Petition — Gould v. Gavett

Gout, Ua |

FILED

DEC 492 1979

- MICHABL ROBAK, JR., CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1979

9-922 |

No.

GEORGE E. GOULD,

retitioner

Ve

PATRICIA A. GAVETT, et al.

Respondents

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FOURTH CIRCUIT

George E. Gould

13406 Arctic Ave.

Rockville ,Md. ,20853

Tel. 949-4955

Petitioner,Pro Se

r §

INDEX

Opinion BeloWececccccccccccccccccccce |

JULIsdiction.ccccccccccccccccccseses &

Questions Presented.ccccccccccccccce 2

- . Constitutional Provisions Involved... 4

BORO GE SRO COROc cca sedecccccccccee &

Reason for Granting the Writ....... 14

1,Where there exists a conflict between

the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit, which refuses to extend the

Oe

equal protection clause in 42 U.S.C.

$1985(3), beyond racial discrimination

into distinctive classes of political

write-in candidates for local state

office, and the Seventh Circuit in Florry

ve. F.C.C. 528 Fed 124(1974), and in the

Sixth Circuit, in Cameron v. Brock,473

F2d 608,610 (1973), which holds that

81085(3) reaches clearly defined classes,

such as supporters of a political candi-

cate. @eeeeeoeeeeseeeeeeeeneeeeened 20

2. Does a write-in candidate for local

State Office enjoy the protection of the

> 7tn Amendment to a jury trial to deter-

mine the facts behind repondent's ans-

wers to Petitioner's interrogatories,

inquiring into the editorial processes

ii

INDEX

Page

of those responsible for the publication

and public utterances, where the inquiry

at trial will product evidence material

to the proof of a critical element of

State Action in tne Petitioner's cause

of action. @eseeeeseoeaeseoeeeeeeeeeeee8e008 21

CODE LUGLOE . « 68 0 666 6604 666 OK 000 60d 86 23

Appendix

A. Opinion of tne United States

Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit o@eeeoeoeoeaeeeeoeeaeneaeneee 1A

Order Denying Rehearing .eccesee ICA

B. Board of Supervisors of

Elections correspondence..seeeeee IB

C. Attorney General's Ins rictions, 1C

D. Art.4%3. Registration & Election

Laws (Méevyland) 1D

Table of Citations

Accard Means v. wWilson,,....

522 Fed 833(8th cir.19

COMOPOn VV, OPOCKs 6c siscove

473 F2d 608,610(6th

Evan® V5 GOPOGOO «cae ik cd00c6aed

398 US 419,421-422(1970)

Tun Vo DAWBCOLA vic cbstcecdicocses . 19

405,US 330 at 356

Oe

“je

ne

233%

INDEX

Page

Florry Vv FeCeCccccgqncceoesoeessces 4,35,a0

528 Fed 124(1974)

Framer v. Union Free School District. 19

395 US 621,€26-628(1969)

Glasson v. City of Louisville..c.secceee 9

518 Fed 899,912(6th cir.1975)

Herbert Ve ERM sé no 6h 460606660660 0668 18

77-1105(slip opinion)

Hughes Ve Ranger Fuel COPpec peccccccocs 8

467 Fed 6 (4th cir.1976)

Moore Ve TR ome

394 US 814,818 (1969)

Rodgers V. Tolsoneccccccccccccccssese 8

582 Fed 315 (4th cir. 1978)

Super Tire Engineering Co. veMcCorkle 19

72-1554 (slip opinion,1974)

Sth Amendment.cccccccccccvecccccce L,

Tth AmONGMORt oc ccccdacscecesedsceses 3

THEH Amendment..cccoccccsccsoceccece 4

i BOGE VOGS cicnnddccsausscess 10,714,354

h2 U CE 1965(3).ccceeee 25358,9, 10, 14,20

Attorney General(Md.)% 25-3 7,14

Art.338 bAel Candidacy ceccccccee 5s 15522

© ine Die. cc icacsdcaesies 3,55

@ 4D-1 Write-in candidates..5,6,15

D tGak PACER cinsaciceces 6,35

$ 16A-1 Punchcard ballot.... 6,15

8 16B-3 Notice to local Bds. 6,15

iv

INDEX

Page

Art.33 316B+4 Adoption of Rules

& Regulations Tie

Rule 10, FoR AcPe rcccccccccccccccccce 11

Sid ieee neem tee

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1979

No.

GEORGE E. GOULD, Petitioner

Ve

PATRICIA A. GAVETT, et al.,

Respondents

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

George E. Gould, your Petitioner,Pro

Se, respectfully pray that a Writ of Cert-

iorari issue to review the judgment of the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit, entered in the above en-

titled case on Feb. 6,1979.

OPINIONS BELOW

On Feb.6,1979, the United States Court

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, affirmed

the dismissal of Gould's 81985(3) claim. It

also dismissed Gould's 8 1983 claim and

pendant claims of slander,libel,defamation.

On July 30,1979,the Fourth Circuit de-

nied Gould's petition for rehearing and

suggestion for rehearing en banc.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 2

The United States District Court for

Maryland,Murray,J.,issued the following

Orders and Memorandums in HM74-1199,

March 24,1975;July 41,1975;April 2,1976;

May 7,1976;March 18,1977;March 25,1977.

Appendix A contains the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,

Judgment of Feb.6,1979, and Order denying

renearing petition,July 30,1979.

Appendix 8B, is set aside for the Dis-

trict Court's Orders and Memorandums,

which are lost,misplaced or mysteriously

disappeared.

JURISDICTION

This Court's Jurisdiction is invoked

to review Judgment affirming the United

States District Court Orders,in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit #77-2143,Feb.6,1979 under 28 U.S.C.

1254(1);Rule 19(Ib) of this Court's rules;

28 U.S.C.8 1343; 42 U.S.C.8 1981381983;

8 1985(3)8 1988.

A Petition for Rehearing and Suggest-

ion for Rehearing en banc, was denied July

—~ PRs.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 3

30,1979. Petitioner filed for an extens-

ion of time to file his Petition for Writ

of Certiorari on Oct.29,1979. On Nov.8,

1979,Mr. Chief Justice Burger, granted an

extension of time until Dec.12,1979 to

file this Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Where there exists a conflict be-

tween the U.S.Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit,which refuses to extend the

equal protection clausein 42 U.S.C.81985(3),

beyond racial discrimination into distinc-

tive classes of political write-in candid-

ates for local state office, and the Seventh

Circuit in Florry v. FCC 528 Fed 124, 1974,

and in the Sixth Circuit in Cameron v.

Brock,473 F2d 608,610 (1973) which holds

that 2 1985(3) reaches clearly defined

classes, such as supporters of a political

candidate.

2. Does a write-in candidate for local

State Office enjoy the protection of the 7

th Amendment to a jury trial to determine

the facts behind respondent's answers to

Petitioner's interrogatories, inquiring

into the editorial processes of those re-

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 4

sponsible for the publication and public

utterances, where the inquiry at trial

will produce evidence material to the

proof of a critical element of State

Action in the Petitioner's cause of

action.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, STATUES AND

FEDERAL RULE INVOLVED

Tne Seventh Amendment to the United

States Constitution provides:

"In suits at common law, where the

value in controversy shall exceed

twenty dollars, the rignt of trial

by jury shall be preserved, and no

fact tried by a jury, shall be

otherwise re-examined in any court

of the United States than according

to the rules of common law."

The Fourteenth Amendment to tne Unit-

ed States Constitution provides in part:

We seeenO State shall make or enforce

any law which shall abridge the priv-

ileges or immunities of citizens of

the United States; nor shall any

State deprive any per on of life,

liberty, or property, without due

has

o hl et aera >» a2 . Pra ee Shee se ee ee ee, ae —ee

Petition for Writ of Certiorari pr

process of law; nor deny to any person

witnin its jurisdiction the equal pro-

tection of the laws,"

The First Article of the Maryland

Constitution, titled"Elective Franchise",

Sec.5 “Registration of voters." "Oppor-

tunity must be given to write-in names

on ballot. A voter has the rightunder

this section to vote for whom he pleases,

and reasonable opportunity must be given

him to write or insert in the ballot the

names of his choice."Jackson v.Norris 173

Md .579,195A.576(1938).

The Registration and Election Laws,

as amended,1978, for Maryland Art.33,

S4A-1 Certificate of Candidacy. Require-

ments of persons seeking nomination; list-

ing and use of names, nicknames, titles,etc.

d) Write-in candidates shall file certific-

ates of candidacy as provided in 8 4D-1.

B4A-6 Fees- Filing fees, (h) Write-

in Candidates. A write-in candidate, as

determined under 84D-1 of this art.,is re-

quired to pay a filing fee equal to that

required of a candidate for nomination to

the same office sought by the write-in

candidate or to tne office to which he is

Petition for Write of Certiorari 6

promoted. (ch.399;ch.723, 82,1975; 1977,

ch.63884)

Write-in Candidates, 8 4D-1. Write-in

campaigns.(a),(b),(c) (p.62) (Appendix-1D)

816-4 Ballots and ballot labels-In

General.(a) Names of candidates and des-

cription of constitutional amendments,etc.

-Each board shall provide ballots for every

election in whicn any voter in tne county

or city shall participate, wnich snall

contain: (1) The name of every candidate

who has filed or has been nominated in ac-

cordance with the provisions of this art-

icle;...." (d) List of candidates to be

furnished on demande-A correct list of the

names of the candidates for tne designated

offices shall be furnished on cemand by

the boards to the candidates or their auth-

orized agents. (p.106)

Electronically Tabulated Punchcard Ballots

$16A-1 Puncncard ballot voting system

in Montgomery County. (pps.121,122)

(d) Rules and regulations.-(6) The casting

and counting of write-in votes, if this

method of voting is permitted by law.

$ 16B-3. Notice to local Boards, The

State Board shall notify the local Boards

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 7

of each system under review and each system

approved,certified, or decertified.(1978,

chap.347)

316B-4 Adoption of Rules and Regula-

tions. The State Board, in exercising its

authority under this subtitle, shall adopt

rules and regulations governing the pro-

cedures for its review,approval, certifica-

tion, and decertification of voting sys-

tems.(1978,cn.347) (p.124)

z 25-3,Instructions of Attorney Gen-

eral. It shall be the duty of the Attorney

General to prepare instructions necessary

for the officers of registration and of

election created by this article.(1957,ch.

739,81;1967, ch.392,81; 1974,ch.197)(p.156)

INSTRUCTIONS OF TYE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Instructions to Voters (p.21)

Before a voter enters the voting mach-

ine booth,the judges shall instruct him

regarding the operation of the machine,

This instruction shall be by means of dia-

grams and by permitting the voter an oppor-

tunity to operate a model machine (Sec.16=12)

GENERAL WRITE -IN INSTRUCTIONS (p.22)

Judges are not to volunteer information on

write-in voting until asked by the voter.

& bis

EEE eee

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 8

SECTION II Instructions on use of Shoup

Machines. (pps.36,37,38), (9) Remove and

Display Model. (10) Post the Specimen

Ballots. DURING THE VOTING (12) Instruct

each Voter on the Model and Call His Atten-

tion to the Specimen Ballot.

AT GENERAL ELECTIONS

A. "Write-in Votes.

"It is suggested that unless the voter asks

for information about "write-in" votes, it

should not be volunteered; unnecessary de-

tails may confuse him."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

in its decision,dated Feb 6,1979,p.7,held:

"This Court also has never held that

2 1985(3) reaches beyond racial dis-

crimination. See Rodgers v. Tolson,

582 F2ad315 (4th cir.1978) Hughes v.

Ranger Fuel Corp. 467 Fed 6 (4th cir.

1976)"

In the Rogers v. Tolson p.317 the 4th

cir. points out,"The Rogers note, however

that other Courts of Appeal have ex-

tended $1985(3) beyond action that

was animated by racial discrimination.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 9

They rely on Cameron v. Brock 473Fed

608,610(6th cir.1973),which holds

that 81985(3) "reaches clearly defin-

ed classes, such as supporters of a

political candidate." Accord Means v.

Wilson,522 F2d833(8th cir.1975);

Glasson v. City of Louisville,518Fed

899,912(6th cir.1975)

The 4th circuit failed to idenfy the

March 24,1975 Oral Opinion of the District

Court, (Murrey,J.)

"Taking his well-pleaded allegations

as true, the Court takes note of an

alleged on-going trend of conduct by

tne various organizational groups to

deprive Plaintiff of his constitution-

al right in this case to equal pro-

tection,"

"Such conduct, according to allega-

tion in the complaint, reached its

zenith on the evening of October 7

wnen, after being told that he was

recognized as a write-in candidate

and that there would be no difficulty

in his being able to address the

assembly, Plaintiff Gould was denied

the opportunity to state his views

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 10

either directly by participating in

the forum during direct address to

the audience,or indirectly when he

attempted to accomplish the same dur-

ing the open question and answer per-

iod." (p.5,lines 9-17)

"At that time, according to the com-

plaint, defendants Kirshner and Elias

manned the microphones and in an at-

tempt to drownout Plaintiff stated

unequivocally that Mr.Gould is not a

legitimate candidate, according to

the Board of Supervisors of Elections."

(p.S, lines 18-22)

"These statements, coupled with the

various allegations of concert or rap-=

port between the various organization-

al groups, is sufficient at this stage

of the pleadings, in the Court's view,

to demonstrate a claim of invidious,

hostile or purposeful discrimination

as required in a Section 1983 action."

(p.5 lines 23-25,p.6,lines 1-3)

The 4th Circuit further held:p.7,

"Assuming without deciding that write-

in candidates constitute a class for

purposes of £1985(3), we agree with

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 11

the district court that Gould failed

to demonstrate any invidious discrim-

ination. A review of the briefs and

tue record on appeal indicates that

the appellees acted in good faith to

provide a needed public service,"

On p.8 tne 4th Circuit held in Gould

's 1983 claim, that Gould had satisfied

the first part in asserting that the law

of Maryland recognized the essential equ-

ality of write-in candidates,

"The second element, commonly reffer-

ed to as state action, could only be

satisfied if the members of the BSE

conspired with other defendants.The

district court found that Murdock and

Garber made a good faith attempt to

fulfill their duties on the BSE and

did not discriminate against Gould,"

Rule 10 F.R.A.P. "If the appellant

intends to urge on appeal that a finding

or conclusion is unsupported by the evi-

dence or is contrary to the evidence..."

Defendant Garber(BSE) in her answers

to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, stated,

"Botn Mrs. Kirshner and I were aware that

Mr.Gould considered himself a write-in

Petition for Writ of Certiorari l2

candidate--the only question to whicha

direct and definite answer could be given

by the Board of Supervisors of Hlections

was wnether or not nis name would be on

the General Election Ballot.(paper 37,

ques.6(a)).

"The Board of Supervisors of HElect-

ion candidate, and I so told Mrs.Kirshner."

"B., A call from Patricia Gavett making

the same inquiry as Mrs.Kirshner made, I

gave the same answer,"

Defendant Kirshner,in her answers to

Plaintiff's Interrogatories stated:

"She told me (Mrs.Garber) that “he

LWV could continue its policy of pre-

senting in the Voters Guide and at

candidate meetings only those candi-

dates whose names would appear on the

ballot as long as we indicated this

on the front of the Guide and announce

ed this at tne candidate meetings,"

(paper 103 , par. 4)

Defendant Gavett's answers(paper 105),

to Interrogatories,ques.3(ii), "Exactly

what part of the Oct.4th,1974 LWV letter

to Gould ,did Defendant Garber advise,write,

contribute to or otherwise reflect her op-

Py,

OF

Aifeeay

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 13

inions, authority as an Elections Adminis-

trator with the BdSE?"

"Mrs, Garber suggested the addition

of the words,"and whose names will

appear on the ballot", at the end of

paragraph two.Otherwise,the letter

appears exactly as I wrote it before

I called her and read it *o her,

(LWV to Gould, P.ex.5)

In 3(i) Defendant Gavett stated,"It

is League policy to check with an

official and expert source when ques-

tions of accuracy arise; Mrs.Garber

was the obvious official source in

this case, .

Gavett's LWV letter to Gould( P.ex.5)

2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

"Our board of directors has discussed

your request to print your material

in the general election Voters Guide

and,after consultation with other in-

formed sources, has decided to give

space in the Guide only to those per-

sons who have been certified as can-

didates under state law and whose

names will appear on the ballot.

(underscoring added for emphasis)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 14

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

From the word "GO", the Attorney

General of Maryland,his staff,the State

Administrative Board of Election Laws,its

Administrator and the local Boards of

Supervisors of Hlections, have maintained

an arbitrary,discriminatory animus against

the class of write-in candidates,including

this petitioner, in the State of Maryland

General Elections during the years 1974,

1976,and 1978.

The instructions of the Attorney Gen-

eral violate this Petitioner's 14th Amend-

ment,of equal protection under law as well

as 42 U.S.C.8 1983 and 8 1985(3),wherein

the Attorney General sets a policy of un-

equal treatment respecting write-in cand-

idates, In the Attorney General's instruce

tions he specifically reemphasizes that

election judges snould explain and demone

strate the voting machines to every voter

to be sure they understand how to use the

voting machine to cast their ballots. To

use a model macnine and let the voter

practice on it. 3ut his instructions cone

cerning write-in candidates is discrimin-

atory per se Article 33 825-3, Deeeo

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 15

"General Write-in Instructions, Judges are

not to volunteer information® write-in vote

ing until asked by the voter." Again on

page38 his instructions for election offic-

ials, AT GENERAL ELECTIONS, A. Write-in

Votes. "it is suggested that unless the

voter asks for information about "write-

in" votes, it should not be volunteered;

unnecessary details may confuse him."

The Attorney General and the State

Administrator of the State Administrative

Board of Election Laws (of Maryland) have

misapprehended the Registration and Elec-

tion Laws of Maryland regarding equal

rights of Write-in candidates under Art,

33 BuA-1 "Certificate of Candidacy"

B4A-6 "Fees,Filing Fees

84D-1 "Write-in Campaigns,write-in

candidates,"

816-4 "Ballots and ballot labels (a)

(1), (a)

#16A-1"Punchcard ballot voting system"

(d)(6).

816B-3"Notice to local boards."

816B-4"Adoption of Rules and Regula-

tions,"

As a result of the official instruc-

tions of the Attorney General and the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 16

State Administrative Board of Election Laws,

together with special election Guidelines

prepared by George Nilson, Ass't Attorney

General of Maryland for election franchise,

there was a steady stream of communication

denying write-in candidates equal protec-

tion under law as part of official State

Action,to local Boards of Supervisors of

Elections,

Letter to defendant Garber, =Zlections

Administrator,from Board attorney John P,

Diuguid, Oct.1,1974 (Appendix )

"Note; The attached draft memorandum

was prepared by Geo.Nilson,Ass't Atty

Gen, for the Baltimore City Bd of El-

ections. (Nilson is not only the staff

atty in the AG office with primary

responsibility for elections; he is

also counsel to the Baltimore City

Bd of Elections.)..eseeeeThis memo

may be useful to us in coming up with

the required answers for George Gould,

How.ever our problem is not nearly as

large as the Balto City situation,

Gould is a single, independent candi-

date. There probably will be a few

write-in votes for him, but I doult

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 17

that he will have organization sub-

stantial enough to create a write-in

vote of great dimension,"

This was an official notice that Gould

was an independent candidate because Attor-

ney Diuguid, spoke of meeting with George

Nilson and his own employee Dale Saliba

and researching Gould's candidacy as a

write-in candidate, On Oct.2nd,1974 the

Montgomery County Board of Supervisors of

Election met and discussed Diuguid's cor-

respondence, This matter was brought to

tne attention of defendant Murdock,who

was President of the Board,the following

day. As president of the Board, Murdock

wrote Gould his letter of Oct.4,1974.

furdock starts nis letter out by reference

to"preliminary response from our counsel"

regarding questions Gould had raised in

making his write-in campaign successful.

Murdock's statement "#—since your candi-

dacy is continuing--." is not an mere fig-

ure of speecn.Further correspondence dem-

onstrates that the Board and its President

acknowledged Gould's candidacy.

The question therefore, What is behind

Garber's advice to the LWV page 12,supra,

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 12

"The Board of Supervisors of Election

could not make the decision for the

League of Women Voters as to whether,

in their campaign activity, George

Gould should be considered a General

T56 told Mrs.

~

Slection Candidate, and

Kirshner,"

In addition, there is the question of

what motivated Garber to advise the LWV

that they could cut Gould's candidacy from

the General Election Voters Guide with

immunity by suggesting the words,"and

whose names will appear on the ballot."

(p.13,Supra),since over 50,000 copies of

the voters suide was distributed through

tne Montgomery County schools by official

permission of the Montgomery County

School Board as well as in all the public

libraries of Montgomery County.

Gould contends that this case is on

all fours withthe recent Herbert v. Lando

decision, #77-1105 (slip Opinion),Held,

" ..ethere is no privilege under the

First Amendment's guarantees of free-

dom of speech and freedom of the

press barring the plaintiff from ine

quiring into tne editorial processes

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 19

of those responsible for the publica-

tion where the inquiry will produce

evidence material to the proof of a

critical element of the plaintiff's

cause of action!

Fetitioner's motion to Vacate Order

of Dec.1975 cited Supreme Court decisions,

including Super Tire Engineering Co. v.

McCorkle, ##72=-1554(decided April 16,1974),

and cases cited therein, Dunn v. Blumstein

405 US 330; Moore v. Ogilvie,394 U.S. 814,

818(1969)

"In decision after decision, this Court

nas made clear that a citizen has a

constitutionally protected right to

participate in elections on an equal

basis with other citizens in the jur-

isdiction. See e.g....Evans v. Corn-

man 398 U.S.419,421-422 (1970);

Framer v. Union Fee School District

395 U.S.621,626-€28(1969);..."Dunn

ve Blumstein,405 U.S. 330 at 336,

again on page 351, it held,

"States may not casually, deprive a

Class cf individuals of the vote be-

cause of some remote administrative

benefit to the State." Id. at 96.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 20

In Moore v. Ogilvie,394 U.S. 814 at

818 (1968).

"The right to vote freely for the

candidate of one's choice is of the

essence of a democratic society,and

any restrictions on that right strike

at the hear of representative cov-

ernment, And the right of suffrage

can be denied by a debasement or

dilution of the weight of a citizen's

vote just as effectively as by whol-

ly prohibiting the free exercise of

the franchise. 377 U.S. at 555."

Questions Presented,

1. There exists a conflict between

the Fourth Circuit which holds in this

case that it has never gone beyond "race

ial discrimination"in 42 USC 81985(3) and

the Sixth Circuit in Cameron v. Brock 473

F2d 608,610(1973) and the cases cited

supra, Petitioner cited Florry v. FCC

74=-2010(slip opinion) (Seventh Cir.1975),

(paper 100).

"The scope of our declaratory relief

is that a candidate who has not yet

qualified for ballot position under

state election laws is nevertheless

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 21

entitled to equal time if he is

otherwise eligible under the second

prong of 873-120(a) and 73.657 (a)

and commits himself to seeking elec-

tion by the write-in method in the

subsequent election..../Wwe deem it

sufficient that we have set forth

the guidelines applicable in the

future." (slip opinion, p.13)

"In this review procedure, of course,

it is not our province to concern

ourselves with the practical diffi-

culties tnat may be occasioned by an

unlimited application of the equal

time principle so as sweep within its

coverage political candidates who by

any objective standard would have a

de minimus participation in an elec-

tion. The matter of the scope of the

legislation is a policy question for

the congress." (slip opinion,p.8)

Petitioner is of tne firm belief that

the granting of Certiorari will be of im-

mense benefit to write-in candidates and

to increasing the elective franchise of

the independent voter.

2. The District Court and the Fourth

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 22

Circuit misapprehended the Respondents

sworn answers to Petitioner's Interroga-

tories, The District Court had at one

time during a Court conference set a tena-

tive date for a trial on the issues.

After the respondents had filed their

answers, Gould moved for a Summary Judgment

based on tneir admissions of State Action

and conspiracy. Supra. The refusal of Gar-

ber,BSE, to inform the LWV and Montgomery

County PTA's that Gould was a single,

independent write-in candidate according

to Art.33 $16-4(1)(d) List of candidates

to be furnished on demand=-A correct list

of tne names of the candidates for the

designated offices shall be furnished on

demand by the boards to the candidates or

their authorized agents.(p.106)p.6,supra.

also pps,11,12,13 supra.

Petitioner has consistently requested

a jury trial to determine the evidence in

this action.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari 23

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reaons,the Peti-

tioner submits that the Court erred in

not reversing the District Court Judgment,

Therefore the Judgment should be reversed,

13406 Arctic Ave,

Rockville,Md. 20853

Tel * 949-4955

a

EXHIBIT A

S

SS” HITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

ey FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KS No. 77-2143

George E. Gould,

Appellant,

Patricia A. Gavett, as President

of, Janet Kirshner, as lst Vice

President of, League. of Women

Voters of Montgomery County of

Marylanc, Inc.; Austin Heyman,

as President of, Joan Elias, as

2nd V. President of, Mongtomery

County Council of Parent Teacher

Associations; Harriet Bernstein,

as President of, Dr. Homer Elseroad,

as Secretary of, Robert Bourbon,

as Attorney for, Montgomery County

School Board and James Henry Murdock,

as President of, Marie M. Garber,

as Elections Administrator, of the

Board of Supervisors of Elections

for Montgomery County, Maryland;

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dis-

trict of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert L. Murray, District

Judge.

App Endix [A

Submitted: January 18, 1979. Decided: February 6. 1979

Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge,

and WIDENER, Circuit Judge.

(George E. Gould, Appellant Pro Se. John P. Diuguid, Karl W.

Pilger [Diuguid, Siegel & Kennelly] on brief for the Appellees.)

PER CURIAM:

George E. Gould appeals from the orders of the

District Court for the District of Maryland which dismissed

his complaint for alleged violations of his civil rights

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, dismissed his claim

of defamation, and denied declaratory and injunctive relief

as to the constitutionality of certain public school laws

and procedures of the State of Maryland. The appellees have

moved for a summary affirmance. We grant the motion pursuant

to Rule 7(b) of this Court.

I

Gould instituted this suit, pro se, on October 30,

1974. He named nine defendants who were officers in four

Organizations. Patricia Gavett was named as president of the

League of Women Voters of Montgomery County (LWV) and Janet

Kirshner was named as vice president. Austin Heyman was named

as president of the Montgomery County Council of Parent and

Teachers Associations (MCCPTA) and Joan Elias as vice presi-

dent. The third group of defendants named was Harriet Bern-

stein, president of the Montgomery County School Board (MCSB),

Homer Elseroad, secretary, and Robert Bourbon, attorney.

Finally, James Henry Murdock was named as president of the

Board of Supervisors of Elections for Montgomery County (BSE)

-3A

and Marie Garber as elections administrator. Gould sough*

three million dollars in damages from these defendants for

violation of his civil rights and elective franchise,

Gould's complaint arises from his candidacy for

the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board in 1974, Gould

was defeated in the primary election held on September 10,

1974, but he continued his campaign as a write-in candidate

until his defeat in the general election held on November 32,

1974.

At a pre-primary candidates’ forum held on Septem-

ber 4, 1974, Gould stated that the League of Women Voters

discriminated against him by failing to ive bie adequate

space in itS pre-primary Voters' Guide. Patricia Gavett

publicly told him that he was "in error." Gould contends

that this statement constituted defamation.

On October 7, 1974, after Gould was defeated in

.the primary election, the LWV and MCCPTA jointly sponsored a

candidates’ forum at a local public high school, The purpose

of the forum was to provide an opportunity for successful

primary candidates to speak. Despite his request, Gould was

not permitted to address the audience.

Finally, on October 8, 1974, Gould attempted to :

speak at a meeting of the MCSB. He was not allowed to speak

at that Board meeting.

«sae

From these facts, Gould contends that a conspiracy

existed among the defendants to deprive him of his right to

speak at the October 7th meeting. He sued the LWV and MCCPTA

because they jointly sponsored the forum on that date. Be~-

cause the MCSB was in charge of all public school buildings,

Gould contends that Bernstein, Elseroad and Bourbon should

not have permitted the use of the high school for the forum

because he was denied his rights at the meeting. Finally, he

alleges that the BSE conspired to deny him his civil rights

by advising the LWV that he was not a candidate for election.

Gould maintains that the BSE knew he was a candidate and

maliciously told the LWV otherwise. Gould based this claim

on the fact that he received a letter on October 4, 1974,

from the BSE which contained the words, "since your candidacy

is continuing."

On May 29, 1975, Gould moved the district court, in

what he termed a “subsidiary action,” to declare unconstitu-

tional certain public school laws of the State of Maryland and

instructions promulgated by the Attorney General. He also

sought a preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement

and execution of these statutes and instructions and requested

a three-judge court to consider the issue. The district court

denied the motion in an oral opinion on December 19, 1975.

- 5h

On that same date the district court granted

Gavett's motion for partial summary judgment as to the defa-

mation allegation. The district court also granted the mo-

tion of Bourbon and Elseroad to dismiss the allegations

against them. On May 7, 1976, the district court granted

summary judgment motions for Garber, Murdock and Bernstein.

Subsequent to these actions, but prior to the final d.sposi-

tion of his complaint, Gould appealed to this Court. We

dismissed the appeal as premature in an unpublished opinion

(NO. 76-1801, Jan. 11, 1977). The Supreme Court denied

Gould's petition for certiorari on May 2, 1977. The district

court, on March 18, 1977, granted a summary judgment motion

for Gavett and Kirshner. On March 25, 1977, the district

court granted summary judgement for Heyman and Elias. All

pending counterclaims were dismissed on April 27, 1977, t:us

disposing of this action before the district court.

This case once again comes before us on appeal.

Since the district court has rendered a final judgment, it is

now within our jurisdiction to address the merits of Gould's

claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

I!

We affirm the district court's dismissal of the

§ 1985(3) claim. In Griffin v. Breckinridge, 403 U.S. 6,

- 6 A

oe A arte ae

.

102 (1971), the Supreme Court held that one of the elements

of a cause of action based on § 1985(3) is “some racial, or

perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory

animus behind the conspirators' action.” The Court did not

decide whether § 1985(3) embraces conspiracies motivated by

non-racial discriminatory intent. 402 U.S. at 102 n.9.

This Court also has never held that § 1985(3) reaches beyond

See Rodgers v. Tolson, 582 F.2d 315

(4th Cir. 1978); Hughes v. Ranger Fuel Corp., 467 F.2d 6 (4th

racial discrimination.

Cir. 1976).

The district court, liberally construing Gould's

claim, held that write-in candidates constitute a class for

purposes of § 19€5(3). It relied on the decision of Cameron

v. Brock, 473 F.2d 608, 610 (6th Cir. 1973), which holds that

§ 1985(3) “reaches clearly defined classes, such as supporters

of a political candidate."

Assuming without deciding that write-in candidates

constitute a class for purposes of § 1985(3), we agree with

the district court that Gould failed to demonstrate any in-

vidious discrimination. A review of the briefs and the record

on appeal indicates that the appellees acted in good faith to

provide a needed public service. Therefore, we affirm the

judgment, if not the entire reasoning, of the district court.

“ 7A

III

The district court also granted summary judgment

for the appellees on Gould's § 1983 claim. There are two

essential elements of a § 1983 claim. First, the plaintiff

must demonstrate that the defendants deprived him of a right

secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Second, the defendants must have acted under color of state

law. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970):.

The district court found, relying on Snowdon v.

Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944), that Gould satisfied the first

element by asserting that the law of Maryland recognized the

essential equality of successful primary and write-in candi-

dates and that the denial of these rights vis-a-vis write-in

candidates constitutes a denial of equal protection under the

Fourteenth Amendment. The second element, commonly referred

to as state action, could only be satisfied if the members

of the BSE conspired with the other defendants. The district

court found that Murdock and Garber made a good faith attempt

to fulfill their duties on the BSE and did not discriminate

against Gould.

A review of the record discloses that the district

court's conclusion is not clearly erroneous. Since Gould ;

failed to satisfy the element of state action, a claim pursu-

ant to § 1983 cannot be asserted against any other defendant.

-8A

t

IV

Under its pendent jurisdiction, the district court

considered Gould's state claim of slander against Gavett.

This claim arose from Gavett's statement that Gould was in

error when he publicly stated that the LWV discriminated

against him in its pre-primary Voters' Guide.

Under the law of Maryland, which the district

court properly applied to this claim, it is for the court to

decide whether the words complained of constitute slander.

Walker v. D'Alesandro, 212 Md. 163, 129 A.2da 148 (1957). The

Gistrict court held that Gavett's statement was not slander

as a matter of law. We believe that the district court was

well within its discretion in reaching this conclusion and

therefore affirm the disposition of this claim.

Vv

In a motion termed a "Subsidiary action," Gould

challenged the constitutionality of certain public school

laws of the State of Maryland and instructions promulgated

pursuant to these laws by the state Attorney General. The

district court declined to grant declaratory judgment, a pre-

liminary injunction, or to convene a three-judge court as

Gould requested.

The district court found that a declaratory

judgment would in no way advance the underlying civil rights

- 9A

( ¢

action and that Gould had not alleged any irreparable future

harm to his constitutional rights justifying issuance of a

preliminary injunction. Since there was no occasicn for the

grant of the injunction, the court denied the request for a

three-judge court. Citing principles of federalism, the

district court remanded Gould to his remedy in state court.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Gould's motion. See Maryland Citizens for a Repre-

sentative General Assembly v. Governor of Maryland, 429 F.2d

606 (4th Cir. 1970); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Quarles,

92 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1937). We also note that the district

court overlooked procedural defects in O0ed"« attempt to

obtain declaratory and injunctive relief in an effort to

liberally safeguard his richts. Therefore, we find no merit

to this appeal.

A careful review of the briefs and the record on

appeal discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accord-

ingly, we grant the motion for summary affirmance.

JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 77-2143

George E. Gould,

Appellant,

vs.

Patricia A. Gavett, as President

of Janet Kirshner, as lst Vice

President of, League of Women

Voters of Montgomery County of

Maryland, Inc.; Austin Heyman,

as President of, Joan Elias, as

2nd V. President of, Montgomery

County Council of Parent Teacher

Associations; Harriet Bernstein,

as President of, Dr. Homer Elseroad,

as Secretary of, Robert Bourbon,

as Attorney for, Montgomery County

School Board and James Henry Murdock,

as President of, Marie M. Garber,

as Elections Administrator, of the

Board of Supervisors of Elections

for Montgomery COunty, Maryland;

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland.

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record

from the United States District Court for the District

of Maryland.

AFFIRMED. a

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here ordered

% ; and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said

District Court appealed from, in this cause, be, and the

’ : eame is hereby, affirmed.

FILED

-1i0A FEB6 1979

Wiha X Mote?

WILLIAM Z SLA‘E, 0

CLERK

[1-A

* | a Exhbvé 4-8

; OiuGuid & SIEGEL

e | L E D 2 = Twousano CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.

Sure 1118

WASHINGTON, BD. C. 20036 ‘

, 50

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL < © 1979 _* “qoa) w72-0700

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM K. SLATE, § ‘ Eker MARYLAND OFFice:

No. 77-2143 ‘.1 October 1974 MLLERCST NEVGNTS, MD. BOOS

" ~ (201) 433-8776

George E. Gould, .

Appellant,

versus ‘ ‘

icine cs Gane. . Marie M. Garber, Elections Administrator

Supervisors of Elections for Montgomery Co.

Appellees. Box 333 os é ;

Rockville, Maryland 20850 ‘

ORDER val

Dear Marie:

Upon consideration of the appellant's petition for so ; I have had Dale Saliba research the questions you

raised in your memorandum of 20 September, and have discussed

rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge his conclusion h_him and with George Nilson of the At-

having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en torney Gene ; fice. Mr. Nilson is in agreement with the

conclusions which we have reached.

banc (Undeesacang AdDED Foe EmPhrs/s )

—— ORDERED that the petition for : 1(A). Can a defeated primary candidate run as a

= ia seu ciate aaa write-in candidate in the general election? ’

rehearing is denied.

furth dered that the costs of the appeal : You are absolutely correct that the statute makes

hii a aeawonal no reference to this specific situation, but by not making

in favor of the appellees is granted. The attorneys’ fees : any reference, it does not prohibit the practice. The Attorney

are denied. General's office accepts the practice; and such write-in

votes will be counted.

Entered at the direction of Judge Russell for a

panel consisting of Judge Russell, Judge Field, and Judge 1(B). Can stickers be used for write-in votes?

Widener. For the reasons given in the 29 September 1967

memorandum from the Attorney General's office, stickers are

not allowed. In addition, from a purely practical standpoint

For the Court, the stickers are viewed as a potential problem, were they

Aft Vy are Tm used, as they could clog the voting machines.

'1(C). What are the guidelines for insuring the

- walidity of votes for write-in candidates?

Ultimately, this question will have to be dealt with

on an ad hoc basis by the canvassers. However, as this gques-

J2-A

Mrs. Marie M. Garber —

. 1 October 1974

Page two

tion has been raised in Hartford County and Baltimore City,

George Nilson has prepared some guidelines (for Baltimore).

e ig sending a copy o @ memorandum to us, and I would sug- ,

gest that we examine his memorandum before giving final

guidelines to the candidates involved, or to the election

judges and Canvassers.

2. Can an’ individual oie has already contributed

$2,500 contribute to the campaign account of a defeated can-

- Gidate?. °

The answer to this question is definitely "No".

Article 33, §26-9, provides that the maximum amount an indi-

vidual may contribute to a primary election is $2,500. Be-

cause in the case you mention the proposed contribution would

. be used to help erase the debt incurred in the primary, it

is a contribution for the primary, and would therefore be il-

legal...

.. I will be in touch with you as soon as I receive

the information from George Nilson.

Should you have any further questions, please do not

hesitate to contact me. '

Sincerely,

(awe |

‘ a .

hn P. Diugui

JPD:kd

Ape dy ~ XB

Law orrices Exhibit 4. -C

OIUGUID & SIEGEL

One THOUSAND CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.

j BUITE 1112

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036

' (202) 872-0700

MARYLAND OFFICE:

B737 GRANCH AVENUE

1 October 1974

—— (201) 423-8778

oc

mo

Marie M. Garber, Elections Administrator

Supervisors of Elections for Montgomery Co.

Box 333

Rockville, Maryland 20850

Dear Marie:

Enclosed you will find a copy of the memorandum

from George Nilson, which I mentioned to you previously.

We have reviewed the memo, and have no additions at this

time.

2 Should you have any questions, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

f

‘Ce

John P. Diuguid

JPD:kd

Enclosure

NOTE: The attached draft memorandum was prepared by Geo Nilson, Asst Atty Gen,

for the Baltimore City Bd of Elections. (Nilson is not only the staff atty

in the AG office wth primary responsibility for electiona; he is also

counsel to the Baltimore City Bd of Elections.)

The City has a mumber of large write-in campaigns coming up this year.

I sent you a piece from yesterday's Sim on the subject.

This memo may be useful to us in coming up with the required answers for

George Gould, However, our probdem is not nearly as large as the Balto

City situation. yous is a. sores inepe et candidate. There probably

will be a few wr votes for ou will have

organization substantial enough to create a mx evan vote of great

dimension, (U"Ofescewse Adeed Fea Erm Paws)

MOarber 10-7-71,

Appewdsx - 38

MULCREST HEIGHTS, mO. 2003)

———_—

Exhibit 4 -D

Mas, Marte M. Ganara

PRESIDENT . RLECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR

Mas. Manion L. Clans f

; Jounw C. Ensere

BLECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR

Joun P, Divov

COUNSEL

‘ BOARD of SUPERVISORS of ELECTIONS

for

Montcomary County, MaryLanp

Post Orrica Box 333

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850

Telephone 279-1507

October 4, 1974

Mr. George E. Gould

1710 Mark Lane

Rockville MD 20852

Dear Mr. Gould:

4

We have had a preliminary response from our counsel to the

questions you raised regarding write-in votes, and I am

erewith conveying to you the information we have at this

time. :

Stickers are not permitted, in accordance with a ruling

of the Attorney General of Maryland dated September 29, 1967.

Questions about guidelines for valid write-in votes are still

being considered. Our counsel is expecting further guidance

from the Attorney General. Following receipt of such inform-

ation, we will formulate guidelines and convey them to you.

You ought to be reminded, further, that you will be required

-- since your candidacy is continuing -- to continue to comply

with the provisions imposed on all candidates by the Fair

Elections Practices law related to campaign funding and other

matters. (uM sing ADDED fo emphasls)

f Supervisors of Elections

for Montgomery County,: Maryland

Eth: bce ¢ .E

Dine. Manin M. Gannon

BLECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR

> i Urouck C) )

pacsioentT ‘ -

Mas, Manion L, Crank

W. Lea Hammaga

Jouw C. Eisrie

ELECTIONS ADMINISTAATOR

Joun P. Diucvio

COUNSEL

“. * BOARD of SUPERVISORS of ELECTIONS

MowrToomery com MarYLAND

Post Orrice Box 333

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850.

Telephone 279-1507

'. October 18, 1974 .

Mr. George E. Gould

1710 Mark Lane...

Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dear Mr. Gould:

This is in response to your hand-delivered letter of

October 16, 1974.

The Board of Supervisors of Elections for Montgomery

County, Maryland, met last evening and gave full, careful and

deliberate consideration to the questions raised in your letter:

1. The instructions for operating the automatic voting

“machine on the casting of a write-in vote are being

revised so as to make it more understandable to the

citizens and voters as to how that vote can be made.

The revised instruction sheet will include a graphic

presentation, as well as the necessary narrative

material. ;

You may be assured that, in the training sessions for

the election officials, the staff will emphasize the

write-in vote procedure so that all poll officials

are prepared to serve the electorate as to how write-

-§ in votes may be cast. is mAery Added \

: Foe EMPAAS/S |

':-2, It is the opinion of the Board that the law and the

opinions of the Attorney General do not require that

4 our office offer two pencils to each voter for the.

purpose of casting write-in votes. It is our opinion

that, if a voter is desirous of casting a ballot by

_way of write-in vote, he will come to the polls with

‘+ * " g pen or.pencil. In the event he has neither, he will

make inquiry of the election officials for a writing ©

instrument. They will have such available.

pppud+ 5B.

aq 6

“Mr. George E. Gould

October 18, 1974

A voter casting a write-in vote for any office or

position should write the full name of the person

for whom he is voting. The election judges will

be directed to so instruct any voter who inquires.

3.

‘As to the acceptability of write- -in votes for

George E. Gould for the office of member of the

Montgomery County Board of Education, we would

first make reference to the qualifications for

that office - that one must be "a qualified voter

in Montgomery County, Maryland". There is only

one George E. Gould on the voters' list, so there

would be no question about counting such a write-

in. There-is furthermore only one G. E. Gould

(the full first name is George), so such a write-

in would also be counted. George Gould, however,

would not be my gn eae specific since there

are three persons with the given name of George

and surname of Gould on the Montgomery County

voter registry.

<

You will recall that in my last letter to you I made

reference to ote finance reports required of candidates for

public and party offices in the State of Maryland. As a candidate

for the Board of Education in the September 10, 1974 primary

‘election, you were covered by the requirement to: file such a

financial report no. later than noon of October 10, 1974, balan

thirty days following the election. To date, no such report has

been received by this office from you. ,

I ‘trust that the above helps clarify your inquiries and

that this information will be of assistance to you.

TYyly ypurs,

} " i y i ie

: Presi

. Boafd ee " eneeviants of Elections

fo Mo tgomery County, Maryland

‘ Ay peng CB.

Very

JHM: MMG: dg.

= \ V

bes pte esd Exhibit 4 - F

Mas, Manion L. Cusax

Joun C. Erseve

W. Les Hanmopa

* BLECTIONS ADATINISTRATOR

Joun P. Divewo

COUNSEL

BOARD of SUPERVISORS of ELECTIONS

MowrTcomenry = eco

Post Orrice Box 333

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850

Telephone 279-1507

October 28, 1974

Mr. George E. Gould

1710 Mark Lane

Rockville MD 20852

Dear Mr. Gould:

This is in reference to one item of our October 18, 1974

letter to you. That item is on page 2 of the letter, the

second paragraph of No. 3.

We indicated that in eeceeting write-in votes. for George E,

Gould for office. of member of the Montgomery County Board of

Education, we would accept either "G. E. Gould" or "George E.

Gould". We —— our: reasons for setting such standards.

Since then, however, we have received further instru tions

from the State Administrative posta of Election Laws re-

garding the handling of write-in votes. These instructions

have been reviewed and approved by the Attorney General of

Maryland. Come eI Ades &D fay?)

EM fhA

In accordance with the recent communication from the State

Board, we will accept a write-in vote if it includes only :

the surname and the initial of the. first name -- i.e.,

"G. Gould" in your instance.

Very aH ly nae

‘Sane’. Hen i Aa President

BOARD of SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS: .

' for Mo gomery County,. Maryland =~

Board ietbuen. Substitutes, Counsel

Af end 16

CC:

9. Remove and Display Model

One Machine in each polling place has a small working model of a portion of

the face of the Machine at the bottom of the paper roll compartment. This is

for instruction of voters. Remove this model from the Machine and lock the door.

Put No. 4 key on your election officer's key ring.

During the election, the working model should be displayed so that those

waiting to vote must see it. Either stand it on the election officer's table or hang

it on the wall of the voting room near the specimen ballots. One election officer

should be in attendance at the model to explain it to each voter.

10. Post the Specimen Ballots

Two or more specimen ballots duplicating the face of the Machine will be

furnished each polling place. Post these specimens on the wall where the voters:

can readily see them and become familiar with the names of the candidates, the

question, if any, and their positions on the Machine.

INSTRUCTIONS its! 39

closed. It must be pulled out each time a voter enters the Mcchine, in.eithera —

general or a primary election.

DURING THE VOTING

12. Jnstruct Each Voter on the Model and Call] His Attention to the Specimen

Ballot

Much time will be saved and confusion avoided if each voter understands

before he enters the voting booth just how to operate the Machine. Therefore

be sure that Instruction 9 is followed.

If possible, have the voter operate the model himself, so that he will be familiar

with the Machine before voting.

The attention of waiting voters also should be called to the specimen ballots,

so that they will know where the different parties, candidates and questions are

located on the Machine, and can find them quickly when voting.

AT GENERAL ELECTIONS

A. “Write-In” Votes

It is suggested that unless the voter asks for information about “write-in”

votes, it should not be volunteered; unnecessary details may confuse him.

For additional write-in instructions, please refer to Part II, Voting, Section

V, During Election, General Write-in Instructions.

Appendix 10

WRITE-IN CANDIDATES

§ 4D-1. Write-in campaigns.

(a) Any person or combination of two or more persons who expends $51 or

more to organize, promote, or assist in any manner the write-in candidacy of any

person or persons for any public office to be filled at a general election, is a

political committee for the purposes of this article. The person promoted for

public office under the above circumstances is a “write-in candidate.”

(b) A write-in candidate is required to file a certificate of candidacy for

election. The certificate shall be filed with the same agency as if the write-in

candidate were filing for office under § 4A-2 of this article.

(c) The certificate of candidacy for election of a write-in candidate shall be

filed no later than 7 days after a total expenditure of $51 is made in his behalf

by the committee promoting his candidacy, but shall not be filed after noon on

the fourth day preceding the day of the election for which filed. (1975, ch. 728,

§ 2.)

(h) Write-in candidates. — A write-in candidate, as determined under § 4D-1

of this article, is required to pay a filing fee equal to that required of a candidate

for nomination to the same office sought by the write-in candidate or to the office

to which he is promoted. (1957, ch. 739, § 1; 1967, ch. 392, § 1; 1969, ch. 560; 1970,

ch. 103; 1971, ch. 352, § 1; chs. 354, 391; 1978, ch. 85, § 439: 1974, ch. 3; 1975,

ch. 399; ch. 723, § 2; 1977, ch. 688, § 4.)

-—-— on

popenor - 1D