Preview:

No. 90, September Term, 1998 Clarence W. Blount, et al. v. Frank D. Boston, Jr.

[Whether A Long-time Member Of The Maryland General Assembly, Who Is A Candidate For Re-election, Has Abandoned His Domicile In The Baltimore City Legislative District Which He Has Been Representing And Established A New Domicile In Baltimore County.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 90 September Term, 1998 ___________________________________________

CLARENCE W. BLOUNT et al.

v.

FRANK D. BOSTON, JR. ___________________________________________ Bell, C.J., Eldridge Rodowsky Raker Wilner Cathell Karwacki, Robert L. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ. ___________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. ___________________________________________ Filed: October 6, 1998

The legal issue in this case is whether a long-time member of the Maryland General Assembly, who is a candidate for re-election, has abandoned his domicile in the Baltimore City legislative district which he has been representing and established a new domicile in Baltimore County. The defendant-appellant, Senator Clarence W. Blount, was a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination at the primary election held on September 15, 1998, and is a candidate for re-election at the November 1998 general election, to the Maryland Senate, representing the 41st legislative district located entirely within Baltimore City. The plaintiffappellee, Frank D. Boston, Jr., was running against Senator Blount in the primary election for the nomination of the Democratic Party for State Senator from the 41st district. The plaintiff-appellee brought this action in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to have Senator Blount's name stricken from the primary election ballot, contending that Senator Blount did not meet the Constitutional residency requirements to represent the 41st legislative district. After a trial, the circuit court on August 26, 1998, held that Senator Blount was not eligible to serve as a Senator representing the 41st legislative district, and the court ordered that his name be removed from the primary election ballot. An immediate appeal was taken, and this Court, on August 27, 1998, issued a writ of certiorari. After oral argument before this Court on September 1, 1998, we issued an order reversing the judgment of the circuit court. We now state our reasons for that order.

-2-

I. Before recounting the particular facts of this case, it would be helpful to set forth the well-settled principles of Maryland law which govern cases of this nature. Article III,

Download Blount v. Boston.pdf

Maryland Law