Background
Spencer Rhoda and Dr. Saif Rehman were candidates for Maryland House of Delegates in Legislative District 9A. Rehman, an independent candidate, submitted a nomination petition to obtain a place on the 2026 general-election ballot.
On August 18, 2026, the Maryland State Board of Elections determined that Rehman’s petition met the applicable legal requirements and notified him that his name would be placed on the ballot. Rhoda sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on September 4. The State Board moved to dismiss the action as untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice of Rhoda’s petition for judicial review. Under the Election Law Article, a challenge to an election official’s determination concerning a nomination petition must be brought by the earlier of ten days after the determination or the 69th day before the election.
The circuit court concluded that August 26, 2026 was the applicable 69-day deadline and that Rhoda’s September 4 filing was late. The Supreme Court affirmed that judgment in a per curiam order and directed that costs be paid by Rhoda. It stated that a later opinion would explain its reasons. The Court also noted that Rhoda’s attempted September 3 filing, which was rejected, did not affect its decision.
Key Takeaways
- Election-law deadlines for judicial review of ballot-access determinations are strictly time-sensitive.
- A challenge filed after the 69th day before the election was untimely in this case.
- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal with prejudice and ordered the appellant to pay costs.
Why It Matters
The order preserves Rehman’s ballot access and underscores the accelerated timetable governing challenges to nomination-petition determinations. Candidates and election litigants must calculate the statutory deadline from the election date as well as from the agency determination, because the earlier deadline controls.