Updated 12/7/11
§ 5-201. In general
HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 5-201; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4.
(a) Applicability. — This section applies to the placement on the ballot in the primary election of the names of individuals who are candidates for nomination by principal political parties to the office of President of the United States.
(b) Procedure. — An individual who desires to run in the primary election may be placed on the ballot only:
(1) by direction of the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (c) of this section; or
(2) by filing, in accordance with subsection (d) of this section, a petition containing the signatures of at least 400 registered voters from each congressional district in the State.
(c) Selection by Secretary of State. –
(1) The Secretary of State shall certify to the State Board the names of candidates for nomination by a principal political party during the period beginning 90 days before the primary election and ending 80 days before the primary election.
(2) The Secretary of State shall certify the name of a presidential candidate on the ballot when the Secretary has determined, in the Secretary’s sole discretion and consistent with party rules, that the candidate’s candidacy is generally advocated or recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in Maryland, unless the candidate executes and files with the Secretary of State an affidavit stating without qualification that the candidate is not and does not intend to become a candidate for the office in the Maryland primary election.
§ 5-601. Candidates qualifying.
The name of a candidate shall remain on the ballot and be submitted to the voters at a primary election if:
(1) the candidate has filed a certificate of candidacy in accordance with the requirements of § 5-301 of this title and has satisfied any other requirements of this article relating to the office for which the individual is a candidate, provided the candidate:
(i) has not withdrawn the candidacy in accordance with Subtitle 5 of this title;
(ii) has not died or become disqualified, and that fact is known to the applicable board by the deadline prescribed in § 5-504(b) of this title;
(iii) does not seek nomination by petition pursuant to the provisions of § 5-703 of this title; or
(iv) is not a write-in candidate; or
(2) the candidate has qualified to have the candidate’s name submitted to the voters in a presidential primary election under Title 8, Subtitle 5 of this article.
___________________________________________________________________________
Md. Election Law Code Ann. § 12-203
ELECTION LAW
TITLE 12. CONTESTED ELECTIONS
SUBTITLE 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ELECTIONS
§ 12-203. Procedure
(a) In general. — A proceeding under this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with the Maryland Rules, except that:
(1) the proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury and as expeditiously as the circumstances require;
(2) on the request of a party or sua sponte, the chief administrative judge of the circuit court may assign the case to a three-judge panel of circuit court judges; and
(3) an appeal shall be taken directly to the Court of Appeals within 5 days of the date of the decision of the circuit court.
(b) Expedited appeal. — The Court of Appeals shall give priority to hear and decide an appeal brought under subsection (a) (3) of this section as expeditiously as the circumstances require.
_______________________________________________________________________________
§ 12-204. Judgment
(a) In general. — The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and:
(1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or
(2) may change the outcome of a pending election.
(b) Act or omission that changed election outcome. — If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the outcome of an election already held, the court shall:
(1) declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or
(2) order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy.
(c) Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election. — If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may:
(1) order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and
(2) if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy, direct that the election for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court.
(d) Clear and convincing evidence. — A determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://electionlawissues.org/PDF’s/ChapterTwo%20-%20Proofed2.pdf
B. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES As indicated earlier in this chapter, the Supreme Court recognizes that states have an interest in establishing candidate ballot qualification standards.
-
identify the character and magnitude of the burden the challenged regulation(s) place(s) on the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights,
-
consider whether the state’s interest(s) justify the burden placed on the plaintiff’s rights,
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happerset:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
