Russell v. State Board of Elections — Maryland high court affirms exclusion from House ballot

Case
Lisa Russell v. Maryland State Board of Elections, et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Maryland
Judge
Fader, C.J.; Watts; Booth; Biran; Gould; Eaves; Killough, JJ.
Date Decided
September 4, 2026
Docket No.
No. 24, September Term, 2026
Topics
Election law; ballot access; nomination petitions
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Lisa Russell sought to run as an unaffiliated candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates in District 23. She timely submitted a nomination petition containing 1,182 signatures to the Prince George’s County Board of Elections. The county board found 370 signatures invalid, and the State Board of Elections notified Russell that she lacked the number of valid signatures required for ballot access.

Russell challenged that determination in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. She alleged that election officials had not identified the rejected signatures, that the signature counts did not match, and that officials had improperly excluded or failed to process valid signatures. After the State Board supplied scanned petition sheets and its staff member testified that a complete review found still more invalid signatures, the circuit court denied Russell’s amended petition and ordered that her name not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

The Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. Russell therefore may not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot for Maryland House of Delegates District 23.

The court issued its disposition as a per curiam order and stated that its reasons would be set out in a later opinion. The order did not provide further merits analysis.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the denial of Russell’s ballot-access challenge.
  • Russell’s name will not appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot for House District 23.
  • The court ordered Russell, as appellant, to pay costs and directed that the mandate issue immediately.

Why It Matters

The expedited order resolves the immediate ballot-access dispute before the general election. Because the court deferred its reasoning, the order itself supplies the result but not a fuller interpretation of Maryland’s nomination-petition requirements.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top