Full Opinion

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-26-002089 Argued: September 4, 2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 24 September Term, 2026 LISA RUSSELL v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al. Fader, C.J., Watts, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, Killough, JJ. PER CURIAM ORDER Filed: September 4, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.09.04 16:38:14 -04'00' Gregory Hilton, Clerk * IN THE LISA RUSSELL * SUPREME COURT v. * OF MARYLAND MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF * ELECTIONS, et al. No. 24 * September Term, 2026 * PER CURIAM ORDER Maryland law provides three ways for a political candidate to access the ballot in a general election: (1) nomination by a political party, (2) nomination by petition, or (3) as a write-in candidate. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 5-702. Candidates seeking nomination by petition must file a certificate of candidacy and a petition “signed by the lesser of 10,000 registered voters or 1% of the total number of registered voters who are eligible to vote for the office for which the nomination by petition is sought,” or at least 250 eligible voters. Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law § 5-703(d)(1). Title 6 of the Election Law Article further regulates the content of nomination petitions, the validity of nominating signatures, and how election officials process those petitions. On August 3, 2026, Lisa Russell timely filed a petition for candidacy with the Prince George’s County Board of Elections to run for the House of Delegates as an unaffiliated candidate. Ms. Russell submitted a petition containing 1,182 signatures. But when the Prince George’s County Board of Elections reviewed Ms. Russell’s petition, it determined that 370 of the signatures were not valid, leaving her short of the required number to qualify for the ballot. On August 19, the Maryland State Board of Elections notified Ms. Russell that her candidate nomination petition did not contain the number of valid signatures necessary to satisfy Maryland’s legal requirements. Ms. Russell moved promptly to challenge the State Board’s determination. Ms. Russell requested records related to her petition determination from the State Board on August 19th. That same day, she also filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Ms. Russell alleged that the State Board failed to identify the 370 signatures that led it to reject her petition; that there was a numerical discrepancy between the number of signatures she submitted and the number of signatures the State Board reviewed; that she had not received the records she requested from the State Board; and that election officials improperly excluded or refused to process valid signatures she submitted with her petition. Soon thereafter, the State Board sent Ms. Russell scanned copies of her petition sheets with notations from Prince George’s County election officials, reflecting their determination for each signature she submitted. Ms. Russell reviewed the State Board’s records and assembled a lengthy table noting her objections to a subset of the signatures rejected by the Prince George’s County Board of Elections. In the circuit court, the State filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under § 12-202 of the Election Law Article contending that Ms. Russell failed to “allege any act or omission that is inconsistent with any applicable law.” The circuit court subsequently held a three-day trial between August 31st and September 2nd. On the first day, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss with leave for Ms. Russell to amend her petition. Ms. Russell, in accordance with the court’s order, submitted a supplemental brief with her table attached for the court’s consideration. At trial, Lisa Nash, 2 a staff member of the State Board, testified that she conducted a complete review of Ms. Russell’s petition and determined that more signatures were invalid under the applicable statutory criteria than the Prince George’s County Board of Elections initially identified. The circuit court issued its final order on September 2nd. The court accepted Ms. Russell’s supplemental filings and oral requests as an amended petition but denied that petition. The circuit court ordered that Ms. Russell’s name “shall not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot for the Maryland House of Delegates in District 23.” On the same day, Ms. Russell noted a direct appeal to this Court, and we issued an order expediting briefing and argument. On September 4, 2026, we held oral argument. For reasons to be set forth in an opinion to be filed later, it is this 4th day of September 2026, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, ORDERED that the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County is affirmed; and it is further ORDERED that costs are to be paid by the appellant. The mandate shall issue forthwith. /s/ Matthew J. Fader Chief Justice 3