Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore

Background

A candidate seeking a spot on the Baltimore municipal ballot refused to file a state-required affidavit. Maryland law required an oath about not engaging in or supporting efforts to overthrow the government by force. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied the candidate a place on the ballot for that refusal. A prior Maryland case, Shub v. Simpson, interpreted the statute to require a candidate only to swear they are not personally trying to overthrow the government and are not knowingly a member of an organization that does so.

Reasoning

The question before the Court was whether the candidate’s refusal to sign the affidavit justified denying ballot access. The Court relied on the state court’s reading of the law and noted the State Attorney General’s statement that he would advise officials to accept an affidavit in the narrower form described in Shub. Given that assurance and the state court’s interpretation, the Supreme Court affirmed the Maryland Court of Appeals’ judgment. The practical winner on this record is the State: the candidate was denied a ballot spot for refusing to sign the required statement.

Real world impact

The ruling keeps in place the state’s requirement that candidates sign an oath about not engaging in violent efforts to overthrow government, but it also signals officials will accept a shorter, narrower sworn statement that mirrors Shub’s wording. Candidates who refuse to sign such an affidavit may be denied ballot access. Because the decision rests on the state court’s interpretation and the Attorney General’s assurance, the outcome may be limited to similar circumstances and might not resolve broader challenges to the law.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Reed joined the result in a separate concurrence, agreeing with the outcome reached by the Court.