Judge set to rule on referendum of transgender law

Montgomery petition signature count in dispute

‘‘The charter says registered voters,” Shurberg said at a July 10 hearing in Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville. ‘‘Not active voters. Registered voters.”

Instead of using the number of registered voters, the elections board used a lower number of ‘‘active voters” to calculate the number of signatures required by Citizens for Responsible Government, Shurberg said. That left out about 52,000 inactive voters who are people who have not voted in the past two general elections, he said.

Elections officials ruled CRG, which opposes the transgender law, needs 25,000 signatures. Counting inactive voters would mean the group needed 27,500 signatures, Shurberg said.

The group had 26,892 signatures.

‘‘I’m sort of surprised,” Judge Robert A. Greenberg said. ‘‘To my way of thinking, the state Board of Elections disregarded the law. I don’t understand why. I may ultimately find a group of people went out ... you did everything right, except got the wrong number because you relied on the Board of Elections, who were presumably in the know.”

Board of Elections attorney Kevin Karpinski argued that Equality Maryland’s challenge is too late because it should have been made in November, when the elections board determined how many signatures were needed.

But Shurberg said Equality Maryland’s challenge to the validity of the signatures was made within the 10-day requirement of when the Board of Elections certified the petition March 6.

The issue of active voters and registered voters did not arise until June 11, at an earlier hearing, he said.

Shurberg also argued that numerous signatures were clearly written by the same person instead of by individuals.

Karpinski said the elections board does not have to perform handwriting examinations to find signatures valid, only requiring that they are from registered voters and the correct address is listed.

Several signatures accepted as valid by the elections board included unregistered voters, and signatures that did not include the full name as required by state law, Shurberg argued.

The judge is expected to make his decision in several weeks.

The county’s anti-discrimination law was passed unanimously by the County Council on Nov. 13 and was signed by County Executive Isiah Leggett (D).

While the hearings on the law drew little attention, after it was passed a group of community activists said it would allow cross-dressing men into public restrooms and locker rooms with women and girls.

Leggett has said the group has incorrectly interpreted the legislation, which is intended to protect transgendered people from being discriminated against in housing and employment.

Last week, the County Council received the proposed ballot language, should Greenberg rule the petitions are valid and voters can decide the issue in November.

‘‘Shall the Act to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service, taxicab service on the basis of gender identity become law?” the proposed ballot reads.

The council has not voted on whether to approve the ballot language.