More News

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.

The county law prohibiting discrimination against transgendered individuals in housing, employment, cable television service and transportation was passed unanimously by the County Council in November 2007.

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. The group obtained more than 26,000 signatures in a petition drive to place the issue on the November ballot.

On July 24, Circuit Court Judge Robert A. Greenberg ruled that opponents of the referendum, led by the gay-rights activist group Equality Maryland, had acted too late in challenging the number of signatures collected by Citizens for Responsible Government.

The appeals court overturned that decision Sept. 9, the day before the election ballot was to have been certified, saying Greenberg erred by claiming a deadline had passed.

"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.

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."