VOTERS ORGANIZED FOR THE INTEGRITY OF CITY ELECTIONS, ET AL. v. BALTIMORE CITY ELECTIONS BOARD, ET AL.
Court of Appeals, McDonald, Jan. 23, 2017,
Mootness – Review of a TRO seeking to create a system of “inmate voting” was moot where the appeal was considered the day before the 2016 general election and it would have been impossible to effect

(Concur – Watts- Laches should apply where case was filed eleven days before general election)

If it’s an intro-competition between McDonald and Harrell, I vote that McDonald wins… though it’s more interesting than it is relevant

There is a medieval legend concerning a Danish king named Canute whose domain included the British Isles and Scandinavia. To his contemporaries, his authority must have
seemed boundless. Canute was less impressed. To demonstrate that his power was quite finite in the grand scheme of things, Canute invited his courtiers to the seashore where he
commanded the incoming tide to halt – an order that was, as Canute intended to demonstrate, without effect.
An appellate court may sometimes find itself in a situation when, due to time or other circumstances beyond its control, it is asked to issue an order that, like King Canute’s
command to the sea, would be without practical effect.

Facts: VOICE filed for TRO seeking that the election board be required to implement a voting system for all eligible voters incarcerated in Baltimore City.

The Court here proudly laudes the limited role of the judiciary under the separation of powers (“… if any person or group disenchanted with some public
policy but not adversely affected by it in some special way were free to seek a judicial declaration that the policy is invalid – the courts, rather than the legislative branch, would
end up setting public policy, and that is not the proper role of the Judiciary”).

And then the Court, despite the case not being in front of them, gives some unsolicited “guidance” to the trial court.

– Pretrial detainees and individuals who are incarcerated as a result only of a misdemeanor conviction and who are otherwise eligible to vote under EL 3-102 remain eligible to vote, even though they are in custody.
– The 2016 legislation did not affect the eligibility to vote of pretrial detainees and of individuals incarcerated as a result only of a misdemeanor conviction.
– Pretrial detainees and individuals incarcerated as a result only of a misdemeanor conviction who are eligible to register to vote may register to vote by mail, online, or with the assistance of a volunteer. EL 3-201(a)(3), (6), (7).
– Pretrial detainees and individuals incarcerated as a result only of a misdemeanor conviction who are registered to vote retain the right to vote by absentee ballot and to have the assistance of an agent pursuant to EL 9-307 in obtaining the appropriate application and absentee ballot for that purpose.
– The 2016 legislation imposes no special mandate on the State or local election boards with respect to individuals who happen to be in custody as compared to other individuals who may be incapacitated or unable to visit an early voting site or their designated polling place on election day – e.g., as a result of health issues, employment, family or school circumstances.