PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PAUL F. KENDALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANN M. BALCERZAK, President,
Howard County Board of
Elections; BETTY L. NORDAAS,
Director, Howard County Board of
Elections; ROBERT L. WALKER,
Chairman, Maryland State Board
of Elections; LINDA H. LAMONE, No. 09-2304
State Administrator, Maryland
State Board of Elections,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; MARYLAND STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-00660-JFM)
Argued: December 9, 2010
Decided: March 28, 2011
2 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges,
and Patrick Michael DUFFY, Senior United States District
Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by
designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Duffy wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Agee and Judge Wynn joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Susan Baker Gray, Highland, Maryland, for
Appellant. Kathleen Evelyn Wherthey, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland; Gerald M. Richman, Ellicott City, Maryland, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney Gen-
eral of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, Sandra Benson Brant-
ley, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis,
Maryland, for Appellees Robert L. Walker and Linda H.
Lamone.
OPINION
DUFFY, Senior District Judge:
This appeal arises out of a petition drive to obtain a referen-
dum on a zoning ordinance passed by the Howard County
Council, of Howard County, Maryland, on November 3,
2008. Paul F. Kendall, who signed the petition, filed a com-
plaint on March 16, 2009, and an amended complaint on
March 30, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights and demanding declara-
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 3
tory and injunctive relief. The named Defendants were: How-
ard County, Maryland (the "County"), President Ann M.
Balcerzak and Director Betty L. Nordaas of the Howard
County Board of Elections (the "County Board Defendants"),
and Chairman Robert L. Walker and Administrator Linda H.
Lamone of the Maryland State Board of Elections (the "State
Defendants").
Kendall’s amended complaint asserted three counts against
the Defendants. In the first count, Kendall asserted that all
Defendants had denied his rights to freely associate, petition
the government, and vote, in violation of the First and Four-
teenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The
second count asserted that all the Defendants had denied him
due process and equal protection in violation of the Four-
teenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The
third count alleged that all Defendants had violated Kendall’s
constitutional rights that are protected under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
The County and the County Board Defendants moved to
dismiss Kendall’s amended complaint, and the State Defen-
dants filed an answer asserting that the complaint failed to
state a claim against them upon which relief could be granted.
The district court subsequently granted the motions of the
County and the County Board Defendants and dismissed the
case against all Defendants. J.A. 117-35.
Kendall noted an appeal on November 17, 2009. On
December 23, 2009, all parties participated in court-ordered
mediation, which led to Kendall’s voluntary dismissal of his
claims against the County effective January 15, 2010, but
which otherwise failed to resolve the dispute. This appeal fol-
lowed.
As explained below, we agree that the district court prop-
erly dismissed Kendall’s complaint. We therefore affirm the
district court’s dismissal.
4 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
I.
On November 3, 2008, the Howard County Council passed
Council Bill 58, a bill that substantially increased the size of
a grocery store to be built in the Turf Valley community. Con-
cerned with the passage of this bill, Howard County Citizens
for Open Government ("HCCOG") sought to challenge this
bill by way of referendum, as permitted by Howard County
Charter Section 211. Specifically, Section 211 of the Howard
County Charter provides, in relevant part:
(a) Scope of the referendum
The people of Howard County reserve to them-
selves the power known as "the Referendum," by
petition to have submitted to the registered voters of
the County to approve or reject at the polls, any law
or part of any law of the Council. The referendum
petition . . . shall be sufficient if signed by five per
centum of the registered voters of the County, but in
any case not less than 1,500 or more than 5,000 sig-
natures shall be required. Such petition shall be filed
with the Board of Supervisors of Election of Howard
County within sixty days after the law is enacted. . . .
[I]f more than one-half, but less than the full number
of signatures required to complete any referendum
petition against such law be filed within sixty days
from the date it is enacted, the time for the law to
take effect and the time for filing the remainder of
signatures to complete the petition shall be extended
for an additional thirty days.
Howard County, Md., Charter § 211 (2008).
In Howard County, the signatures of 5,000 registered voters
are generally needed to refer a legislative act of the County
Council to referendum; in this case, the deadline for gathering
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 5
a minimum of 2,500 signatures in order to secure an extension
of thirty days was January 3, 2009.
The Election Law Article of the Maryland Code sets forth
the requirements for a valid referendum petition in Maryland,
stating, in pertinent part:
(a) Generally— To sign a [referendum] petition, an
individual shall:
(1) sign the individual’s name as it appears
on the statewide voter registration list or the
individual’s surname of registration and at
least one full given name and the initials of
any other names; and
(2) include the following information,
printed or typed, in the spaces provided;
(i) the signer’s name as it was signed;
(ii) the signer’s address;
(iii) the date of signing; and
(iv) other information required by the
regulations adopted by the State
Board.
(b) Validation and counting— The signature of an
individual shall be validated and counted if:
(1) the requirements of subsection (a) of
this section have been satisfied....
Md. Code Ann., Election Law ("EL") § 6-203 (West 2010).
On December 19, 2008, the Court of Appeals of Maryland
issued a decision, Doe v. Montgomery Cnty Bd. of Elections,
6 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
962 A.2d 342 (Md. 2008), interpreting EL § 6-203. The court
in Doe held:
The plain meaning of the words "shall " and "re-
quirements" in Section 6-203 reflect that the statu-
tory provisions require that the voter must sign his or
her name "as it appears on the statewide voter regis-
tration lists or the individual’s surname of registra-
tion and at least one full given name and the initials
of any other names"; the provisions are mandatory,
not suggestive.
Doe, 962 A.2d at 360 (quoting EL § 6-203).
On November 17 and 19, 2008, HCCOG filed requests
with the Board of Elections seeking an advance determination
regarding the sufficiency of the proposed referendum petition
language and signature sheet. On December 1, 2008, the
County Board determined that the proposed petition complied
with the requirements of state law, regulations, and the How-
ard County Charter and Code. Once approved, HCCOG began
to collect the necessary petition signatures on the approved
petition forms.
On December 30, 2008, twelve days after the Maryland
Court of Appeals decided Doe, HCCOG presented the County
Board with 3,301 signatures, which exceeded the 2,500 signa-
tures needed by January 3, 2009 in order to obtain the
Charter-authorized thirty-day extension to secure the remain-
ing signatures. See Howard County, Md. Charter § 211
(2008).
On January 22, 2009, the County Board validated and certi-
fied 2,603 of the signatures that HCCOG had submitted, and
gave them an additional thirty days, until February 4, 2009,
to finish collecting the required 5,000 signatures. On February
3, 2009, HCCOG presented the County Board with an addi-
tional 6,079 signatures.
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 7
On February 12, 2009, the County Board issued a letter
stating that it had stopped reviewing the additional signatures
due to a pending legal challenge, filed by a third party, on
February 4, 2009, which was unrelated to the Board’s signa-
ture validation methods. On March 11, 2009, counsel for the
County Board sent an email to several persons involved in the
referendum process requesting their presence at a meeting of
the County Board the following evening.
At the March 12, 2009 meeting of the County Board, the
Board’s president, Ms. Balcerzak, announced that the Board
was reversing its January 22, 2009 decision to certify the first
2,603 signatures on the petition based upon the decision of the
Court of Appeals of Maryland in Doe. In reliance on Doe, the
Board conducted a second review of a statistically valid sam-
ple of 1,216 signatures from the initial 3,301 submitted. After
invalidating 1,052 signatures, a rejection rate of eighty-seven
percent, the Board concluded that HCCOG failed to submit
the requisite number of valid signatures, and would therefore
be denied an extension of time to submit the 5,000 total signa-
tures required to place the referendum on the ballot. As Nor-
daas explained in the final County Board determination letter
to HCCOG’s counsel dated March 12, 2009:
[T]he Board of Elections found, after review of each
signature on submitted local referendum petitions,
that it did not validate each signature in accordance
with the mandate set forth in Doe which requires an
individual to sign his/her name as it appears on the
statewide voter registration or place his/her surname
of registration and at least one full given name and
the initials of any other names.
J.A. 45.
Nordaas stated that the Board’s decision to re-verify the sig-
natures in the HCCOG’s petition was based on March 11,
2009 advice from the Maryland Attorney General’s office. Id.
8 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
Four days after the March 12, 2009 County Board meeting,
Kendall filed his initial complaint in this action, in the United
States District for the District of Maryland. On March 30,
2009, he filed an amended complaint, which is the operative
pleading in this action.
In Count One of the First Amended Complaint, Kendall
claimed that the actions of Defendants "in interpreting the sig-
nature requirements as they did," totally and completely dis-
enfranchised Plaintiff and over 9,300 other signatories of the
petition as well as the entire Howard County electorate of
their right to take Bill 58 to referendum and vote. Kendall
claimed that Defendants violated his (a) "First Amendment
right to express his beliefs by vote, to associate as these rights
are made applicable to Howard County by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution"; (b) "right to
substantive due process and equal protection as established by
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
. . ."; and (c) "right to petition the government for redress of
grievances as protected under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution." J.A. 12. Ken-
dall further pled that the requirement that signatures on a ref-
erendum petition match exactly the names as written on the
voter registration card is "overbroad" and represents an unrea-
sonable burden on Plaintiff’s rights to vote, petition, associate
and engage in politically protected speech. J.A. 13.
In Count Two, Kendall claimed that he was denied equal
protection and procedural and substantive due process. Spe-
cifically, Kendall argued that the procedural due process
offered by the County Board was "insufficient" in that no
notice was given of the reversal of the Board’s decision and
there was no ability to challenge that decision before it took
effect. J.A. 17. Kendall’s substantive due process argument
appears to be that the process was "unfair" in that it applied
"an unconstitutional law and a non-precedential portion of a
Court of Appeals decision to achieve a manifestly unfair
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 9
result" which denied Plaintiff his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
Count Three ("Violations of Constitutional Rights Pro-
tected Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983") appears to be nothing more
than Plaintiff’s rearticulation of the alleged violations of his
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
All Defendants asserted, in response to Kendall’s amended
complaint, that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. The State Defendants did so by affirmative
defense in their answer, whereas the County and the County
Board Defendants did so by separate motions to dismiss.
II.
On October 20, 2009, the district court issued an order dis-
missing Kendall’s amended complaint as against all defen-
dants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The court initially addressed the first and third counts, which
together asserted violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the form
of alleged denials of Kendall’s First and Fourteenth Amend-
ment rights. The court reasoned that a plaintiff pursuing a
Section 1983 claim must first plead that the defendants
unlawfully deprived him of a right secured by the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States. J.A. 122. The court ruled
that federal law does secure, in a limited sense, the right to
referendum. J.A. 123-25. Whereas the right to vote is funda-
mental, the court reasoned, the State-conferred privilege to
undertake ballot initiatives and referenda is not.* J.A. 123-24.
Thus, while the right to referendum enjoys some protection
*"The term ‘initiative’ refers to a political procedure whereby citizens
may propose laws and enact or reject the same at the polls." Wright v.
Mahan, 478 F. Supp. 468, 469 n.1 (E.D. Va. 1979), aff’d without op., 620
F.2d 296 (4th Cir. 1980). "The term ‘referendum’ refers to a procedure
whereby citizens may approve or reject at the polls any act of the legisla-
tive body, in some instances only if specifically referred to the people by
the legislature." Id.
10 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
under the First Amendment as applied to the States through
the Fourteenth Amendment, the right also is permissibly sub-
ject to non-discriminatory, content-neutral limitations. J.A.
126. The court concluded that EL § 6-203, as construed in
Doe and applied to Kendall, contained only non-
discriminatory, content-neutral regulations, and that the stat-
ute imposed no unconstitutional restraints on Kendall’s ability
to petition for referendum. J.A. 127-28.
In addressing counts one and three of Kendall’s amended
complaint, the district court found instructive the analysis of
the Sixth Circuit in Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v.
Austin, 994 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1993). In that case, voters
whose initiative petition was denied certification for submis-
sion after a large number of signatures were disqualified by
the Board of State Canvassers due to statutory deficiencies
filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the state
had deprived them of their First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. Id. at 293-94. The court first addressed the plaintiffs’
contention that Michigan’s procedures denied them the right
to vote by excluding the signatures of some registered voters
only because "technical checks" showed a failure to comply
with Michigan initiative law. Id. at 296. An example of a sig-
nature eliminated by the procedures was a signature which
was not accompanied, as required, by the signer’s complete
home address. Id. at 293. The court concluded that the plain-
tiffs had not demonstrated a violation of the right to vote as
the court could identify no decision of the Supreme Court or
a lower federal court holding that signing a petition to initiate
legislation is entitled to the same protection as exercising the
right to vote. Id.
The court then concluded that the plaintiffs’ rights to free
speech and political association also had not been violated.
"Because the right to initiate legislation is a wholly state-
created right, we believe that the state may constitutionally
place nondiscriminatory, content-neutral limitations on the
plaintiffs’ ability to initiate legislation." Id. at 297. The Sixth
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 11
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the challenged Michigan
procedure "does nothing more than impose nondiscrimina-
tory, content-neutral restrictions on the plaintiffs’ ability to
use the initiative procedure that serve Michigan’s interest in
maintaining the integrity of its initiative process." Id.
The district court relied on the analysis in Taxpayers
United to find that "[s]imilarly, here, for the same reasons
cited by the [Taxpayers United] court, Plaintiff has not dem-
onstrated a violation of the right to vote. As for Plaintiff’s
claims that his right to engage in politically protected speech,
right to petition, and right to associate were denied, I must
determine whether the challenged statute, as applied to Plain-
tiff, imposes anything other than ‘nondiscriminatory, content-
neutral limitations’ on Plaintiff’s right to referendum. . . . I
find that Section 6-203, as interpreted by the Maryland Court
of Appeals, is, in fact, non-discriminatory and content-
neutral." J.A. 125-27.
After concluding that dismissal was appropriate as to Ken-
dall’s First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Section
1983 claims, the court also found dismissal appropriate as to
his remaining claims that the Defendants had denied him
equal protection of the laws, substantive due process, and pro-
cedural due process. The court found no denial of equal pro-
tection, because EL § 6-203 relies on no suspect
classification, and a rational basis exists for the statute’s dis-
tinction between validatable and invalidatable referendum
petition signatures. J.A. 128-29. The court also found no vio-
lation of substantive due process because, again, no funda-
mental right was at stake. J.A. 129. Finally, the court found
that the procedural protections that the Maryland statutory
scheme affords, including, in particular, the right to petition
for judicial review from adverse action by the local election
board, satisfied Kendall’s right to procedural due process. J.A.
130-33.
12 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
III.
We now review whether the district court properly dis-
missed Kendall’s amended complaint and correctly ruled that
EL § 6-203, as interpreted by Doe, imposes constitutionally
permissible limitations on the right to referendum. "The stan-
dard of review for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is de
novo." Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Corp., Inc., 551 F.3d
218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009). In addressing the matters on which
a district court rules, the usual appellate standard governing
motions to dismiss considers questions of law de novo and
construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party, applying the same criteria that bound the lower
court. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th
Cir. 1993); EEOC v. Seafarers Intern. Union, 394 F.3d 197
(4th Cir. 2005). To survive a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
the facts alleged "must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level" and must provide "enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Robin-
son, 551 F.3d at 222 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007)).
IV.
We find that the district court correctly ruled that EL § 6-
203 does not violate Kendall’s right to freely associate, his
right to petition the government, his right to vote, or his First
Amendment right to engage in "politically protected speech."
To begin with, Kendall argues that the right to referendum
implicates the right to vote. We agree with the district court’s
conclusion that there is no fundamental right to initiate legis-
lation as there is a fundamental right to vote. Kendall argues
that the district court erred in finding that the right of refer-
enda does not implicate the right to vote and argues that this
case implicates the right to vote and that such right is violated
in this case.
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 13
This case is not a right to vote case. We find the case of
Taxpayers United, 994 F.2d 291, 296 (6th Cir. 1993), to be
instructive on this issue. As summarized above, in Taxpayers
United, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michi-
gan’s procedures for checking signatures on initiative peti-
tions did not deny voters’ right to vote, as signing a petition
to initiate legislation was not entitled to the same protection
as exercising the right to vote. As in Taxpayers United, in this
case, Kendall does not cite to us nor does our research iden-
tify any decision of the Supreme Court holding that signing
a petition to initiate legislation is entitled to the same protec-
tion as exercising the right to vote.
The basis for distinguishing the right to vote in a represen-
tative election, on the one hand, from the right to petition for
referendum and initiative, on the other, is a sound one. The
referendum is a form of direct democracy and is not com-
pelled by the Federal Constitution. See Doe v. Reed, 130 S.Ct.
2811, 2817 (2010) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); Kelly v.
Macon-Bibb Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 608 F. Supp. 1036, 1038
(M.D. Ga. 1985). In Kelly, county residents brought an action
challenging the constitutionality of a county board of elec-
tion’s construction of a subsection of a Georgia statute allow-
ing a political subdivision to remove itself, by local
referendum, from a requirement of having its public water
supply fluoridated so as to require a petition to call a referen-
dum to be signed by ten percent of the registered voters who
voted in the last general election. Kelly, 608 F. Supp. at 1038.
The District Court for the Middle District of Georgia held that
this case was "not a ‘right to vote’ case; referenda, unlike gen-
eral elections for a representative form of government, are not
constitutionally compelled." Id. The Kelly court went on to
find that the petition requirement did not violate the Four-
teenth Amendment given the permissible state purpose of
ensuring that the expense of a local referendum would not be
invoked absent legitimate concern of a substantial number of
concerned citizens. Id.
14 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
Finally, in Howlette v. City of Richmond, 580 F.2d 704 (4th
Cir. 1978), we affirmed a district court’s ruling that an ordi-
nance provision requiring each signature of a qualified voter
on a petition for referendum to be verified before a notary was
valid and constitutionally permissible. In that case, "the sole
question for decision [was] whether enforcement of the City
Charter requirement that each signature on a petition seeking
a referendum be individually notarized is violative of Federal
statutory or constitutional law." Howlette v. City of Richmond,
485 F. Supp. 17, 22 (E.D. Va. 1978). In deciding whether the
petition requirement violated constitutional law, the district
court held that "[a]lthough the court agrees that the right to
vote may be characterized as fundamental, the Supreme Court
has never held that the right to obtain or vote in a referendum
is fundamental." Id. at 27.
From the cases discussed above, we affirm the district
court’s finding that this case does not implicate the fundamen-
tal right to vote.
The authorities on which Kendall relies do not support the
proposition that limitations on referenda implicate fundamen-
tal rights. See Kendall’s Opening Br. at 16. Of the cases Ken-
dall cites, only two—Stone v. City of Prescott, 173 F.3d 1172
(9th cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 870 (1999), and City of Phoe-
nix, Az. v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970)—even mention
the referendum right. The court in Stone ruled against those
claiming an unconstitutional violation of their right to referen-
dum, because they "identified no federal or state right that the
[local government] violated." 173 F.3d at 1176. The Court in
City of Phoenix held invalid the per se exclusion of all non-
property owners from voting in a referendum concerning a
bond issue. 399 U.S. at 213. That holding, which addressed
a problem of complete disenfranchisement, does not apply to
EL § 6-203, which addresses the verification of voter identity.
Additionally, we decline to adopt Kendall’s reliance on the
Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 15
1098 (9th Cir. 2008). In Lemons, the Ninth Circuit concluded
that state regulations on the initiative and referendum process
"implicate the fundamental right to vote." Id. at 1102. There,
the Ninth Circuit reasoned that both the initiative and referen-
dum powers serve as "basic instruments of democratic gov-
ernment," so both implicated the plaintiffs’ fundamental right
to vote. Id. at 1103. The court proceeded to find that the regu-
lations at issue would not be subjected to strict scrutiny, even
though they implicated a fundamental right. Id. We find the
reasoning of the Lemons court to be unpersuasive. As stated
by the district judge:
I am more persuaded by the reasoning of an earlier
Ninth Circuit case, Stone v. City of Prescott, 173
F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1999), in which the court ana-
lyzed two Supreme Court cases addressing First
Amendment rights in the context of referenda, Meyer
v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) and Buckley v. Am.
Const. law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999). . . .
Meyer and Buckley held that the First Amendment
protects political speech incident to an initiative
campaign because it protects the exercise of the
state-created right of referendum. The state-created
right is not, however, in and of itself a fundamental
right.
J.A. 125-26.
The district court correctly recognized that this case does not
implicate the right to vote. However, the district court also
correctly recognized that where a state affords its citizens the
privilege to pursue ballot initiatives or referenda, those privi-
leges do enjoy some measure of constitutional protection. See
Taxpayers United, 994 F.2d at 295 ("[A]lthough the Constitu-
tion does not require a state to create an initiative procedure,
if it creates such a procedure, the state cannot place restric-
tions on its use that violate the federal Constitituion. . . .").
16 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
Therefore, after determining that Kendall’s right to vote is
not implicated in this case, we must then consider Kendall’s
other claims that his right to engage in politically protected
speech, right to petition, and right to associate were denied.
As to that analysis, a State may establish non-discriminatory
and content-neutral limitations on any referendum or initiative
procedure. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)
("[W]hen a state election law provision imposes only reason-
able, nondiscriminatory restrictions upon the First and Four-
teenth Amendment rights of voters, the State’s important
regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify the
restrictions."); see also Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010)
(Sotomayor, J., concurring)("States enjoy considerable lee-
way to . . . specify the requirements for obtaining ballot
access (e.g., the number of signatures required, the time for
submission, and the method of verification)); Taxpayers
United, 994 F.2d at 297 ("We also conclude that the plain-
tiffs’ rights to free speech and political association have not
been impinged. Because the right to initiate legislation is a
wholly state-created right, we believe that the state may con-
stitutionally place nondiscriminatory, content-neutral limita-
tions on the plaintiffs’ ability to initiate legislation."); Hoyle
v. Priest, 265 F.3d 699, 704 (8th Cir. 2001) ("the Arkansas
law is content neutral and merely regulates who qualifies to
legally sign an initiative petition, a restriction which does not
violate the First Amendment.").
Therefore, when analyzing state-created restrictions that are
both content neutral and nondiscriminatory, the State’s impor-
tant regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify the
restrictions. We do not use a higher level of scrutiny as we do
in some First Amendment cases. As Justice Sotomayor
explained in her concurrence in Doe, "requiring petition sign-
ers to be registered voters or to use their real names no doubt
limits the ability or willingness of some individuals to under-
take the expressive act of signing a petition. Regulations of
this nature, however, stand ‘a step removed from the commu-
nicative aspect of petitioning,’ and the ability of States to
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 17
impose them can scarcely be doubted." Doe, 130 S.Ct. at
2827 (citing Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc.,
525 U.S. 182 (1999; McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514
U.S. 334, 345 (1995) (contrasting measures to "control the
mechanics of the electoral process" with the "regulation of
pure speech")). Because content neutral and nondiscrimina-
tory regulations on referendums are a "step removed from the
communicative aspect of petitioning," "[i]t is by no means
necessary for a State to prove that such ‘reasonable, nondis-
criminatory restrictions’ are narrowly tailored to its interests."
Id. at 2828 (citing Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788
(1983)). In Doe, the Supreme Court held that the State of
Washington’s requirement making referendum petitions avail-
able in response to requests under the State’s Public Records
Act did not violate individual signers of the referendum’s
First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association
when analyzed under an intermediate or "exacting" scrutiny
standard. Id. at 2821. The Court held that the standard appli-
cable to First Amendment challenges to disclosure require-
ments in the electoral context requires a substantial relation
between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently impor-
tant government interest. Id. at 2818. Therefore, as set forth
in Doe, challenges to content neutral and nondiscriminatory
regulations on the referendum process are not analyzed under
a strict scrutiny standard. In this case, we must find a substan-
tial relation between the requirements of EL § 6-203 and a
sufficiently important government interest.
We affirm the district court’s finding that EL § 6-203 is
content neutral and non-discriminatory and that the State’s
important regulatory interests are sufficient to justify the
restrictions. As stated above, EL § 6-203 requires that:
(a) Generally— To sign a [referendum] petition, an
individual shall:
(1) sign the individual’s name as it appears
on the statewide voter registration list or the
18 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
individual’s surname of registration and at
least one full given name and the initials of
any other names; and
(2) include the following information,
printed or typed, in the spaces provided;
(i) the signer’s name as it was signed;
(ii) the signer’s address;
(iii) the date of signing; and
(iv) other information required by the
regulations adopted by the State
Board.
Therefore, the statute affords the signer four options in sign-
ing the petition. The signer can: (1) sign his/her name on the
petition as it appears on his/her voter registration card; (2)
sign his/her full first, middle and last names; (3) sign his/her
full first name, middle initial, and last name; or (4) sign
his/her first initial, and full middle and last names. A signa-
ture in any of those formats is valid for purposes of being a
qualified signature on the petition.
This method is both content-neutral and non-
discriminatory. The signature requirement is applied indis-
criminately to all petition signers. And, the signature require-
ment is reasonably related to the purpose of detecting
fraudulent or otherwise improper signatures. The signature
requirement helps to make sure that false signatures are not
put on the petition and that unregistered or ineligible voters do
not sign it. As stated by the State Defendants, "the require-
ment discourages fraud by supplying a workably complete
signature exemplar that those officials validating the signa-
tures can use to confirm that the signer actually is who he or
she claims to be." Appellees’ Br. at 19. Therefore, because the
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 19
requirements of EL § 6-203 are not discriminatory or targeted
at the content or purpose of any particular speech, expression,
or assembly, the statutory requirements are constitutionally
permissible.
This Court previously has rejected challenges comparable
to Kendall’s. In Howlette v. City of Richmond, Va., 580 F.2d
704 (4th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), for example, the Court
upheld the constitutionality of a municipal requirement that
each person signing a referendum petition must swear to
being a qualified voter and have his or her oath and signature
individually notarized. Id. at 705. In holding that requirement
constitutional, this Court adopted by reference the reasoning
of the district court, which is instructive as applied to this
case.
The petitioners in Howlette argued that the signature
requirements constituted meaningless and discriminatory
technicalities. Howlette, 485 F. Supp. at 22. The district court
explained:
[T]he individual notarization requirement affords
material protection to each and every citizen of the
City by assuring that the City will not be forced to
undertake the substantial preparation and expense of
conducting a referendum unless the requisite number
of qualified City voters have actually signed the peti-
tions, and have done so only after exercising due
deliberation. In short, the individual notarization
requirement protects the City and its citizens against
both fraud and caprice.
Id.
The requirements of 6-203 afford similar protections to the
State of Maryland, but are far less burdensome, requiring
only, in essence, some ascertainable correlation between the
signer’s signature and the name he or she used when register-
20 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
ing to vote. The Maryland procedures in this case do nothing
more than impose nondiscriminatory, content-neutral restric-
tions on the plaintiffs’ ability to use the referendum procedure
that serve Maryland’s interest in maintaining the integrity of
its referendum process. Our result might be different if Ken-
dall was challenging a restriction on his ability to communi-
cate with other voters about proposed legislation, or if he
alleged he was being treated differently than other groups
seeking to obtain a referendum on legislation. But, in the
instant case, it is constitutionally permissible for Maryland to
condition the use of its referendum procedure on compliance
with content-neutral, nondiscriminatory regulations that are,
as here, reasonably related to the purpose of administering an
honest and fair referendum procedure. Accordingly, we con-
clude that the restrictions of EL § 6-203 do not violate Ken-
dall’s right to freely associate, his right to petition the
government, his right to vote, or his first amendment right to
engage in "politically protected speech."
V.
The second count of Kendall’s amended complaint asserted
that all the Defendants had denied him due process and equal
protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. The district court found that Ken-
dall had not demonstrated that the County board violated his
right to equal protection. In doing so, the court held that strict
scrutiny did not apply because no fundamental right is
involved (i.e., the right to referendum does not implicate the
fundamental right to vote) and because the law does not dis-
criminate against a suspect class. "Although Defendants’
application of Section 6-203 to Plaintiff’s signature (and oth-
ers) on the HCCOG petition did distinguish between individu-
als whose signatures were thrown out because they did not
meet the requirements of Section 6-203 and those whose sig-
natures were accepted because they did meet said require-
ments, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he, as a result of
being an individual whose signature was not in compliance,
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 21
was a member of a suspect class." J.A. 128-29. The court
stated that, unless the state regulation "involves a fundamental
right or a suspect class, it is presumed to be valid and will be
sustained ‘if there is a rational relationship between the dis-
parity of treatment and some legitimate government pur-
pose.’" J.A. 128 (quoting Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 731
(4th Cir. 2002)). Thus, the district court concluded that Defen-
dants’ actions in applying Section 6-203 to Kendall’s signa-
ture were valid in that there is a rational relationship between
separating those signatures which meet Section 6-203’s
requirements from those which do not and a legitimate gov-
ernmental purpose of detecting fraudulent or otherwise
improper signatures upon a referendum petition.
The district court correctly held that Defendants did not
violate Kendall’s right to equal protection. As analyzed by the
district court and discussed above, the right to referenda does
not implicate the fundamental right to vote. Further, Kendall
has not demonstrated that he was a member of a suspect class.
Distinguishing between those who signed the petition in
accordance with EL § 6-203 and those who did not is not a
disparity of treatment against a suspect class. See Taxpayers
United, 994 F.2d at 297 (plaintiffs pursuing ballot initiative
"have not challenged they are members of a suspect class");
Kelly, 608 F. Supp. at 1039 (statutory requirements concern-
ing referendum signatures "do not involve . . . suspect classifi-
cations"). Therefore, as no fundamental right is implicated
and as there is no presence of discrimination against a suspect
class, strict scrutiny is not appropriate in this case and the
Defendants’ decision to verify some signatures and not others
in accordance with § 6-203 will pass muster if it is reasonably
related to a legitimate government interest. Taxpayers United,
994 F.2d at 297 (citing Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431
U.S. 494 (1971)).
In this case, the district court correctly found that there is
a rational relationship between separating those signatures
which meet 6-203’s requirements from those which do not
22 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
and that there is a legitimate governmental purpose of detect-
ing fraudulent or otherwise improper signatures upon a refer-
endum petition. States have a legitimate interest in
safeguarding the fairness and honesty of all elections and
have an interest in ensuring that the State and affected local
jurisdictions should not incur the considerable administrative
responsibilities attending a referendum unless there is a
proven interest by a reasonably large segment of the elector-
ate. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433 ("Common sense, as well
as constitutional law, compels the conclusion that government
must play an active role in structuring elections . . . if they are
to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than
chaos, is to accompany the democratic process."); Taxpayers
United, 924 F.2d at 297 ("[A] state has a strong interest in
ensuring that its elections are run fairly and honestly."); How-
lette, 485 F. Supp. at 28 (recognizing local government’s
"compelling interest in preventing electoral fraud" and in "dis-
couraging unnecessary or capricious referenda"). Moreover,
since Kendall has not alleged that any fundamental right or
suspect classification is involved, it is irrelevant that Mary-
land could have chosen a better method of protecting its inter-
est in guaranteeing an honest referendum system. See
Taxpayers United, 994 F.2d at 298 (citing Schweiker v. Wil-
son, 450 U.S. 221 (1981) ("The equal protection obligation
. . . is not an obligation to provide the best governance possi-
ble.")).
Therefore, because the requirements of EL § 6-203 pass a
rational basis review, the district court correctly concluded
that Kendall’s right to equal protection has not been denied.
The district court also correctly found that Kendall was not
denied his right to substantive due process. We have noted
that "while liberty interests entitled to procedural due process
protection may be created by state law as well as the Constitu-
tion itself, those entitled to substantive due process protection
(whatever the procedures afforded) are ‘created only by the
Constitution.’" Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 748 (4th
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 23
Cir. 1999) (quoting Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474
U.S. 214, 229 (1985)). As discussed above, application of EL
§ 6-203 to the referendum process did not violate a fundamen-
tal right created by the Constitution—the right to referendum
does not implicate the right to vote and is a right created by
the State, not by the Constitution. Therefore, the district court
correctly found that Kendall had failed to state a claim that his
right to substantive due process has been violated.
Finally, the district court found that Kendall failed to state
a claim that his right to procedural due process had been vio-
lated. Kendall challenges the procedures used by the County
Board in re-verifying the 2,603 signatures on the HCCOG
petition that had been initially validated and certified on Janu-
ary 22, 2009. In order for Kendall to succeed on his proce-
dural due process claim, he must show "(1) a cognizable
liberty or property interest; (2) the deprivation of that interest
by some form of state action; and (3) that the procedures
employed were constitutionally inadequate." Iota Xi Chapter
of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138, 145 (4th
Cir. 2009). Here, Kendall possesses a state-created right to
petition legislation to referendum, and that right was deprived
when the County Board invalidated his signature on the
HCCOG petition. Therefore, the question is whether the pro-
cedures employed by the County Board were constitutionally
inadequate. Procedural due process provides merely "a guar-
antee of fair procedures—typically notice and an opportunity
to be heard." Wolf v. Fauquier County Bd. of Supervisors, 555
F.3d 311, 323 (4th Cir. 2009).
In this case, an email was sent on the evening of March 11,
2009 to several persons involved in the referendum process
stating that the County Board "desires you to be present
tomorrow evening at 5:30 PM at its meeting." At the meeting
on March 12, 2009, Balcerzak stated that the County Board
was reversing its January 22, 2009 decision certifying the first
2,603 signatures. Nordaas explained that the County Board
found, after review of each signature on the petition, that it
24 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
had not validated each signature in accordance with the man-
date set forth in Doe, and that upon advice from the Attorney
General’s office, the County Board re-verified the signatures
on the petition submitted on December 30, 2008, and found
that the total number of signatures fell below the 2,500 signa-
tures necessary to qualify HCCOG for a thirty-day extension
to secure the additional signatures. According to the Board, a
written decision was presented at the meeting where members
of HCCOG spoke and the decision of the Board was
explained.
The district court found that the County Board’s actions
appear to have complied with the notice requirement of Mary-
land election law. Maryland law provides that once the local
election authority has verified and counted the signatures sub-
mitted on a petition for referendum, the chief election official
shall:
(1) determine whether the validated signatures con-
tained in the petition are sufficient to satisfy all
requirements established by law relating to the num-
ber and geographical distribution of signatures; and
(2) . . . determine whether the petition has satisfied
all other requirements established by law for that
petition and immediately notify the sponsor of that
determination, including any specific deficiencies
found.
Md. Code, E.L. § 6-208(a).
State law further provides that within two business days of a
determination that a petition is deficient, the chief election
official of the election authority must notify the petition’s
sponsor of the determination. Md. Code, E.L. § 6-210(b). In
this case, the district court noted that it appears that members
of the HCCOG received notice of HCBE’s final determination
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 25
regarding its petition on March 12, 2009, the same date as that
provided on the written decision.
Maryland law does not require, nor did the County Board
provide, notice to anyone associated with HCCOG that it was
considering invalidating signatures on the HCCOG petition
prior to making that determination. But, as the district court
found, the fact that the County Board failed to provide notice
to Kendall that his signature was being invalidated does not
give rise to a due process violation. As the Seventh Circuit
reasoned in Protect Marriage Illinois v. Orr, 463 F.3d 604,
608 (7th Cir. 2006):
[W]hat is required in the name of due process
depends, as the Supreme Court made clear in Mat-
thews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976), on the
costs as well as the benefits of process. The cost of
allowing tens of thousands of people to demand a
hearing on the validity of their signatures would be
disproportionate to the benefits, which would be
slight because the state allows the organization
orchestrating a campaign to put an advisory question
on the ballot, in this case Protect Marriage Illinois,
to challenge the disqualification of any petitions.
We agree with the district court that, in this case, as in Pro-
tect Marriage Illinois, the costs of allowing thousands of peo-
ple to demand a hearing on the validity of their signatures
would be disproportionate to the benefits. Moreover, Mary-
land provides a procedure by which "a person aggrieved by
a determination" that a petition is deficient may seek judicial
review in the circuit court for the county in which the petition
is filed. Md. Code, E.L. § 6-209(a)(1).
Apparently, HCCOG timely filed a Petition for Judicial
Review of the County Board’s final determination in the Cir-
cuit Court for Howard County seeking, in part, a declaratory
judgment that the final determination be declared invalid.
26 KENDALL v. BALCERZAK
Kendall, along with two other individuals, also filed a Com-
plaint for Declaratory Judgment and Other Appropriate Relief
in the Circuit Court for Howard County. According to Ken-
dall, that case was unrelated to this one, and Kendall voluntar-
ily dismissed that state court action after the County Board
filed a motion to dismiss.
Crediting Kendall’s assertion that the lawsuit he filed was
unrelated to this once, then it appears Kendall did not file any
challenge to the County Board’s final determination in state
court. For whatever reasons, Kendall chose not to pursue that
course. As the Maryland Court of Appeals noted in Doe, a
registered voter may bring the action for judicial review when
a determination is made that results in aggrievement. Doe,
962 A.2d at 353.
We find that there was adequate process available to Ken-
dall to provide an opportunity to be heard. "[A] procedural
due process violation cannot have occurred when the govern-
mental actor provides apparently adequate procedural reme-
dies and the plaintiff has not availed himself of those
remedies." Elsmere Park Club, L.P. v. Town of Elsmere, 542
F.3d 412, 423 (3rd Cir.2008).
Therefore, as the County Board provided adequate notice
under the circumstances of the decision to invalidate the peti-
tion signatures and as there were adequate opportunities for
review of the invalidation of Kendall’s petition signature in
state court, the district court was correct in finding that there
was no violation of Kendall’s right to procedural due process.
VI.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we affirm the district
court’s dismissal of Kendall’s amended complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Kendall has
failed to state a claim for a denial of any of his constitutional
KENDALL v. BALCERZAK 27
rights, and therefore his § 1983 claim was properly dismissed
by the district court.
AFFIRMED