery. The Board argued that it's not their job to check whether signatures are forged or otherwise meet legal requirements, they said they're only supposed to see if the names are those of registered voters.
The group that submitted the petitions did not have the number required by law, which is five percent of registered voters. Nevertheless, the Board determined that the referendum should be held.
A Circuit Court judge heard arguments and ruled that it was okay if signatures failed to meet the legal standard in some cases. He also verified that the petitions did not have a sufficient number of signatures, but said that the complaint had been filed too late so it didn't matter.
Plaintiffs in the case, a group of MoCo citizens, appealed the ruling, and yesterday we learned that the court has decided to hear the case.
Here is the schedule as it's proposed so far:
A decision needs to be made pretty soon. Ballots need to be printed up, and if the court decides to allow the referendum there will be a lot of educating to do, gigantic campaigns on both sides, money to raise, publicity to put out. Attorney Jonathan Shurberg will argue this case for the plaintiffs.
The Montgomery County Board of Elections certified petitions calling for a referendum on the gender identity nondiscrimination law, even though there were very many errors on them, including apparent fraud and forgery. The Board argued that it's not their job to check whether signatures are forged or otherwise meet legal requirements, they said they're only supposed to see if the names are those of registered voters.
The group that submitted the petitions did not have the number required by law, which is five percent of registered voters. Nevertheless, the Board determined that the referendum should be held.
A Circuit Court judge heard arguments and ruled that it was okay if signatures failed to meet the legal standard in some cases. He also verified that the petitions did not have a sufficient number of signatures, but said that the complaint had been filed too late so it didn't matter.
Plaintiffs in the case, a group of MoCo citizens, appealed the ruling, and yesterday we learned that the court has decided to hear the case.
Here is the schedule as it's proposed so far:
- August 20: Plaintiff's brief
- August 28: BOE brief
- September 3: Plaintiff's reply/cross-appellee brief
- September 5: Cross-appellee reply brief
- September 8: Oral arguments
A decision needs to be made pretty soon. Ballots need to be printed up, and if the court decides to allow the referendum there will be a lot of educating to do, gigantic campaigns on both sides, money to raise, publicity to put out. Attorney Jonathan Shurberg will argue this case for the plaintiffs.
posted by JimK at 9:19 AM
3 Comments:
Andrea- not anon
So I had a talk today with my doctor from Shady Grove Hospital . I know this is one doctor who didn't sign Weepy Ruth's petition. At one point, John Edward's behavior came up and why people in the public eye do such things. We talked about Ted Haggard and this doctor said people who are publicly anti-gay and so hateful are trying to hide what they are themselves.
Really? Sounds like this doctor is a mental health expert.
Tell us more about your visit with the mental health expert, Andrea.
"A decision needs to be made pretty soon."
oh yeah
something needs to be decided fast
the stakes are, like, HUMUNGOUS, man
drag.hold.exhale.pass.
Post a Comment
<< Home