State elections officials are asking an Anne Arundel County judge to stay her injunction on a Baltimore City ballot question pending an appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court. File photo by Bryan P. Sears.
State elections officials are asking an Anne Arundel County judge to delay her decision to throw out a question over the future of the Inner Harbor from Baltimore’s ballot box so the state Supreme Court can hear the case.
Anne Arundel County District Court Judge Cathleen Vitale’s request for a stay comes four days after she joined plaintiffs seeking to have a question about the redevelopment of Harborplace removed from the ballot.
Ballots have already been mailed to voters, including those in the state. The Maryland State Board of Elections argued that a stay of Vitale’s order would protect the ability of city voters to cast ballots on the issue. If the Maryland Supreme Court later upholds her order, votes on the redevelopment issue would not be counted.
“The State Board seeks to avoid the unintended disenfranchisement that this court’s nullification order will cause,” Daniel Kobrin, an assistant attorney general for the board, wrote in his motion. “Now that they are aware of the order and its effect on the election, voters can choose not to vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ a proposed charter amendment that they believe has been nullified.”
State Elections Administrator Jared DeMarinis said a delay would create a “no harm, no foul” scenario while the state Supreme Court reviews Vitale’s ruling. The board filed an appeal with the Maryland Supreme Court on Friday.
“Because voters in Baltimore City now have the opportunity to cast their ballots, we don’t want them to not cast a ballot on Question F while the Supreme Court decides it,” DeMarinis said in an interview Friday. “Once a voter has cast their ballot and put it in the drop box, they don’t have to vote again. It’s cast and it’s counted.”
The ballot question, if approved by voters, would pave the way for redevelopment of the city’s Inner Harbor area. Developers and the city want to redevelop the existing shopping pavilions. Built by The Rouse Company, the pavilions opened in 1980 and ushered in a renaissance for the city center. In recent years, the pavilions have lost their luster and tenants.
City officials and MCB Real Estate want to replace the current buildings with a mixed-use development of retail and housing. The plan has been criticized as a developer giveaway that will limit public access to the waterfront.
A group of voters led by Anthony J. Ambridge, a former Baltimore city councilman, filed a lawsuit in Anne Arundel County on Sept. 5 seeking to have the question removed from the ballot. The group challenged both the legality of the question and its wording.
Legal objections to ballots must be filed in Anne Arundel County, where the Maryland State Board of Elections is located.
Earlier in the day, attorneys representing Baltimore City and MCB Real Estate, the developer of Harborplace, filed motions to intervene in the case and have Vitale’s decision reconsidered. P. David Bramble, owner of MCB Real Estate, was born and raised in Baltimore.
“We appreciate the opportunity to intervene and will ask the Supreme Court to grant Baltimore City residents the right to vote on this issue,” an MCB spokesperson said in a statement.
Vitale, a former Republican congresswoman who was appointed to the bench by Democratic former Gov. Martin O’Malley, denied motions to intervene from the city and MCB. She also denied the city’s motion for reconsideration.
Thiru Vignarajah, an attorney for the plaintiffs and a former candidate for Baltimore mayor, said the appeal was not unexpected.
“I think it was significant that we heard in court today for the first time that part of the negotiations, apparently way back in the development, was a wink, a nod, a nod, or an explicit affirmation from the city that they were going to amend the charter,” Vignarajah said.
“It’s a pretty extraordinary development, but I think it just underscores why this is the classic legislative act, and even if it was understandable, it’s probably not the right subject for a city charter,” he said.
