BARBARA OSBORN KREAMER, * IN THE

Petitioner/ Appellant * COURT OF APPEALS

v. * OF MARYLAND

MARYLAND STATE BOARD * January Term, 2018

OF ELECTIONS, * Misc. No.

Respondent/ Appellee *

 * * * * * * * * * * * *

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

NOW COMES BARBARA OSBORN KREAMER, Petitioner, to request This Honorable

Court to issue a writ of certiorari in the above-captioned matter.

The Case in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County

The case in the lower court was designated Barbra Osborn Kreamer v. Maryland State
Board of Elections, Case No. C-02-CV-18-000629.

Decision by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

The case has been decided by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The opinion was
presented orally. A written opinion is not yet available. Petitioner/ Appellant will submit the
opinion as a supplement as soon as it has been made available.

Decision not due from the Court of Special Appeals

The matter is not subject to review by the Court of Special Appeals under Rule 8-
301(a)(1) because this a matter allowed by law to go directly to the Court of Appeals under
Election Law 12-203(a), which states “an appeal shall be taken directly to the Court of Appeals
within 5 days of the date of the decision of the circuit court.”

Date of Judgment

The judgments sought to be reviewed were entered on May 21, 2018.

 Question Presented for Review

Is Petitioner entitled to a hearing on the facts and law to determine the eligibility for
candidacy of a person challenged who has filed for Maryland Senate, District 34 with the State
Board of Elections, hereinafter known as “the Board,” despite (1) the Board’s claim of laches
and the court’s acceptance of that claim, (2) the court’s speculation of unlikelihood of success
on the merits based on (a) a balance of convenience test and (b) the passage of time in relation to
printing of ballots regarding joinder of subject candidate as a party?

Why Review is Desirable and in the Public Interest

Review by the Court of Appeals is desirable and in the public interest because this is a
case of first impression involving a determination of whether a person has abandoned a domicile
when the person divorced a spouse, who remained at an address that was in the domiciliary
family home, then moved to another residence, then may or may not have taken up residence in
the address that was the family home while the person is no longer a family member of the
domiciled ex-spouse. A determination of the facts of the person’s residency in contrast to the
person’s domicile is essential because the statute establishing qualifications for candidacy
requires six months’ residency in the district that a person seeks to represent for all candidates
for the General Assembly in addition to the requirement of being a registered voter of the
district, while in contrast that voter registration requirement is all that is required of candidates
for many other offices in Maryland.

Review by the Court of Appeals is further desirable and in the public interest because the
public in District 34 is entitled to representation by one of their number or community, that is, a
person who in fact resides and has resided for at least six months prior to filing in District 34.
Furthermore, the voters in Maryland are entitled to the confidence that no matter the timing of
the printing of ballots, the meandering of the court process, the lack of sufficient specificity of
court forms, or any other observance of procedure no matter how precarious, the candidates in
the Primary of either party will be held accountable so that their representatives are, in fact, from
among their number in their respective districts.

Furthermore, the public needs to know whether their rights to appropriate representation
following from having qualified candidates outweigh the balance of convenience cited by the
lower court. The public needs to know that the standards of qualification are applied in the first
instance since Petitioner already has the right to challenge the outcome again if the subject
candidate receives more votes in the Primary. Therefore the potential disruption and balance of
convenience are overruled in favor of qualification, a judicial review of qualification now is
more desirable than a questionable dismissal of a case on an important question timely filed and
filed in an appropriate court. The consequence of a post-Primary challenge, if successful, is that
the party central committee chooses that candidate instead of the voters of the party in the
Primary, so if the court wishes to preserve the principle of elections over appointments, a
determination of qualification before the Primary is essential.

Pertinent Legal Provisions

As to residency requirements there are the following provisions:

1. In MD Code Annotated Election Law 5-201 “An individual may become a candidate
for a public or party office only if the individual satisfies the qualifications for that office
established by law”.
2. A residency requirement is noted in MD Code Annotated Election Law Section 5-220:
“A candidate for public…office must be a registered voter at an address that satisfies any
residence requirement for the office that is imposed by law”.
3. The Maryland Constitution provides in Article III, Section 9 that “A person is eligible
to serve as a Senator or Delegate, who on the date of his election…has resided in that district for
six months next preceding that date.”

As to residency challenge: MD Code Annotated Election Law 5-305( c )(2) Judicial

review of any petition that is filed under subsection (b) of this section shall be expedited by the
circuit court that hears the cause to the extent necessary in consideration of the deadlines
established by law, and in no case longer than 7 days from the date the petition is filed.”

Statement of Facts

Before 2014 Mary-Dulany James divorced her husband Brian B. Feeney in an action in
the Circuit Court for Harford County. Their marital home had been at 550 Old Bay Lane in
Havre de Grace. Brian Feeney continued to reside at 550 Old Bay Lane with his and Mary-
Dulany James’ minor children. Mary-Dulany James and John H. Zink, III were engaged and
were law partners in James and Zink sharing office space with Joseph Snee, Esq. in Bel Air,
Maryland since before 2014 and up until the present day. Mary-Dulany James moved in with her
fiancée, John H. Zink, III before the 2014 election. John H. Zink, III currently resides at 13
Devon Hill Road, Unit 5, Baltimore in District 11.

Mary-Dulany James was a candidate for Senate for District 34 in 2014. Her opponent,
former District 34 Senator Arthur H. Helton, Jr., claimed that she was not a resident of Harford
County but rather was a resident of Baltimore. However, he did not file a complaint in court
because he was not a resident of District 34, either, being domiciled at 3067 Harmony Church
Road in Darlington, which is in District 35. Mary-Dulany James did not file a challenge to
former Senator Arthur H. Helton’s candidacy apparently because her own residency was open
to challenge at the time. The Gubernatorial election of 2014 played out, and neither Democratic
candidate became the Senator from District 34.

Petitioner filed her candidacy for MD Senate on or about February 16, 2018. On or about
February 20, 2018 the MD Senate President told Petitioner that one of the attributes of Mary-
Dulany James is that she is a wife. On or about February 22, 2018 Mary-Dulany James filed her
candidacy for MD Senate. Petitioner asked Mary-Dulany James about her marital status; she
replied that she had married about three years ago. Petitioner asked if the marriage records were
in the Circuit Court for Harford County. Mary-Dulany James replied that she had gotten married
elsewhere. Petitioner asked her to send a copy of her marriage license to her since it would bear
on her residency. Mary-Dulany James has not produced to Petitioner a marriage license or other
indicia of residency to date.

Argument

A determination of the facts of the person’s residency in contrast to the person’s domicile
is essential because the statute establishing qualifications for candidacy requires six months’
residency in the district that a person seeks to represent is required for all candidates for the
General Assembly in addition to being a registered voter of the district, while in contrast that
voter registration requirement is all that is required of candidates for many other offices in
Maryland. The public needs to know that their rights to appropriate representation following
from having qualified candidates outweigh a balance of convenience.

The Primary election is more than one month away. The matter may be determined and, if
the subject candidate is not qualified, that information may be promulgated to the voters in the
form of a notice appended to sample ballots, which are mailed to voters, or by signage or by
some other means of notice.

The burden for expediting cases of residency challenge is established in the courts. The
existing court form establishes whether a case is to be expedited. But the form offered in Anne
Arundel County does not provide a choice for expedition of the degree of swiftness required by
this circumstance. The Clerk of the Court, not the Petitioner, produced the summons in the
ordinary course. The summons had to be served by rule by someone other than the Petitioner.
The court, not the Petitioner, set the date for a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss or for Summary
Judgment and all other pending motions. The court did not follow the statute’s requirement to
accommodate deadlines established by law. The Petitioner should not be penalized for the pace
of the actions of others who are necessary to the administration of the court process. To dismiss
a petition timely filed and entered into an appropriate court when the petition involves such an
important public question as the representation of the majority of one of the 24 subdivisions of
the State of Maryland, namely Harford County, would not serve justice.
 WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that this Court:

A. Issue its writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County so that this case
may be certified to this Court for review and determination;
B. Vacate the Order by which the matter was dismissed in the Circuit Court for Anne
Arundel County;
C. Join any necessary party;
D. Hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter allowing expedited discovery;
E. Remand as much of the matter as this Court determines is appropriate;
F. Remand the determined matter to a circuit court that this Court deems appropriate;
G. Set an expedited time frame for review, remand, discovery and adjudication;
H. Establish a method of notice should the outcome determine that a modification of the list
of candidates for MD Senate in the Democratic Primary for District 34 is required; and
I. For such other and further relief as the nature of this cause may require.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Osborn Kreamer

701 Beards Hill Road
Aberdeen, MD 21001-1756
410 272 3831
Barbaraok@comcast.net
Petitioner pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ________ day of ________________, 2018 I mailed

postage prepaid a copy of the foregoing Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
to

Andrea W. Trento
Assistant Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place, 20th floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Attorney for the Respondent/Appellee.

________________________________________
Barbara Osborn Kreamer
Petitioner pro se