Dove v. Simmons

John Calvin Dove, Jr. v. Gary Simmons, et al., No. 63, September Term, 2025 ELECTION LAW – CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY – RESIDENCY – DOMICILE – FALSE STATEMENT – CONTINUANCE WHERE MEMBER OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS ATTORNEY OF RECORD – Supreme Court of Maryland held that under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.) (“CJ”) § 6- 402(b), court is required to grant motion for continuance of proceeding only when member of General Assembly, who is attorney of record in proceeding, files motion requesting continuance of proceeding before legislative session begins. Supreme Court concluded that attorney who enters appearance in proceeding after legislative session begins waives benefit of CJ § 6-402(b), by virtue of having entered appearance in proceeding after time in which attorney could have requested relief under section (b). In this case, separate from CJ § 6-402(b), upon consideration of cause or necessity of postponement and potential prejudice to parties, Supreme Court denied request. Supreme Court held that where candidate makes material misrepresentation on certificate of candidacy, such as misrepresentation about candidate’s residential address, refusal of acceptance of certificate is warranted and candidate’s certificate of candidacy is not valid. Supreme Court concluded that Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law (2003, 2022 Repl. Vol., 2025 Supp.) (“EL”) § 5-304(c)(4), by its plain language, requires that on certificate of candidacy, candidate must provide either individual’s voter registration address, if address is individual’s current address, or if not, candidate must provide current address. Supreme Court concluded that circuit court correctly determined that Appellant did not reside or live at address provided on certificate of candidacy and misrepresented his residential address, i.e., made materially false statement, on his certificate of candidacy. Supreme Court concluded Appellant misrepresenting his residential address on his certificate of candidacy invalidated certificate.  Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-26-000603 Argued: April 13, 2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 63 September Term, 2025 ______________________________________ JOHN CALVIN DOVE, JR. v. GARY SIMMONS, ET AL. ______________________________________ Fader, C.J. Watts Booth Biran Gould Eaves Killough, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. Killough, J., concurs. ______________________________________ Filed: July 13, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.07.13 '00'04- 09:51:56 Gregory Hilton, Clerk  This case arises out of a challenge to a certificate of candidacy filed by John Calvin Dove, Jr., Appellant, who sought the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Maryland House of Delegates, Legislative District 12B, for the 2026 Gubernatorial Primary Election. Gary Simmons, Appellee, a resident and registered Democratic voter of Legislative District 12B, and the incumbent Delegate for Legislative District 12B, filed a petition to challenge Mr. Dove’s candidacy, naming Mr. Dove, the Anne Arundel County Board of Elections (“the County Board”), Appellee, and the Maryland State Board of Elections (“the State Board”), Appellee, as defendants. In the petition, Mr. Simmons requested that the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County disqualify Mr. Dove from appearing on the Democratic primary ballot for Legislative District 12B on two grounds: (1) because Mr. Dove was not a resident of Legislative District 12B at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy, he was ineligible to serve as a candidate for the House of Delegates from that district; and (2) Mr. Dove made false and misleading statements in both his voter registration application and certificate of candidacy that he lived in Legislative District 12B at times that he did not. Mr. Dove filed a motion to dismiss the petition as premature, arguing that Article III, § 9 of the Constitution of Maryland requires a candidate for the office of delegate to reside in and have a place of abode in the district for only six months before the general election and that the deadline would not arrive until May 3, 2026. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law (2003, 2022 Repl. Vol., 2025 Supp.) (“EL”) § 12-203 and Maryland Rule 8-306, Mr. Simmons noted a direct appeal to this Court. We issued an expedited briefing schedule and heard argument. After oral argument, we issued a per curiam opinion holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Mr. Simmons’s petition was premature. See Simmons v. Dove, 493 Md. 576, 579, 353 A.3d 1228, 1230 (2026). We reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of Mr. Simmons’s challenge. See id. at 579-80, 353 A.3d at 1230-31. On remand, the circuit court held a hearing and granted the petition, disqualifying Mr. Dove from the ballot as a candidate for State Delegate from Legislative District 12B. The circuit court found that Mr. Dove did not reside in Legislative District 12B on the date of filing his certificate of candidacy and thus had misrepresented his address on the certificate. Mr. Dove noted a direct appeal to this Court. Pursuant to EL § 12-203 and Maryland Rule 8-306, we again issued an expedited briefing schedule, and heard oral argument on April 13, 2026. After oral argument, we issued a per curiam order affirming the circuit court’s judgment and ordering that costs were to be paid by Mr. Dove, with the mandate to issue forthwith. See Dove v. Simmons, 493 Md. 583, 583-84, 355 A.3d 227, 227 (2026). We now explain the basis for our order. BACKGROUND On February 13, 2026, 11 days before filing a certificate of candidacy to run as a candidate for delegate in Legislative District 12B in the Democratic Party primary election, Mr. Dove completed an “Electronic Voter Registration Application,” changing his voter registration to a residential address of 284 Caldwell Road, Pasadena, Maryland in Anne Arundel County (“284 Caldwell Road”), and a mailing address of a P.O. Box in Gambrills, -2- Maryland. 1 Mr. Dove’s previous voter registration information indicated his residential F address was 1302 Bluegrass Way, Gambrills, Maryland (“1302 Bluegrass Way”). On February 24, 2026, Mr. Dove filed a certificate of candidacy for the 2026 Gubernatorial Primary Election, seeking the Democratic Party nomination for the House of Delegates in District 12B. On the certificate, Mr. Dove identified his residential address as 284 Caldwell Road and his mailing address as the P.O. Box in Gambrills, Maryland. Mr. Dove signed and dated the certificate, certifying under the penalty of perjury that, among other things, the following was true: “I am a registered voter and a citizen of Maryland and meet all the requirements for the above listed office.” On a “Candidate Information Sheet,” a worksheet accompanying the certificate of candidacy, Mr. Dove identified his residential address as 284 Caldwell Road and his public mailing address as the P.O. Box in Gambrills. In an affidavit submitted by the State Board in the circuit court, Devki Dave, an IT Functional Analyst for the State Board, who assisted Mr. Dove with his candidacy filing, stated that she verified information she received from Mr. Dove in the candidate information sheet against Mr. Dove’s information in MDVOTERS, the statewide voter registration and electoral administration database, to make sure the information matched. Ms. Dave averred that after she entered the information from Mr. Dove’s information sheet into the database, she printed a hard copy of Mr. Dove’s Certificate of Candidacy, asked Mr. Dove to read the certificate to make sure that all of the information on it was correct, 1 According to a Voter Profile Report, Mr. Dove’s residential address was changed for purposes of his voter registration on February 17, 2026. -3- and Mr. Dove read the certificate and signed it. On March 11, 2026, Mr. Simmons timely filed in the circuit court a “Petition to Challenge Certificate of Candidacy, Residency & Qualifications of John Calvin Dove, Jr., Candidate for the Nomination of the Democratic Party for State Delegate from Legislative District 12B for the 2026 Gubernatorial Election.” (Some capitalization omitted). In the petition, Mr. Simmons alleged that “Mr. Dove resides in, is domiciled in, and maintains a primary place of abode in the 31st Legislative District[,]” but that he filed a certificate of candidacy in which he “represented that he was a resident of Legislative District 12B.” Mr. Simmons requested that the circuit court disqualify Mr. Dove from appearing on the Democratic primary ballot in Legislative District 12B on two distinct grounds. First, Mr. Simmons alleged that, because Mr. Dove was not a resident of Legislative District 12B at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy, Mr. Dove was not eligible to serve as a candidate for the House of Delegates from that district. According to Mr. Simmons, Mr. Dove was ineligible because: (a) under EL § 5-202, a candidate for the House of Delegates must be legally registered to vote in the district the candidate seeks to represent, and Mr. Dove could not have been legally registered to vote in District 12B because he did not reside in that district and rather resided in District 31; and (b) under the Election Law Article, a candidate for office must meet all requirements for eligibility for office by the time of filing a certificate of candidacy, which Mr. Dove did not because he did not reside in Legislative District 12B at the time of filing his certificate of candidacy. Second, Mr. Simmons alleged that Mr. Dove made false and misleading statements in his voter registration application and certificate of candidacy by stating that he resided -4- in Legislative District 12B when he did not and by failing to disclose his actual place of residence in Legislative District 31. According to Mr. Simmons, based on the allegedly false statements, Mr. Dove’s certificate of candidacy was invalid, and Mr. Dove should be excluded from the Democratic Party primary ballot for the 2026 Gubernatorial election. The circuit court scheduled a hearing on the petition for March 16, 2026. The night before the hearing, Mr. Dove filed “Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition and Request for Sanc[]tions,” moving to dismiss on the ground that the petition was premature. Mr. Dove argued that Article III, § 9 of the Constitution of Maryland “measures legislative residency at the time of election not at the time of filing for nomination[,]” and requires that a candidate for the office of Delegate reside in and be domiciled in the district for only six months preceding the general election. Mr. Dove asserted that the six-month deadline would not arrive until May 3, 2026, six months before the general election of November 3, 2026, and that he “could fully satisfy the Constitutional residency requirement between [the filing of the motion] and May 3, 2026[.]” Mr. Dove contended that “the alleged defect may never occur.” As such, Mr. Dove argued that the petition, which according to him, sought “to remove a candidate months before the constitutional residency period begins[,]” was premature. On March 16, 2026, the circuit court held the scheduled hearing and granted Mr. Dove’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the motion was premature. On the same day, the circuit court issued an opinion, in which it determined that the constitutional residency deadline was in the future, i.e., the case was “outside the six-month period preceding the election,” and it could not “make a finding on whether [Mr. Dove] will in the future meet -5- the constitutional requirements for candidacy as a delegate.” On March 17, 2026, Mr. Simmons noted a direct appeal to this Court. On March 18, 2026, the State Board filed a line in this Court advising that, for the June 23, 2026 primary election, the certification and publication deadline for ballots was April 20, 2026. The State Board requested that litigation in the case be resolved by March 31, 2026, so that it could fulfill its responsibility to prepare ballots for certification and coordinate with local boards of election. After an expedited briefing schedule, on March 30, 2026, we heard oral argument. After oral argument, on the same day, we issued a per curiam opinion holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Mr. Simmons’s petition was premature. See Simmons, 493 Md. at 579, 353 A.3d at 1230. We reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded for a decision on the merits of Mr. Simmons’s challenge under EL §§ 5-305 and 12-202, stating: A majority of the Court concludes that Mr. Simmons’s challenge is ripe with respect to his claim that Mr. Dove failed to satisfy requirements in the Election Law Article to be lawfully registered to vote in, and to reside or have a place of abode in, Legislative District 12B at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy. A minority of the Court concludes that Mr. Simmons’s challenge is ripe with respect to his claim that Mr. Dove’s certificate of candidacy is invalid because he misrepresented his residential address on the certificate. On remand, the court should address the merits of both claims. Id. at 579-80, 353 A.3d at 1230-31. To allow time for any further appeal to be resolved without disrupting deadlines related to the primary election, we directed that the circuit court hold an evidentiary hearing and issue a decision on the merits by 12:00 p.m. on April 6, 2026, and that any appeal of the circuit court’s decision be filed by 4:00 p.m. on April -6- 6, 2026. See id. at 580, 353 A.3d at 1231. On April 1, 2026, Tiffany Alston, Esquire, entered her appearance in the circuit court on behalf of Mr. Dove. Ms. Alston had not previously represented Mr. Dove in the matter. 2 1F On April 6, 2026, the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which it heard testimony and admitted into evidence various exhibits on the issue of Mr. Dove’s residence on the date that he filed his certificate of candidacy. 3 On his own behalf, Mr. 2F Simmons testified that he is a registered Democrat in Legislative District 12B and that he filed the petition challenging Mr. Dove’s residency and candidacy on March 11, 2026. 4 3F Marquis Harris, a process server called as a witness on behalf of Mr. Simmons, testified that he had been given legal documents to serve on Mr. Dove at two different addresses and that service was made at 1302 Bluegrass Way on March 12, 2026. Mr. Harris testified that he first attempted service at 284 Caldwell Road. According to Mr. Harris, when he arrived at 284 Caldwell Road, there was a light on inside of the house, “but the home did look like it wasn’t lived in.” Mr. Harris testified that he did not recall that any vehicles 2 After the case was remanded by this Court, on March 31, 2026, Mr. Dove’s attorneys filed in the circuit court notices of withdrawal of appearance. On April 1, 2026, Ms. Alston entered her appearance on behalf of Mr. Dove in the circuit court case and in the original appeal in this Court in Case No. 61, Sep. Term, 2025. 3 The circuit court ordered that by April 2, 2026, all parties submit lists of anticipated witnesses and exhibits, as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The circuit court granted a motion for legislative postponement filed by Mr. Dove’s counsel, giving Mr. Dove until April 3, 2026, to submit his witness list, exhibit list, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 4 In addition to being registered to vote in Legislative District 12B, Mr. Simmons is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for the Maryland House of Delegates, Legislative District 12B, for the 2026 Gubernatorial Primary Election. -7- were in the driveway and that nobody answered when he knocked on the door. After attempting service at 284 Caldwell Road, Mr. Harris went to 1302 Bluegrass Way, where he saw Mr. Dove inside the house in his home office. Mr. Harris testified that Mr. Dove came to the door and accepted service of the documents. Stephen Andersen, a retired criminal investigator for the Maryland State Police who owns a private investigation business, also testified as a witness for Mr. Simmons. Mr. Andersen testified that he was hired to conduct surveillance of Mr. Dove at 284 Caldwell Road in both the morning and evening to ascertain whether Mr. Dove, in fact, lived at that address. Mr. Andersen testified that he began his investigation on March 2, 2026. On that day, he went to 284 Caldwell Road at 5:00 a.m. When he arrived, there were no vehicles at the property, and he received no answer when he knocked on the door. Mr. Andersen stayed at the property until 9:00 a.m. and nothing occurred. Nobody entered or exited the property. Mr. Andersen went back to the house at 7:00 p.m. and stayed there until 10:00 p.m.; he observed no activity in the house at all during those hours. Mr. Andersen testified that, the next day, March 3, 2026, he placed clear packing tape over a door jamb and on both sides of the garage door so that when he went back to the property he would be able to tell if anyone had entered the house. Mr. Andersen remained at the property from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on March 3rd and no activity occurred. Mr. Andersen testified that when he returned that evening and again the next morning, the tape was undisturbed, which told him that no one had used the garage or opened the door. Mr. Andersen testified that he checked the mailbox for 284 Caldwell Road and there was no mail in it addressed to Mr. Dove. -8-  Mr. Andersen testified that, on March 5, 2026, he went to 1302 Bluegrass Way at 7:00 a.m. and saw a Chevrolet in the driveway. The Chevrolet left the driveway at approximately 8:15 a.m. Mr. Andersen followed the vehicle, pulled up next to it, and saw Mr. Dove driving. The Chevrolet driven by Mr. Dove was registered to George Caldwell, Jr. at 284 Caldwell Road. On March 6, 2026, Mr. Andersen returned to 284 Caldwell Road, but nobody answered the door, the tape was undisturbed, and there were no vehicles there. Mr. Andersen then went to 1302 Bluegrass Way, where he observed the Chevrolet driven by Mr. Dove exit the garage. Again, on March 7, 2026, Mr. Andersen first went to 284 Caldwell Road in the morning, where there were no vehicles in the driveway and the tape was still attached to the door and the garage. That evening, Mr. Andersen returned to 284 Caldwell Road, where he observed no activity, before going to 1302 Bluegrass Way, where he observed the Chevrolet driven by Mr. Dove in the driveway. Mr. Andersen stayed at 1302 Bluegrass Way until all of the lights went out inside the house. Mr. Andersen testified that he was asked to conduct a second investigation after this Court remanded the case to the circuit court and that was when he first observed a vehicle at 284 Caldwell Road. Mr. Andersen testified that on one occasion he saw a car, a pickup truck, and another vehicle at 284 Caldwell Road; two of the vehicles were registered to Mr. Caldwell and another vehicle was registered to Mr. Dove’s attorney. Mr. Andersen testified, however, that, during the time of his second investigation, from March 31, 2026, to April 4, 2026, to the best of his knowledge, Mr. Dove slept at 1302 Bluegrass Way. Mr. Simmons called Mr. Dove as a witness. Mr. Dove testified that he owns -9- properties at 1302 Bluegrass Way in Gambrills and on Lee Hall Road in Pasadena. Mr. Dove testified that he purchased 1302 Bluegrass Way in 2003 and lived there from 2003 until 2026. Mr. Dove acknowledged that, in 2019, he signed a deed for 1302 Bluegrass Way, along with an owner occupancy affidavit stating that 1302 Bluegrass Way is residentially improved, owner-occupied real property with a residence occupied by him and his wife, Rhonda Caldwell-Dove. In 2022, Mr. Dove refinanced 1302 Bluegrass Way and, at that time, affirmed in a document related to the refinancing that he would occupy, establish, and use the property for at least one year. At one point, Mr. Dove testified that he is “going to be living at 284 Caldwell Road[,]” but immediately followed up by testifying that he said he is “currently living at” 284 Caldwell Road. Mr. Dove defined “living” there as meaning “that’s where I’m going to be at for the rest of my life. That’s the 284 Caldwell Road residence.” Mr. Dove testified that he slept at 284 Caldwell Road the night before the hearing because he “knew” he was going to be asked that question at the hearing. Mr. Dove testified that he also slept at the 284 Caldwell Road on another occasion about a week before the hearing, that he was going back and forth between the two houses until 1302 Bluegrass Way is sold, and that he was packing up 284 Caldwell Road because he is “doing a renovation on it.” According to Mr. Dove, 1302 Bluegrass Way was placed on the market for sale after February 24, 2026. Mr. Dove testified that he and his wife are the caregivers for his father-in-law, George Caldwell, who is currently living with them at 1302 Bluegrass Way. Mr. Caldwell is the owner of 284 Caldwell Road, and Mr. Dove is trying to renovate the house there so that it is accessible for Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Dove testified that he plans to hire a contractor - 10 - to complete renovations. Mr. Dove testified that Caldwell Road is named after his wife’s family, who have resided there for three or four generations. With respect to the information on his certificate of candidacy, Mr. Dove testified that the mailing address listed on his certificate of candidacy, the P.O. Box in Gambrills, has been where his mail has gone for approximately 23 years. Mr. Dove testified that he listed his residential address as 284 Caldwell Road on the certificate because “[t]hat is where I plan to live. That is where I planted my flag I would be living at[.]” According to Mr. Dove, “[t]hat means that when [he] changed [his] driver’s license, when [he] did everything else, [t]hat from there on out, everything was moving to 284 Caldwell Road.” Mr. Dove testified that he made the change to his driver’s license on February 12, 2026. Mr. Dove testified that he owns two vehicles, both of which are registered at 1302 Bluegrass Way. Mr. Dove testified that he does not drive the vehicles “predominantly” and that the car that he drives, which is owned by Mr. Caldwell, is registered at 284 Caldwell Road. Mr. Dove testified that his W-2 and 1099 tax forms currently list 1302 Bluegrass Way as his address and that he has not updated his address with his employer yet. Mr. Dove testified that his cell phone bill, utility bills, and credit card bills are sent to the P.O. Box, which is located near 1302 Bluegrass Way. Mr. Dove testified that he purchased the property on Lee Hall Road in 2023, that he has never lived at the property, and that the property was purchased because “[i]t was possible” that he was going to develop it and live there. Mr. Dove testified that at the time that he bought the Lee Hall Road property, he also signed a right of first refusal for an adjacent property, so that if given the opportunity, he would purchase that property too. - 11 -  Mr. Dove testified that he previously ran for office in 2022, seeking to represent the County Council for District 4. At that time, he lived at 1302 Bluegrass Way and “rented a place within [] District 4 to run from that address because [he] was going to move into that address.” According to Mr. Dove, when he filed to run for County Council, he was living at 1302 Bluegrass Way, but then redistricting happened and the property was no longer part of District 4, so to keep running for District 4, he obtained the rental property. As a witness on behalf of Mr. Dove, Robyn Renas, an architect, testified that she had been referred to Mr. Dove and Ms. Caldwell-Dove around a year and a half ago. According to Ms. Renas, she was hired in April 2025 to be the architect for 284 Caldwell Road to create a “cogenerational family home” and she had completed a schematic design in the summer of 2025. Ms. Renas testified that, as of January 2026, she had completed construction documents and has since interviewed contractors and solicited bids for work to be done at the property. As a witness for Mr. Dove, Rhonda Caldwell-Dove, Mr. Dove’s wife, testified that her father owns the property at 284 Caldwell Road and the plan is for the house to be a multi-generational home to accommodate the needs of Mr. Dove, her father, and their family. According to Ms. Caldwell-Dove, she and Mr. Dove are putting the house at 1302 Bluegrass Way up for sale and have an agreement with a realtor to do so. Ms. Caldwell- Dove testified that the money from the sale of 1302 Bluegrass Way is needed for the construction that has to be done at 284 Caldwell Road. According to Ms. Caldwell-Dove, the long-term plan is for the family to live at 284 Caldwell Road, which is the place she grew up. Ms. Caldwell-Dove testified that her family purchased 284 Caldwell Road in - 12 - 1940. When asked what both her and Mr. Dove’s address is, Ms. Caldwell-Dove testified that 284 Caldwell Road is their address. Ms. Caldwell-Dove acknowledged that they are not sleeping at 284 Caldwell Road every night, but testified that “soon” they would be sleeping there on a nightly basis. Ms. Caldwell-Dove testified that she and Mr. Dove have a lease agreement for a property on Stonehouse Run Drive in Glen Burnie, which is in Legislative District 12B, that is close to 284 Caldwell Road so that they can monitor the anticipated construction work. Ms. Caldwell-Dove testified that the address on her driver’s license is 1302 Bluegrass Way. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court ruled orally from the bench, granting Mr. Simmons’s petition. The circuit court found that Mr. Dove’s domicile is 1302 Bluegrass Way, that it could not find that Mr. Dove established residence in Legislative District 12B, and that, because Mr. Dove’s address was 1302 Bluegrass Way at the time he filed the certificate of candidacy, it was “a misrepresentation” to state otherwise. The court stated that a written opinion would follow that day. In a memorandum opinion issued later the same day, the circuit court made detailed findings of fact that were consistent with its oral ruling. After its findings of fact, the circuit court explained that under Article III, § 9 of the Maryland Constitution, to be eligible to serve as a State senator or delegate, on the date of a person’s election, the person must: (1) be a citizen of the State of Maryland, (2) have resided in the State for at least one year, and (3) if the district that the person has been chosen to represent has been established for at least six months prior to the date of the - 13 - person’s election, have resided in the district for six months next preceding the date of election and, beginning January 1, 2024, have maintained a primary place of abode in that district for the six months next preceding that date. The court stated that there was no dispute that Mr. Dove met the first two requirements and that the dispute concerned the third requirement. Addressing the six-month residency requirement, the court noted that “[r]esidency means domicile” and explained that it must “determine where Mr. Dove is domiciled.” (Footnote omitted). The court stated: The controlling factor in determining a person’s “domicile is his intent. One’s domicile, generally, is that place where he intends it to be.” The two most significant objective factors evidencing a person’s intent regarding domicile are where the person lives and where he or she votes or is registered to vote. (Footnotes omitted). The court explained that “[a] domicile will continue unless the facts of a given case establish an intent to abandon that domicile.” (Footnote omitted). The court stated: “[A] domicile is the particular permanent home of an individual, to which place he has, whenever he is absent, the intention o[f] returning.” (Citation modified). 5 4F The circuit court concluded that Mr. Dove’s residence and primary place of abode is 1302 Bluegrass Way, finding as follows: [T]he Court finds that Mr. Dove has a future intent to reside in Pasadena. He is taking steps to improve the property to live in a multi-generational household that will accommodate the needs of his family, including his elderly father-in-law. While Mr. Dove changed his residential address and voter registration to Pasadena, he still keeps a P.O. Box in Gambrills. Presently, due to the work required on the property at 284 Caldwell Road, The circuit court explained that “[a] place of abode includes any dwelling or place 5 where one sleeps, and merely requires actual physical presence[.]” - 14 -  Mr. Dove cannot yet reside there. While he has a future intention to move to Legislative District 12B and live at 284 Caldwell Road, the Court finds he has not yet abandoned his domicile at 1302 Bluegrass Way. This Court finds through testimony of the private investigator, Mr. Anders[e]n, and Mr. Dove, that Mr. Dove’s primary place of abode [is] at 1302 Bluegrass Way. The circuit court determined that, “[i]f, on February 24, Mr. Dove did not live at the 284 Caldwell Road address, then it was a misrepresentation” to state as such on his certificate of candidacy. Mr. Dove noted a direct appeal to this Court. On April 6, 2026, this Court issued an expedited briefing and argument schedule, setting oral argument for April 13, 2026. On April 7, 2026, six days after having entered her appearance in the case, Ms. Alston filed a “Motion for Legislative Postponement,” in which she advised that she is a member of the Maryland General Assembly and requested that the expedited briefing schedule be changed and oral argument be postponed until April 17, 2026, to permit her to attend the last day of the General Assembly session on Monday, April 13, 2026. Mr. Simmons filed an opposition to the motion, noting that Mr. Dove’s counsel entered her appearance after the case had been remanded by this Court, knowing that it was an election case with tight deadlines. On April 7, 2026, we issued an order denying the motion, with the reasons to be explained in a subsequent opinion. On April 13, 2026, after oral argument, we issued a per curiam order affirming the judgment of the circuit court, for reasons to be set forth in the opinion to be filed later. See Dove, 493 Md. at 583-84, 355 A.3d at 227. We ordered costs to be paid by Mr. Dove and that the mandate issue forthwith. See id. - 15 -  DISCUSSION A. The Motion for Legislative Postponement Before reaching the merits, we will address the reason for the denial of the motion for legislative postponement. Requests for the continuance of any part of a proceeding due to legislative duties are governed by Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.) (“CJ”) § 6-402. CJ § 6-402(b) provides that, “[s]ubject to subsection (d) of this section, if a member or desk officer of the General Assembly is an attorney of record in a proceeding, the proceeding shall be continued from 5 days before the legislative session convenes until at least 10 days after it is adjourned.” 6 5F We interpret the language of CJ § 6-402(b) to mean that a court is required to grant a motion for continuance of a proceeding only when a member of the General Assembly, who is an attorney of record in a proceeding, files a motion requesting a continuance of the proceeding before the legislative session begins. When that occurs, the proceeding shall be continued from 5 days before the session begins until at least 10 days after the session ends. The 2026 Maryland Legislative Session convened on January 14, 2026, over two 6 CJ § 6-402(d) provides: If a brief, a memorandum of law, or another document is required to be filed in a proceeding continued under this section: (1) The proceeding shall be continued for a time sufficient to allow it to be prepared and filed; and (2) Any time prescribed by the Maryland Rules, by rule or order of court, or by any statute applicable to the filing of the document shall begin to run 10 days after the General Assembly adjourns. - 16 - months before Ms. Alston entered her appearance in the case in the circuit court on April 1, 2026. On April 7, Ms. Alston filed the motion requesting a postponement under CJ § 6- 402. Nothing in the text of CJ § 6-402(b) mandates that a court is required to grant a motion for continuance filed by a member of the General Assembly after the legislative session convenes. Moreover, CJ § 6-402(e) provides that an “attorney may waive the benefit of this section.” In our view, an attorney who enters an appearance in a proceeding after the legislative session begins waives the benefit of CJ § 6-402(b), by virtue of having entered an appearance in the proceeding after the time in which the attorney could have requested relief under section (b)—before the legislative session convened. Because CJ § 6-402(b)’s requirement that a continuance be granted did not apply, we exercised our discretion in considering the motion. We considered that Mr. Dove, who was already represented by multiple attorneys both in the circuit court and before this Court, 7 retained new counsel who was a member of the General Assembly and who entered 6F her appearance in an ongoing election case that was obviously time sensitive. Ms. Alston entered her appearance on behalf of Mr. Dove in the circuit court two days after we remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. The case had already been the subject of expedited briefing during the previous appeal and at the time that Ms. Alston Before Ms. Alston entered her appearance, counsel of record for Mr. Dove included 7 Jill P. Carter, Esquire, Erek L. Barron, Esquire, and Castell Abner, III, Esquire, each of whom filed notices of withdrawal of appearance in the circuit court on March 31, 2026. - 17 - entered her appearance in the circuit court, it was evident that a second appeal with expedited briefing and argument would follow. 8 7F In the motion for continuance, Ms. Alston stated, among other things, that she would be “able to participate in oral argument any day after session adjourn[ed] at sine die on April 13, 2026; however the current scheduled date is the last day of the legislative session and the assembly works the entire day until midnight.” The proposed modification, if granted, would have required this Court to hear argument and render a decision on the appeal on the Friday before the State Board’s Monday, April 20, 2026 deadline for certification and publication of the ballots for the June 23, 2026 primary election. Upon consideration of the cause and necessity of the postponement and potential prejudice to the parties, we denied the request. After consultation with counsel for the parties, we scheduled oral argument to take place at 8:30 a.m. on April 13, 2026, which allowed Ms. Alston to attend the full day of the last day of the 2026 Maryland Legislative Session. B. The Merits 1. The Parties’ Contentions Mr. Dove asserts that EL § 5-202’s residency requirement “cannot be interpreted in a manner that demands satisfaction of a residency condition that the Constitution itself does not yet require.” Mr. Dove defines Article III, § 9’s primary place of abode requirement as “the physically concrete sleeping standard[,]” and contends that for the purpose of his The per curiam opinion issued by this Court ordering the remand provided that 8 “[a]ny appeal from the circuit court’s decision on the merits must be filed no later than 4:00 pm on April 6, 2026.” See Simmons, 493 Md. at 580, 353 A.3d at 1231. - 18 - candidacy, Article III, § 9 requires that the standard be met on May 3, six months before the date of his service in office would begin, not February 24, when he filed his certificate of candidacy. Mr. Dove maintains that a statement on a certificate of candidacy “cannot be deemed false for failing to reflect a legal obligation that has not