Gazette Reports on the Appeals Court Opinion

Because the appeal court's opinion just came out, The Gazette had a longish article yesterday, reviewing the gender-identity nondiscrimination case and what the court's decision implies. It starts like this:

A decision by the state's highest court last month on the county's transgender case upheld rules that make it more difficult for groups to put referendum issues on the ballot.

The Court of Appeals issued the 63-page opinion after ruling in September that a referendum proposed by a conservative group seeking to overturn the county's new law that bans discrimination against transgendered people could not go on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Montgomery County Board of Elections erred in saying the group needed signatures from 5 percent of active registered voters. Instead, the elections law requires signatures from 5 percent of all voters, whether active or inactive, thus requiring a greater number of signatures. Inactive voters hadn't voted in more than three election cycles.

In addition, the court ruled, the elections board should not have simply checked the signatures of those who signed the petition to see if they were registered voters, but also should have checked to see if the signatures were valid. A valid signature has a person's full name and complete address. Transgender decision tightens referendum rules

Skipping down, I liked the way The Gazette described the controversy:

A group called Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government claimed the law would allow men to enter women's restrooms and changing areas and sought to overturn it.

I notice that this has not happened.

"The referendum process is drastic, and the Court of Appeals has said repeatedly the rules must be strictly complied with," said Natalie Chin, an attorney for gay activist group Lambda Legal who worked on the case.

"What the Court of Appeals did is say the referendum process cannot be taken lightly, and if you're going to change a duly-enacted law you have to strictly comply with the law."

"We think it''s a big loss for democracy, for Montgomery County and for privacy and safety for women," Ruth M. Jacobs, president of Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, said in September.

You would think it would be embarrassing, wouldn't you? This law has been in effect now for nearly three months, and there is no loss of privacy, nothing dangerous for women. Before the law passed they could scream and whine that such-and-such was going to happen, but it didn't happen. The only man-in-the-ladies-room we have seen here is the one the Citizens for Responsible Whatever sent into the ladies showers at Rio as a publicity stunt before the law was in effect. Oh, and a foreign guy who helped his wife with the baby while she tried on clothes at Kohls.

But Chin said the appellate decision strengthens democracy.

"It doesn't break new ground. But it is nice to have a newer case on the books to strengthen the idea you have to follow election law very strictly," she said.

Jonathan S. Shurberg, an attorney for Equality Maryland, said the county's charter, state election law and the Court of Appeals' previous rulings made it clear that Citizens for Responsible Government needed more signatures and had not gathered them properly.

Shurberg had argued that the county's charter, state law and a previous Court of Appeals ruling require that petitioners meet the higher number.

"You should err on the side of allowing people to vote, but this wasn't about voting," he said. "This was about a referendum and the signatures."

This can be a good exercise in democracy. Maybe it's unfair to make referendum petition signers use the exact name that they used when they registered to vote. Maybe the law is too strict. In that case, our elected representatives are fully empowered to change the law. If it's unfair, throw it out, re-write it, make it legal for Roberts to sign as Bobs and husbands to sign for their wives. The law needs to be enforced as it's written, and this one is written to be strict.

I don't see any stampede at the state or county level to re-write it.

This was a complicated case that was finally came down to the ineptitude of the county Board of Elections. They told the shower-nuts they had enough signatures, and one, they counted all kinds of invalid signatures as valid, and two, they told them they needed the wrong number of signatures in the first place.

To my mind the real issue was misrepresentation of the law to potential petition-signers. I myself heard them say "Would you like to sign a petition to keep men out of the ladies room?" The law itself is pages long, the county's version online has all kinds of strikethroughs and brackets and special marks to show what was added and what was changed, and when. The ordinary citizen can't wade through that to determine what an "accommodation" is, or a "facility." It is not right to ask people to sign a legal petition and lie to them about that it is. But there is apparently nothing in the law that says you have to be truthful with people in getting them to sign.