Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16
DOUGLAS HORN * INTHE CIRCUIT COURT P.O. Box 6353 * FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY Columbia, MD 21045 a Plaintiff, e v. * CASE NUMBER: KRISHANTI VIGNARAJAH . P.O. BOX 152 . COLUMBIA, MD 21045 * MARYLAND BOARD OF ELECTIONS * 151 WEST STREET SUITE 200 7 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 : Defendants, . PETITI DE COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Douglas Hom, by and through his attorney, Clarissa Jimenez, Esquire and the Law Offices of Jimenez. & Jimenez, LLC. and hereby alleges the following in support of his cl PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Douglas Hom, is a registered voter in Maryland residing in Baltimore county. 2. Defendant, Krishanti Vignarajah, is a candidate for governor in this upcoming gubernatorial election, and is now a resident of Montgomery County, Maryland, 3. Defendant, Maryland Board of Elections (hereinafter “Defendant MBE”) is tasked with, inter alia, ensuring that candidates comply with the rules and regulations set out by the Board as well as in the Maryland Constitution to allow for fair elections to take place. 2 10. ul JURISDICTION AND VENUE Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-3 above. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Md, Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 1-501 and §3-403. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in this matter pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §6-102. This Court serves as proper venue for this matter pursuant to Md, Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §6-201. EACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-7 above Plaintiff has been a resident of Maryland since birth and has grown up, raised a family, and been actively invested in the gubernatorial race Pl iff has voted each year that he has been eligible and follows the campaigns of each candidate, placing high importance on the candor, and stance on issues that each candidate takes, Plaintiff does not consider himself a political person per se, however, he does believe that each eligible individual should fulfill their duties as citizens to vote in the elections to make sure the most qualified candidate represents the interests of their citizens. . While following the political race, Plaintiff became concemed about the eligibility of Defendant, Krishanti Vignarajah, after various reports surfaced that Vignarajah did not satisfy the requirements to run for governor. 13. Defendant declared her entry in the gubernatorial race in August 2017 and since that time has completed her filing requirements for candidacy for governor which includes a statement under penalty of perjury that she is “a registered voter and a citizen of Maryland and meets all other requirements for the above-mentioned office.” 14. The Maryland Constitution requires that “a person to be eligible for the office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor must...have been a registered voter of the State for five years next immediately preceding his election.” (MD Constitution Art. II. Sec.5). 15, Defendant Vignarajah, has stated that she was a resident of Maryland since the year 1980. ‘She has further stated that she has lived in Maryland most of her life, attended college and then returned to Maryland, has family in Maryland, and even gave birth to her own child in Maryland. All of which she contends, supports that she is, for all intents and purposes, a Maryland resident. 16, Defendant Vignarajah alludes to her Maryland voter registration completed in 2006 as grounds to support that she is a Maryland resident however even after registering Vignarajah did not cast her first vote in the Maryland elections until the year 2016. 17. Defendant makes attempts to excuse her failure to vote (and instead voting in the DC elections) by equating her leaving Maryland for an assignment to soldiers are deployed overseas. Plaintiff asserts, Vignarajah is in no way a soldier, and one of the most important differences between the two is Vignarajah chose to leave the state and abandon her residency in Maryland, whereas soldiers overseas take advantage of the options provided to them and still serve their civil duty to cast their votes early or complete absentee ballots. 18, During the year 2009 Defendant Vignarajah, along with her mother, purchased an apartment in Washington, DC. Her contention is that the apartment was purchased due to the late nights that she worked, 19. The following year in 2010 Defendant Vignarajah registered to vote in Washington, DC and has even stated she voted there multiple times between 2010 and 2014. 20. In order to vote in the District of Columbia, an individual must meet all of the criteria set out by the Board of Elections. Among the requirements, the potential voter must “maintain residency in the District of Columbia for at least 30 days prior to the election in which you intend to vote, and not claim voting residence outside of the District of Columbia.” 21. The D.C. voter registration form further supports that Vignarajah knew exactly what she was doing. The form states, “If you sign this statement even though you know it is untrue, you can be convicted and fined up to $10,000 and/or jailed for up to five years.” The form itself gave her notice that the information on the form must be true or face penalty, and she made the decision to tell the truth, that she was a District of Columbia resident. (“Exhibit 1”) 22. Defendant Vignarajah was given constructive notice that by voting in the elections in DC she would be considered a resident of the District. She received a letter advising her that they found that she was registered to vote in Maryland and listed her Maryland address, however Defendant Vignarajah did not agree and instead completed the form stating that she resided at the address that she used to complete the application, her Washington, DC address. (Exhibit 2”) 23. Furthermore, in 2016, Defendant Vignarajah made another choice to demonstrate that she was in fact a resident of the District and had no intention of returning to Maryland, nor did she view Maryland as her domicile state. Vignarajah applied for and obtained a marriage license in the State of Maryland and cited her official address as her apartment in ‘Washington, DC, 1701 16" Street, NW, Washington, DC. (“Exhibit 3”). 24. Since this is an official document, the assumption would be that she knew that she had to tell the truth on this application. Further by listing this Washington, DC address on her marriage 4 26. 21. 29. license and subsequently filing the marriage license with the State of Maryland, the Defendant not only had the intention to change her domicile but also to put Maryland on notice of her change in domicile to Washington, DC. Defendant Vignarajah is a graduate from Yale Law School and is fully aware of the nuances of the language and the requirements of law yet is making the argument that it should not apply in an attempt to skirt the law.” Defendant MBE had a responsibility pursuant to Federal and Maryland law to remove Defendant Vignarajah from the Maryland voter registration list. The Board of Elections follows the rule that states “if the voter tells us by signature that he or she has moved, we remove the voter's name.” This clearly was not done after Defendant Vignarajah signed an official document reflecting her change in domicile, and subsequently filed it with Maryland directly putting Defendant MBE on notice on or about May 26, 2016. Vignarajah has publicly stated that she is a Maryland resident and went as far as to file a ‘Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Anne Arundel Circuit Court on October 6, 2017, Her complaint requested that the Court declare that she was a Maryland resident, and therefore was qualified to run in the gubematorial race. ‘The Complaint which was filed against Governor Hogan, Mary Wagner of the Board of Elections and the Maryland Board of Elections, never reached final judgment as the Complaint was withdrawn by Defendant Vignarajah only hours prior to the Court getting an opportunity to render their decision. It is Plaintiff's contention that Defendant Vignarajah’s intention was to file this suit as a ‘means to preclude any other individual from doing so. It served as a way to control the harrative as Vignarajah would retain the power to dismiss the suit, after the election was underway, but prior to the court ruling against her, which is exactly what she did. 5 30, Defendant MBE, had a responsibility to verify that the candidates that filed petitioned to run in the gubernatorial race, actually met the requirements for the office they wanted to run for. 31, Defendant MBE was placed on notice that there may be a problem with the qualifications of Defendant Vignarajah, not only when accusations from other candidates were made, but more coneretely when Defendant Vignarajah filed her Complaint blatantly stating that she had lived in Washington, DC and had voted there as well. 32, Following this information Defendant MBE failed to act to to remove Defendant Vignarajah from the ballot, or even to verify her eligibility as a candidete, and in doing so, put the Maryland voters at a disadvantage of obtaining the truth so they are able to make informed decisions when they vote in the upcoming election 33, Defendant ignarajah not only misled Defendant MBE, but she also misled the Maryland voters. Defendant Vignarajah implied she met the requirements and that when she filed the suit it was to clear up the confusion. Vignarajah has also been found to have misreported that she gave a personal loan of $100,000.00 to her campaign, which was false until the Baltimore Sun shed light on this discrepancy. Since then this matter has been rectified in some fashion. 34. Both of these assertions were false, and Plaintiff contends they were made to mislead the voters and give them a false sense of viable candidacy. Therefore, Plaintiff believes that any funds collected by Vignarajah shall be returned to the donors once the Court makes their decision declaring her ineligible to run for Governor. 35. As of the day of this Complaint, itis not clear to the voters that will line up to vote in the gubernatorial election, whether or not Defendant Vignarajah, does is in fact meet the Fequirements to run for office, as set out by the Maryland Constitution causing a legal controversy that a declaratory judgment could settle. 6 36. It would be a complete disservice to said voters, to have them vote for a candidate, only to later determine that said candidate does not meet the requirements to hold the office, therefore it is in the best interests of justice for this Court to enter a declaratory judgement on whether Defendant Vignarajah meets the requirements to run for Maryland Governor in the upcoming gubernatorial election. LEGAL BASIS AND SUPPORT 37, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all ofthe allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 above. 38. The Maryland Constitution requires that “a person to be eligible for the office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor must have attained the age of thirty years and must have been a registered voter of the State for five years next immediately preceding his election.” (MD Constitution Art, Il, Sec.5) 39, Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant Vignarajah has met the first prong of this requirement, however, Plaintiff does dispute the satisfaction of the second prong based on the evidence available to him and the applicable law. 40. The Maryland Court of Appeals has found that the question of domicile is a complex one, requiring not just a mere inquiry into whether an individual has relocated but also the facts and circumstances surrounding that relocation. Specifically, the Court held that an individual's residence is the equivalent to their domicile and the concept of domicile is fixed and requires not only a relocation but also an intent to establish a new domicile while abandoning their previous domicile. 41. In Shenton v. Abbott, the Court, citing Wagner v. Scurlock, stated “[tJhe official records of ‘Supervisors of Elections showing where a person registered or voted are admissible in evidence on the question of his place of domicile.” The court further stated, “While evidence 7 42. 43, 4s. of the exercise of the right of suffiage in a certain place is not conclusive, as a general rule, in determining the question of domicile, and may sometimes be of slight importance when overbalanced by other circumstances, such evidence should ordinarily have considerable weight because it is very strong evidence of intention.” (Shenton v. Abbott, 178 Md. 526, 15 A.2d 906 (Md. 1940) citing Wagner v. Scurlock, 166 Md. 284, 170 A. 539). In Shaeffer et, al v. Gilbert, the Court of Appeals held that a student that had relocated for school did in fact abandon his residence and therefore was domiciled where he went to school rather than at his mother’s home. The court stated that “in the absence of other proof, the law would presume he was there for the purpose of prosecuting his studies, and, this purpose being accomplished, he intended to return to his former residence.” The court further stated, “[b]ut in addition to his removal to Baltimore, we have the further fact that he has continued to reside there ever since, a period of 7 years, and that during this time he has supported himself by his own efforts; and also the further fact... that he procured a transfer of his registration as a voter... and voted there, and has never voted any other place.” (Shaeffer v. Gilbert, 73 Md. 66, 20 A. 434 (Md. 1890). ‘The Court in taking into account the factors listed above in paragraph thirty-four (34) of this Petition, found that “when considered together, a bona fide intention on the part of the appellee to abandon his former residence...” (Id). In the case of Defendant Vignarajah, she contends that she never had an intention to permanently reside in Washington, DC, however that contention alone while it does support that she remained a resident of Maryland, is not in and of itself the deciding factor. The court must take into account all of the factors and circumstances regarding Defendant ‘Vignarajah’s residency for purposes of determining whether she is eligible to run for Governor. 46, Defendant's contention that she meets the criteria because Defendant Vignaraja lived in Maryland for most of her life is not enough. This is not being disputed, however the Maryland Constitution does not simply state that the candidate must have been a resident of Maryland at some point in their lives, it says that the candidate “must have been a registered voter of the State for five years next immediately preceding his election.” 47. While Vignarajah lived in Washington, DC her actions support that she was not a resident of Maryland, but rather a resident of Washington, DC, choosing to register to vote in the District, voting in multiple elections in the District and as recent as 2014, purchasing and occupying an apartment in the District, receiving mail at her apartment in the District, obtaining a marriage license with her Washington, DC address, filing tax returns in the District, and continually seeking employment in Washington, DC Maryland except on occasions. 48. In addition, it is advantageous to Defendant Vignarajah to state that she did not have intentions on making Washington, DC her permanent residence therefore her word alone should not be the deciding factor and instead her actions should be given consideration. 49, Plaintiff has n sentive either way in the decision of this Court, but rather seeks this Court’s decision to ensure that voters in this election are properly informed prior to casting their votes. 50. Regardless of Defendant Vignarajah’s contention that she has been a registered voter since 2006, there are several conflicts that should be considered, (1) By registering to vote in Washington, DC, Vignarajah declared that she did not claim voting residence outside of the District, which supports that she had no intention to return to Maryland as a voter; (2) when the Board of Elections in Washington, DC contacted her to advise that they had found she was registered to vote in Maryland, she intentionally checked the box that corresponded with 9 52, her stating she was residing in Washington, DC at the apartment she had purchased; (3) actually taking part in voting in the District as recent as 2014, less than five years from the time she now seeks to run for office in Maryland; (4) when Defendant Vignarajah applied for her marriage license and cited her residence in Washington, DC and then subsequently filed that marriage license with the State of Maryland she placed Maryland and Defendant MBE ‘on notice that she was in fact a resident of the District; and (5) Defendant MBE had a duty that arose at or around the time they were notified, May 26, 2016, to remove Vignarajah’s name from the voter registration list, however they failed to fulfill that duty. - Vignarajah was all but screaming from the rooftops that she was a resident of Washington, DC but it continued to fall on deaf ears. All of these intentional actions support that Defendant ignarajah did in fact intend to remain in Washington, DC and contribute to their ‘communities and elections and therefore support that Defendant Vignarajah is ineligible to run for Governor in the gubematorial race. Defendant MBE may have not known at the time of Vignarajah’s ineligibility, but they became aware with concrete evidence when the news outlets such as the Washington Post published documents (attached herewith) received by them under the Freedom of Information Act, Defendant MBE was under an obligation to act on the information that was presented to them and retroactively cancel her voter registration, not to pick and choose when to get involved. With proper investigation and fact-checking, Defendant MBE would have came to the same conclusion that Defendant Vignarajah is ineligible to run for Governor. Defendant MBE has an obligation to now remove Vignarajah’s name from the voter registration list as of the date of her marriage license filing, to remove her name from the ballot for the Governor's race, 10 and to reprint the ballots to reflect the candidates that are qualified to hold the position of Governor for Maryland. 54, Since that investigation was not completed by Defendant MBE, it is now left with the Court to make the decision that Defendant MBE failed to make in order to ensure there will not be a tainted election. 55. The court is obligated to instruct the Maryland election board to void the Defendant's voter registration, as of the date of application of her marriage license. Thereafter, if Ms. ‘Vignarajah wishes to reapply to vote in Maryland she can do so as of the current date. In cither event, the Defendant is not eligible to run for Governor for the State of Maryland. The law requires her to be a Maryland registered voter for the 5 years immediately preceding the ‘gubernatorial run and she simply does not fulfill this requirement. CLA REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO DEFENDANT VIGNARAJAH’S ELIBILITY AS A CANDIDATE, 56, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-55 above. 57. Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court exercise their power in accordance with Md, Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-403, et seq. 58, Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-409 allows for the Court to issue a declaratory judgment or decree in a civil case, if it will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding, and if: An actual controversy exists between contending parties; b. Antagonistic claims are present between the parties involved which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation; or uu c. A party asserts a legal relation, status, right, or privilege and this is challenged or denied by an adversary party, who also has or asserts a concrete interest in it. 59. As required by this section a substantial controversy exists pertaining to Defendant Vignarajah’s eligibility to run for and carry out the duties of Maryland Governor. In addition, a controversy exists as to whether Defendant MBE should have verified her eligibility as a candidate and whether they should remove her name from the ballots after determining that she in fact is not eligible. These controversies are substantial and great importance to the Plaintiff, the general public, and the voters that will encounter these same questions when they set out to vote in the gubernatorial election, It is why the Court is the only correct authority to decide this matter. 60, Further, Defendant Vignarajah has asserted a privilege and right to be considered a Maryland ‘Voter so as to procure the position of Maryland Govemor, to which Plaintiff is challenging, and/or has a concrete interest in. 61. Therefore, this matter satisfies two of three circumstances in which Declaratory Relief can be granted by a Maryland Court under Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3- 409. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, this action is brought, and Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court 1. To interpret the law as is, and enter a Declaratory Judgment confirming that Defendant is incligible to run for Governor in the upcoming gubematorial election, due to her failing to satisfy the requirement that she be a registered voter for the five-years immediately preceding the election, as the Maryland Constitution requires pursuant to Art. IL. Sect. 5; 2 2. Instruct the Defendant Maryland Board of Elections to remove Defendant \Vignarajah’s name from the ballot to clear up any unnecessary confusion, reprint all of the ballots prior to the election with only the lawfully eligible candidates for the gubernatorial election listed; 3, Instruct Defendant Vignarajah to retum all funds solicited by her campaign to the donors that made such contributions; and 4. Grant any further relief as this Court deems fit and proper. EXHIBIT maviter_ som | ' Fascroawo rms | pre rer sere aS MON FORA an nine RE SEES cee ert em aos — 2 Wm Ce 2 pee yer ngetestete fn f_ysorein Pe enemies i |i Vignerayel Kishen + - i EYOmN74:4 |Z) ig) | eae se bed saad ia Tw Gh | 0 Me Crore — 3 ro or} == ares re Pr Yo es 8 yu sac ed et rote Sev anges © coma ts ay STE wep Oey a Wager | an Sipe eye = ae a SS = SR Ms owe ein tent Ps eatin, Boo acter as 208-727-2598, eos rate © wees 9 tae mo se Tio area, ae 9 aha coe een rae oa TE EXHIBIT 2 January 9,2014 | Dear Voter: Weave received that you are carey lise as a reistered votes in exter Maryland or Virginia, However, pur records indicate that you reside, ad are repiseed to vote, at he adress indicaind below. Please help ut to confirm your residence aden and beret) keep ou registy sven, by checking the applicable box andr providing the requ information, signing the fm sd eturng to th Bou the foowing ares by a0 neta Febroary 1, 2014 D.C. BOARD OF ELECTIONS. ur NW, #250N- - we WASHINGTON, DC 20001 aOi ‘eaide at the address below, as indicated io the Board's records. VIGNARAJAH, KRISHANTI 1701 16TH ST NW 144 WASHINGTON DC 20008 8. CS carreaty reside in the District of Columbia, but st the folowing address (Piease he sare tit if fou check this bo, and provide the sues information your vote egisration ‘cord wil be updated according Residence Adres ine eee eae eran Maing Adres: Telephone No, (optional: re ane: eae baa aA NN ©. O 1 pe oager rede nthe District of Columbia. (Pease be ere ht if ou check he box. your veteran te Disc of Columbia wil be easel) ro fibemy te poe {you have any cuewions pins cl he Boer of Eaton at 202727 | TOO hr e hearing impaired ty) plas call 202.699.0915, ‘Si necesita ayuda en espanol, lame al 202.727.2525. EXHIBIT VN 4O71AWAL NVOOW IW LSantd AMI, ATONIS or VANVT RIS, ANON “ YOK MAN O14 pau sopsed a pumpCreyy 90400 ONV'LAUVINWVHNV'T AVAURIVd NECHY9 SSH NTA 0009 ssnaay WYMVONASYNVATYN NYSANVD ANVIAMVN AD AnH VRRIVN HO, ASS ASN ANON 28euu20U 0 poo4q red ou 000 VEL FTOD 40 LORLLSHENOLONTISW AN rete MAN LS TLIO 101 sondyuist HYPVAVNOUA LINVHSIEM sing, SOR6E AV MV TEC NOLONLININ, VOU HD AONOG IVAN TOT VAVIN.O NODELVA NET Swogtoy sw atte > Jarsaqauog mo49K MNO4},9 JO Y494.) 94 40 SPAN. na 1000-91076 sAquIMN psoray atuLLIEYY, juno) aaysayoa0q, ANVTAUVIN AO ALVIS pr0d9y asvriaKyA) Jo Ado_d jeryjouy

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen