GERENDE
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Maryland candidate was denied ballot access after refusing to file a state-required affidavit regarding her involvement with organizations attempting to overthrow the government by force or violence. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Maryland's law required candidates only to swear they were not engaged in or knowingly members of organizations attempting to overthrow the government by force or violence, and that the state's attorney general's agreement to accept such an affidavit as satisfying the statutory requirement resolved any constitutional concerns.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland the effect of which is to deny the appellant a place on the ballot for a municipal election in the City of Baltimore on the ground that she has refuséd to file an affidavit required by state law. Md. Laws 1949, c. 86, § 15. -Md.-, 78 A. 2d 660. The scope of the state law was passed on in Shub v. Simpson, - Md. -, 76 A. 2d 332. We read this decision to hold that to obtain a place on a Maryland ballot a candidate need only make oath that he is not a person who is engaged “in one way or another in the attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence,” and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt. -Md. at-, 76 A. 2d at 338. At the bar of this Court the Attorney General of the State of Maryland declared that he would advise the proper authorities to accept an affidavit in these terms as satisfying in full the statutory requirement. Under these circumstances and with this understanding, the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Reed concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Sol I. Cohen v. State, 125 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1960)…Casey, 357 U.S. 468, 78 S.Ct. 1311, 2 L.Ed.2d 1423; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517, 27 A.L.R.2d 472; Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716, 71 S.Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317; Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U.S. 56, 71 S.Ct. 565, 95 L.Ed. 745. For the reasons expressed in the Crarrfp-case we are not disturbed by appellant’s reliance on Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216, and on Smith v. People of State of California, supra, for in e…
-
Cramp v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Orange Cnty., 125 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1960)…Casey, 357 U.S. 468, 78 S.Ct. 1311, 2 L.Ed.2d 1423; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517, 27 A.L.R.2d 472; Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716, 71 S.Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317; Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 U.S. 56, 71 S.Ct. 565, 95 L.Ed. 745. We are not disturbed by appellant’s reliance on Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216. While this decision involved a similar loyalty oath, the highest court of the State of Oklahoma had held tha…
-
State v. Diez, 97 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1957)…e has not done so knowingly. Garner v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles, 1951, 341 U.S. 716, 71 S.Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317; Adler v. Board of Education, 1952, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517; Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 1951, 341 U.S. 56, 71 S.Ct. 565, 95 L.Ed. 745. This takes us back to the informa-tions and the particular grounds of the motions challenging the sufficiency of the allegations setting out the elements of the: crime. We have already referred to the bare averments tha…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence