Blount v. Board of Elections

4 Citing cases

  1. Blount v. Boston

    351 Md. 360 (Md. 1998)   Cited 31 times
    In Blount v. Boston, 351 Md. 360, 718 A.2d 1111 (1998), a candidate running for Maryland State Senate filed suit in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to strike the name of his opponent from the ballot on the basis of an alleged failure to satisfy the residency requirements.

    See Code (1957, 1997 Repl.Vol.), Art. 33, § 3-6. In this connection, see Blount v. Board of Elections, 247 Md. 342, 344, 230 A.2d 639, 641 (1967). Senator Blount's state income tax returns, including the most recent, list his address as 3410 Copley Road, Baltimore City. Baltimore City has continuously been listed on the returns as the subdivision in which Senator Blount resides, and, therefore, the local portion of the income tax goes to Baltimore City. The income tax returns all reflect that they were filed under penalties of perjury.

  2. White v. Manchin

    173 W. Va. 526 (W. Va. 1984)   Cited 33 times
    Affirming one year residential requirement for state senator

    1976) (state representative); Draper v. Phelps, 351 F. Supp. 677, 686 (W.D.Okla. 1972) (state representative); Blount v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 247 Md. 342, 350, 230 A.2d 639, 643 (1967) (state constitutional convention delegate); Hendrix v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Election Board, 554 P.2d 770, 772 (Okla. 1976) (state representative). There are primarily three reasons why courts have upheld state constitutional and statutory durational residency requirements for state offices.

  3. In re Contest of November 8, 2011 Gen. Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly, Fourth Legislative District

    DOCKET NO.: L-5995-11 (Law Div. Jun. 22, 2012)

    That is far shorter than the seven-year state residency requirement for state senators upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Sununu, supra, 420 U.S. 958. Numerous courts have since upheld such short requirements. See e.g., Akron, supra, 660 F.2d at 167-69 (upholding one-year ward residency requirement); Brewster, supra, 541 S.W.2d at 307, 310; Cox v. Barber, 568 S.E.2d 478, 481-82 & n.14 (Ga. 2002) (upholding one-year district residency requirement, despite Robertson); Blount v. Board of Supervisors, 230 A.2d 639 (Md. Ct. App. 1967) (upholding one-year district residency requirement). The original drafters of this requirement in the New Jersey Constitution obviously felt that one year was the minimum period for the candidates for either house to get to know the voters of the district, and for the voters of the district to get to know the candidate.

  4. In re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of N.J. General Assembly, Fourth Legislative Dist.

    427 N.J. Super. 410 (Law Div. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Numerous courts have since upheld such short requirements. See e.g., Akron, supra, 660 F.2d at 167–69 (upholding one-year ward residency requirement); Brewster, supra, 541 S.W.2d at 307, 310;Cox v. Barber, 275 Ga. 415, 568 S.E.2d 478, 481–82 & n. 14 (2002) (upholding one-year district residency requirement, despite Robertson); Blount v. Board of Supervisors, 247 Md. 342, 230 A.2d 639 (1967) (upholding one-year district residency requirement). The original drafters of this requirement in the New Jersey Constitution obviously felt that one year was the minimum period for the candidates for either house to get to know the voters of the district, and for the voters of the district to get to know the candidate.