Fritszche v. Maryland State Board of Elections, 397 Md. 331

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction sought by voters who argued that delays in distributing absentee ballots unlawfully prevented timely mailing. The court held that the record did not establish that the absentee-ballot postmark deadline was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable as applied, and declined to require acceptance of ballots postmarked on Election Day. The court also relied on the principle that statutory election requirements designed to protect election integrity must be enforced.

Holdings

1. The petitioners failed to establish the factual basis necessary for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, including a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and a causal connection between the Board's processing of absentee ballots and the late return of the ballots.
2. The petitioners did not demonstrate that COMAR 33.11.03.08(b), which required an absentee ballot received after the polls closed to have been mailed before Election Day, was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable as applied.
3. Lamb v. Hammond did not require Maryland to accept the petitioners' noncompliant absentee ballots; instead, it supported enforcing mandatory statutory and regulatory requirements designed to protect election integrity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring the State Board of Elections to accept absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day.
2. Whether the absentee-ballot postmark regulation was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable as applied to voters whose ballots allegedly were delayed by election officials' processing problems.
3. Whether Lamb v. Hammond required Maryland to accommodate voters by accepting absentee ballots that failed the applicable postmark deadline.

Disposition

affirmed