I wanted to talk elections today and tie it to my previous blogs on a captured court and justice system from prosecutor, to states attorney, to judges. Now, if you are fighting for civil rights and access to these courts you know there has been a long-standing problem in Maryland. If you are a citizen who is seeing all kinds of corporate frauds and government corruption and see no pathway to justice----you too are now seeing the capture of the courts in Maryland. The courts are filled with people who value the protection of profit and the protection of corrupt government officials rather than the Constitutional rights of Maryland citizens and equal protection. If you think I am falsely categorizing people just look at how many cases against public officials and corporations die in Maryland courts. Part of the problem is the Maryland Assembly and passing of law that makes these cases harder to make but one thing we know is that the people who should be calling these laws unconstitutional --------are not doing so. Many of these Maryland laws blocking pathways to justice against corporations and government officials are simply unconstitutional and need to be challenged in court.
WE HAVE TAKEN THESE KINDS OF CASES TO COURT BUT WATCH AS THE MARYLAND COURT ALLOWS THEM TO LANGUISH AND DIE. I HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME.
Below is a list of judges up for election in 2014. If you notice O'Malley appointed almost all of these judges just before the coming 2014 election and the terms of service carry these judges into 2024/2029. Is it a coincidence that O'Malley appointed these judges just as an election comes about? Of course not......an incumbent has the advantage over challengers and that is why almost all of O'Malley's appointments won permanent election. This is what I mean by the power of elections as regards states attorneys, prosecutors, and judges. I do not know of many people who like O'Malley and most people understand he is a stooge for Wall Street and the face of Maryland corruption. He's not the first of course but he excelled at these qualities. So, we know he would appoint people as judges that would do just these things above-----
AND YET ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES WERE MADE PERMANENT IN THIS 2014 ELECTION.
This is the problem folks------people are not even taking time to research these candidates and thinking how the behavior of a governor appointing judges may be reflected in the candidates for justice he chooses. I deliberately show many of the Baltimore City court races because as we know----that is where justice is captured the most. All of O'Malley's appointments were made permanent.
Jimmy Sarbanes is a circuit court judge for the First Circuit Court in Wicomico County, Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014. Sarbanes ran for re-election to the First Circuit Court in 2014, winning a full term expiring on December 31, 2029.
Danny Brian O'Connor is a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court for Frederick County in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on November 25, 2013. O'Connor ran for re-election to the Sixth Circuit Court in 2014.
Audrey A. Creighton is an associate judge on the Sixth Circuit Court for Montgomery County in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014. She ran for election to the 6th Circuit Court in 2014, and she won a full term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Hayward James "Jay" West is a judge on the 7th Judicial Circuit for Charles County in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014. West ran for re-election to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term expiring on December 31, 2029.
Melissa Marie Phinn is an associate judge on the 8th Judicial Circuit for Baltimore City in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on December 28, 2012, and assumed office on January 18, 2013. Phinn was re-elected to the 8th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Melissa K. Copeland is an associate judge on the 8th Judicial Circuit for Baltimore City in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and assumed office on March 13, 2014. She was re-elected to the 8th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Mark Stephen Chandlee is a judge for the 7th Judicial Circuit for Calvert County in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on September 19, 2013. Chandlee was re-elected to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Lawrence V. Hill, Jr. is an associate judge on the 7th Judicial Circuit in Prince George's County, Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and assumed office on March 24, 2014. Hill was re-elected to the 7th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Christopher L. Panos is an associate judge on the 8th Judicial Circuit for Baltimore City in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on December 28, 2012 and assumed office on January 7, 2013. Panos was re-elected to the 8th Judicial Circuit in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Brenda A. Sexton is a judge on the Second Circuit Court for Cecil County in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on November 25, 2013. Sexton was re-elected to the Second Circuit Court in 2014, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Colleen Cavanaugh is a judge of the Third Circuit Court for Baltimore and Harford counties in Maryland. She was appointed to the the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and began serving on the court on March 27, 2014. Cavanaugh ran to keep her seat in the 2014 election, winning a new term that expires on December 31, 2029.
Douglas R. M. Nazarian is a judge on the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the intermediate appellate court for the state of Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of James Eyler. He assumed office on January 1, 2013. He ran for retention in 2014, winning a new term expiring on December 31, 2024.
Kevin Francis Arthur is an at large judge for the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, effective March 18, 2014. He ran for retention in 2014, winning a full term expiring on December 31, 2024.
Andrea M. Leahy-Fucheck is a judge for the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014. She ran for retention in 2014, winning a new term effective until December 31, 2024.
Michael Wilson Reed is a judge for the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland. He was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley on February 24, 2014, and assumed office on March 18, 2014. He ran for retention in 2014, winning a full term expiring on December 31, 2024.
Shirley Marie Watts is an associate judge for the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland's highest court. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O'Malley in July 2013. She ran for retention in 2014, winning a new term expiring on December 31, 2024.
This sums up the problem-----the courts are being defunded at the national level and states are doing so as well. There is a crisis in the number of judges forcing shortcuts that always come at the expense of justice for most citizens. Let's take a look at funding in Maryland courtesy of Maryland Assembly.
Injustice on Appeal? Professors William Reynolds and William Richman document the crisis in U. S. Courts of Appeals
The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals handles over 60,000 cases on its docket every year. Most of them , however, are disposed without oral arguments and without publication of opinions. In their new book, Injustice on Appeal: The U.S. Courts of Appeals in Crisis, UM Carey Law Professor William Reynolds joins University of Toledo College of Law Professor William M. Richman in examining the current state of the Court.
The book chronicles the transformation of the United States Circuit Courts; considers the merits and dangers of continued truncating procedures; catalogues and responds to the array of specious arguments against increasing the size of the judiciary; and considers several ways of reorganizing the circuit courts so that they can dispense traditional high quality appellate justice even as their caseloads and the number of appellate judgeships increase.
"The Courts have been asking for judges in a formal way," says Reynolds. "But they have not gotten to sit down at the table with Congress and say 'we need many, many more judges'."
The distribution of what Reynolds and Richman call “the full Learned Hand treatment, in recognition of the famed appeals court judge ” – or the process that includes a judicial review and published opinion -- as opposed to the minimal treatment “is not equal across class [or] across race,” says Richman.
"It's really all about what has happened in the Court over the past 30 years, where the structure and the operation of those courts is not what it once was," says Shale Stiller, UM Carey Law adjunct professor and partner at DLA Piper US.
Below you see Maryland's categorization of case loads and the days a citizen waits for such cases. Look below to see a comparison of a corporate state like Maryland and a social progressive state like Massachusetts. These budgets are of course not inclusive of all spending -----but the budgets are calculated much the same way.
Populations of Maryland vs Massachusetts close-----yet Maryland spends almost half on judiciary.
C00A00 –JudiciaryAnalysis of the FY 2015 Maryland Executive Budget, 20148
The time standards for District Court cases are set according to the following case types:
Criminal: 180 days;
Traffic Driving Under the Influence(DUI): 180 days;
Traffic Must Appear: 180 days;
Traffic Payable: 120 days;
Civil –Large: 250 days; and
Civil –Small: 90 days.
For each case type, the goal is to terminate 98% of cases within the time standard.Exhibit 1 illustrates the number of District Court cases terminated within the time standard. While the majority of cases for each case type are disposed of within the established timeframe, in all categories, the District Court failed to meet the performance standard of 98%. Further, the timely termination of cases slipped in almost all categories from fiscal 2011 to 2012. The most dramatic decline was in Civil–Small cases, which exhibited a 5percentage point decline,from 85 to 80% from fiscal 2011 to 2012. Traffic–DUI cases declined from 81 to 77%, which is the lowest rate of completion within the time standard of any case type. All other case types also saw a decline between 1and 2percentage points, with the exception of Criminal cases,which remained at 91%. However, while the percentage of cases completed within the time standard declined, the differences between the average termination times of within standard and beyond standard cases decreased for most case types.
Maryland Judiciary-----Operating Budget Data
Adjusted Grand Total (thousands)
FYI 2013 FYI 2014 FYI2015 Increase over last year
$438,304 $468,503 $499,961 $31,458 6.7%
MASSACHUSETTS FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET SUMMARY ($000)
Data Current as of: 10/17/2014
Below you see a good article written by low income citizens and their real concerns with equal access and protection and due process in what is the wealthiest county in the state. So, this is not a problem of revenue----it is a problem of funding.
I want to caution people that do not care if the poor have legal access that I am having the same problems in the courts and moving cases along and I am middle-class with multiple degrees. So, these access issues are broadening and target people with cases that involve holding corporations and government accountable. When a person goes to court PRO SE it is often because they cannot find a lawyer that will represent that case.
MARYLAND COURTS of Montgomery County PRO SE LITIGANTS & JUDGES BIASES
Pro Se litigants:
"Deprived of life, liberty or property without due process."
"Refuse to operate within the law and provide fair procedures".
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Access to justice has eroded. Pro Se litigants are discouraged and denied rights with the intent to sabotage pro se litigants access to justice. These biases exists in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court ruling in Faretta v. California; "that everyone has the constitutional right to proceed without counsel".
Olmstad v. United States, (1928) 277 U.S. 438
"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites everyone to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy".
Saturday, January 4, 2014 Maryland Courts in Montgomery County Access to Justice The Court of Public Opinion/ the voiceless "50 million Americans qualify for federally funding civil legal aid, yet more than half of those who seek help are turned away due to lack of resources" (legal aid and pro bono lawyers)
"Access to Justice" is eroded in Montgomery County, Maryland judicial system especially towards pro se litigants. Powers to be -the government became a "rubber stamp institution' (accepted these behaviors) refusing to hold Judges, government and court officials accountable for their actions. In addition, ignoring the root causes of disparity issues in Montgomery county without applying a comprehensive social, economic or political strategy to combat these long-term problems. These actions impacts the political and social destabilization in the region, such as violating human and civil rights, unsustainable social and economic development that causes divisions in society and political systems.
According to the Department of Justice (Access to Justice Initiatives), millions of people can't get assistance due to systematic discrimination that takes hold in judicial procedures and understands that inequities shouldn't be tolerated. For example, promoting barriers and accessibility towards individuals who are experiencing financial barriers to exercise their rights, ensuring fairness, delivering fair and just outcomes and respect from the justice system in Montgomery County. In 2008, Chief Judge Robert Bell of the Court of Appeals of Maryland established Maryland Access to Justice Commission to reduce these barriers. In 2002, an Anti- Bias commission was created to examine the racial, gender and ethical bias that negatively impacted on the Maryland judicial system. In 2014, these barriers haven't decrease the numbers equally however demonstrates consistent disparity which remain a crisis situation in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Montgomery county is one of the tenth wealthiest counties in the nation, highest disparity and inequality (social economic issues) historically, however suppressed (Reference disparity statistics below). In 2002, the Court of Appeals of Maryland implemented an administrative order creating anti-bias commission on gender equality to ensure that gender, racial and ethnic fairness don't have a negative impact in the Maryland judicial system. The comprehensive report is a study designed to measure the changes in attitudes, experiences and perceptions towards these biases. "Social neglect and abandonment of indigenous, brown and black people have been perpetuated through the institutionalized legality of unfair treatment. More aggressive measures and policies are implemented to deny rights to those who are a the bottom of the social and economic barrel". The rights for equality, equity and justice for all is a myth however oppressed in Montgomery County, Maryland.
The Issues/Barriers A pro se litigant is negatively characterized, discouraged and denied rights Judges comments reflect a distinct anti-pro se litigant sentiment. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
The Courts are bias against pro se litigants in procedural requirements that are intentionally difficult. "Pro se pleadings are to be considered without the regard to technicality; pro se pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers" Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959). Judges and court officials are rude and disrespectful, only to discourage the rights of pro se litigants. "Judges have duty under Canon 3 to "be patient, dignified and courteous towards litigants and the right to be heard according to the law. "The fifth amendment states that no one shall be " deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law".
Court clerks withhold information from pro se litigants, stereotype and stigmatized and maliciously advised litigants with wrong information. Clerks manipulate records and documents are constantly lost there is no accountability to these actions. Canon 3 'Judges has a duty to assure that court officials "refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties" (Canon 3 Section 2) suggests a duty upon judges, especially administrative judges, to assure their court staff provide assistance in an impartial manner.
The Courts provide a self-help window which it's no guarantee of any help. They look angry, attitudes and responses are rude as if you disturbing them when it's part of their job to serve the public. This is just a tactic to block judicial access to common citizens.
Law libraries are financed by filing fees by pro se litigants ( some states) however they are at the convenience for lawyers. If you are a minority some clerks automatic assume you are a defendant in a criminal case before asking, May I help you"? Instead they ask, "Are you a defendant for a criminal case"?
Montgomery County is culturally diverse, there are immigrants and second language citizens in this county. When they present their case, you can barely understand or comprehend their case. Hispanics has the advantage to be offered an interpreter and others, such as Asian, African and Indians, etc., don't have the same opportunity to be offered the same services for an interpreter made available to assist them. Cases are lost due to this sort of injustice and discriminatory practices. This practice is unconstitutional, every member in society deserves equal protection under the law. Maty v. Grasselii Chemical Company 303 U.S. 197 (1938) "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleadings is important, but its importance consists in effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment".
The matter of public opinion and 1st Amendment rights aren't a guarantee - To openly speak on these topics of disparity, injustice and civil rights- you are retaliated and threatened in various ways that attributes and create a totalitarian oppressed system. This includes the access to media (freedom of the press) which is regulated on the basis of conformity to the government and non-conformity with "official" public opinion. This results to a "forcible consensus" not a democratic system of government but an anarchy. The problem is the government exclude the public access and don't have the ability to design a political system to limit corruption. In addition, can't rid their own personal biases to produce a comprehensive plan to improve public trust that deeply colors the way the public negatively views politics. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights". Sherar v. Cullen, 481F. 2d 946 (1973).
The founding fathers tirelessly tried to repair the problem of corruption; their ideas of this "disease of corruption" range from moral and ethical values featuring the legal and political systems. Now that the disease has surfaced, the constitution and laws needs to reformed and redesigned. The Constitution- fifth amendment states that no one shall be "deprived of life liberty of property without due process of law". The Equal Protection clause stretched with the promise that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, the government must follow fair procedures. Action denying the process that is "due" is unconstitutional and the erosion of civil liberties.
View links (below)
Unfinished Business - Disparity in Montgomery County
Traffic Stops in Montgomery County
Department of Justice "Access to Justice"
Maryland Courts on Racial and Gender Bias
Montgomery County Achievement Gap
Montgomery County MOA Department of Justice /MCPD engage in racially discriminatory conduct
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/Pubs/mcagrmt.php#COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATION PROCESS Posted by Mimi Gooding at 8:57 AM Sunday, July 14, 2013
District Court of Maryland Loss of the Honorable Judge Convoy, Jr. JUDGES ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRO SE LITIGANTS
"Judges rule with a view to the private interest" Perverted forms of systematic corruptions
Judges "shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding... the right to be heard according to the law" (Canon 3 Sec. B4)
I am sorry for the lost of Judge Conroy, Jr., who was a Judge at the District Court of Maryland. I pray the strength for his wife, family and loved ones as they grieve their loss.
I discovered that the Judge was deceased in the newspaper while no one informed me from the District Court of Maryland that Judge Conroy, Jr., was deceased. For some reason I was waiting for an officer from the courts to inform me but I expect too much integrity from the District Court in Montgomery County.
Now, I understand why the Honorable Judge Wolfe desire to bury my case on the behalf of his private interest.... disregarding justice. Judge Wolfe has his own biases with women, low-income and pro se litigants ( distinct anti-pro se litigant sentiment). The Honorable judge, the administrative judge fails to improve the numbers of outcomes and to improve the access to justice in Montgomery County. Minorities are still the highest in traffic violations with large fines, unsuccessful in criminal and civil cases with negative outcomes against gender, income, race and ethnic litigants in Montgomery County. The traffic court is segregated as the officers (mostly white males) sit on one side of the court while minorities, low-income and white women (black females has the highest stops in Montgomery County) sits on the other side.....very intimidating and segregated environment.
(In 2002, Court of Appeals created an Anti- Bias Commission that studies provided that gender and racial bias have a major negative impact in Maryland Judicial system). The disparity still exists today in 2014. You can assume that hiring minorities could be more damaging because they use their ethnicity to abuse the system against other minorities.
As the court administrator, the court clerks intentionally withhold information from non-lawyers that they routinely give to lawyers. If a lawyer calls to request a particular procedure the clerk with provide answers. However, if a pro se litigant request the same information it becomes suddenly "no answer" or don't provide legal advice or tell misinformation with malicious intent. Even if they have a window for pro se litigants there is no real assistance or even civility. They have an instant attitude snatching papers as if you are bothering them and it's apart of their job to greet the public. Records are munipulated and documents are mailed late intentionally. Ex-parte communication is acceptable. They intentionally do everything to discourage pro se litigants from exercising their rights for justice. Judges have a duty to assure that court officials "refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties" (Canon 3, Sec C2) The latter provision suggests a duty upon judges generally and especially administrative judges, to assure their court staff provide assistance in an impartial manner.
There is no accountability for judges actions as they believes that they are "Above the Law" therefore he can use the judicial platform to suppress the law. The court room shouldn't be a place for situational ethics. Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal: 3d 678 694 " Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Posted by Mimi Gooding at 4:21 PM Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Maryland District Court in Montgomery County During trail, the Maryland district court judge was favorable to the defendants which I am not surprised. I was the plaintiff and the defendants fabricated throughout the trail which the Judge permitted. I was a pro se litigant representing myself and I failed to research the history of the Maryland Court system and Montgomery County. I discovered that Montgomery County haven't been friendly to the low-income community, minorities and women.(See Administrative order creating a anti-bias commission, 2002), this to ensure gender, racial and ethnic fairness. I had complained about a white landlord in a predominately minority community which he retaliated against me because I filed a complaint of inhabitable living conditions which my apartment failed inspection. The Judge was favorable to the landlord because of his own biases not because they won legitimately.
The Judge allowed his human nature to supersede justice therefore he was bias against me because of reasons of my income classification, race, gender and religion. I was in court from 8:00 am until 2:00 pm while he showed favoritism when the defendant's lawyer was late. Judge Conroy tried to intimidate me yet I stood up against the fabrication and bias remarks of corruptive behavior and actions. He used these aggressive measures to deny my rights because of the history of Montgomery county of stigmatism and stereotyping towards certain class of citizens is perpetuated through the institutionalized legality of unfair treatment.
Judge Conroy informed me that I need a lawyer without acknowledging that "pro se" litigants (self representation) is legal and Constitutional. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) " the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws". Judge Conroy refuse to allow me to read and cross examine the evidence that the defendants produced. The Judge claimed that I didn't breach my lease when it states on the notice to vacat that I violated the terms of lease and refer to B.3, B.4, 5,6,8 & 9 of my lease agreement. However the defendant's alleged that I had an unauthorized visitor and violated peaceful enjoyment agreement. I had gave court documents concerning a tenant who threaten me which I was granted a peace order from the court. In addition, proved that I had no one living with me, the defendants retaliated against me because I file a claim against them.
Judge Conroy yelled and screamed during trail and turning red in the face, (Judges have a duty under Canon 3) "To be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants" (Section B4) I was the pro se litigant plaintiff and the defendant was represented by an attorney fabricating in Court swearing under oath promising God to tell the truth". Judges manipulating and suppressing the truth, manufacturing facts, mischaracterize pleadings and engage in ex-parte communication. Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 270, 286.
I encourage anyone who has no funds for an attorney don't allow these Judges in Montgomery County to intimidate you from your Constitutional rights. You have a right to fight for your rightful place in the judicial system. Regardless the erosion of civil liberties that corresponds to the marginalization or undermining your constitutional rights within the Maryland Court system; please remember the State of Maryland has a low integrity rate with the government activities which includes the court system. Posted by Mimi Gooding at 3:31 PM
Please take time to educate what to look for in these judicial appointments and then the consequences of blindly electing the one with the most name recognition----remember, it is incumbents that media will promote the most. This is why O'Malley waits until just before the primary elections to appoint these candidates----it gives them the end in election coverage.
These judges will serve 10 and 15 years----that is a long time for a governor to have an imprint. What the citizens of Maryland can do is make these trial actions as public as possible and let the courts know you know that things are not working as the Constitution requires. Take these issues to Federal court ----things may get more progressive in 2016 if Bernie Sanders is elected.
This is pretty boring stuff but take time to look at the candidates----research their background and think of who appointed these judges.
Maryland judicial elections, 2014
Maryland judicial elections, 2014 Overview Total candidates: 169 Primary candidates: 153 General election candidates: 136 Incumbency Incumbents: 84 Incumbent success rate: 87% Competition - general election Percent of candidates in contested races: 67% Percent uncontested: 29% Percent retention: 4% Judicial Elections Elections Portal Judicial election dates Candidates by state Supreme court elections
The focus of the Maryland judicial elections are the trial courts. Judges of the circuit and orphans' courts competed in partisan primaries and then a non-partisan general election in 2014. Though the primaries were partisan, candidates may cross-file with both major parties.
A majority of this state's November elections were competitive, as only 40 out of the 169 total candidates ran unopposed. The contested races saw 11 incumbents defeated, though all five judges facing retention were successful by wide margins.
See Maryland elections summary, 2014 for an overview of this state's election results.
- February 25: Filing deadline
- June 24: Primary
- November 4: General election
General election: Contested races (I) denotes incumbent
First Circuit Court, Wicomico County
- Audrey A. Creighton (I), 20%
- Daniel Patrick Connell, 18%
- Gary Eugene Bair (I), 20.4%
- Joan E. Ryon (I), 21.3%
- Nelson W. Rupp, Jr. (I), 20%
- Billie J. Gilpin (I), 27.8%
- Charles "Buck" Taylor, 14.5%
- Donna F. May (I), 31.5%
- Edward C. Crossland, 26.1%
- Cathy Reese (I), 25.1%
- Charles E. Harrison, 8.4%
- Dorothy V. Utz (I), 26.4%
- Ed Leister, 9.4%
- John D. Carbaugh, 23.5%
- Neil Ridgely, 7.2%
- Carolyn Crouch (I), 27.7%
- Pete Pritchard, 22.8%
- Richard Charles Bartel, 10.6%
- Sally Saunders Camp, 24.1%
- W. Edwin Cole, Jr. (I), 14.6%
- Darlene Breck, 26.7%
- Brian L. Still, 18.6%
- Frank H. Lancaster (I), 26.6%
- J. Lorraine Berry (I), 27.9%
- Adrian Remsberg (I), 19.8%
- Bonnie L. Nicholson, 13.5%
- Cleopatra Campbell (I), 20.1%
- James Edward French, 13%
- Janis Judson, 13.3%
- Jimmy W. Trout, 20.2%
- Fred Sanders, 41.2%
- H. Wayne Wilt (I), 39%
- Everett B. Deberry (write-in)
- Dan Duggan (write-in) 
- Dave Beard (write-in)
- Anne Dodd (I), 22.6%
- Ellen Harrison, 18.7%
- Emma Travis-Howard, 17%
- Leslie Smith Turner (I), 21.1%
- Nicole Bormel Miller, 20.3%
- Amy L. Nickerson, 20.1%
- Elroy G. Boyer, Jr. (I), 22.1%
- Paul M. Showalter, 17.4%
- Rosalie Brady Kuechler, 18.9%
- Elizabeth Carroll, 21.5%
- Eric Wargotz, 22.9%
- Joseph V. DiPietro (I), 24.3%
- Kimberly Jean Cascia (I), 27.1%
- Stan Ruddie, 8.7%
- Thomas M. Walsh (I), 16.8%
- Bob McCready, 20.1%
- Donald L. Howard (I), 19.8%
- John R. Somers (I), 25.7%
- Kenneth E. Ballard, Jr., 13%
- Libby M. Hall, 21.1%
- Albert Babcock, 18.7%
- Dalton Wood (I), 26%
- Linda Dean (I), 17.3%
- Michael R. White, 19.6%
- William Miles Mattingly (I), 18.3%
- Cassandra Laverne Costley, 22.6%
- Eileen W. Wiggins (I), 12.4%
- John M. Shriver (I), 25.8%
- Joseph W. Eichelberger, 24.7%
- Linda Davis (Maryland) (I), 14.4%
- Grover Green Cantwell, Jr., 30.3%
- Melissa Pollitt Bright (I), 24.1%
- Norma Lee Barkley (I), 23.7%
- Peter D. Evans, 21.7%
- J. Franklin Knight, 21.9%
- John Dale Smack, III (I), 28.8%
- Linda M. Hess (I), 27%
- William D. Shockley (I), 22.2%
Appellate courtsCourtJudgeVotesClick the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically.Maryland Court of Special AppealsAndrea M. Leahy-Fucheck 85.8% Maryland Court of Special AppealsDouglas R. M. Nazarian 79.2% Maryland Court of Special AppealsKevin Francis Arthur 84.8% Maryland Court of Special AppealsMichael Wilson Reed 87.8% Maryland Court of AppealsShirley Marie Watts 88.4% General election: Uncontested The following candidates ran unopposed in the general election.
Trial courtsCourtCandidateClick the arrows in the column headings to sort columns alphabetically.8th Judicial CircuitAlfred NanceOrphans Court of Prince George's CountyAthena Malloy GrovesSecond Circuit CourtBrenda A. SextonOrphans Court of Dorchester CountyCalvin TraversOrphans Court of Dorchester CountyCarolyn I. ToddOrphans Court of Talbot CountyCarville D. DuncanOrphans Court of Baltimore CityCharles Bernstein8th Judicial CircuitChristopher L. PanosThird Circuit CourtColleen CavanaughOrphans Court of Caroline CountyConway GregoryFourth Circuit CourtDana M. WrightFourth Circuit CourtDonald E. Beachley7th Judicial CircuitE. Gregory WellsOrphans Court of Caroline CountyEllery AdamsFifth Circuit CourtFred S. HeckerOrphans Court of Dorchester CountyGeorge R. Ames, Jr8th Judicial CircuitJeffrey M. GellerThird Circuit CourtJulie L. Glass8th Judicial CircuitJulie Rebecca RubinThird Circuit CourtJustin James King7th Judicial CircuitLawrence V. Hill, Jr.Orphans Court of Calvert CountyLeslie M. DownsOrphans Court of Baltimore CityLewyn Scott Garrett7th Judicial CircuitMark Stephen Chandlee8th Judicial CircuitMelissa K. Copeland8th Judicial CircuitMelissa Marie PhinnOrphans Court of Baltimore CityMichele E. LoewenthalThird Circuit CourtPaul J. HanleyOrphans Court of Talbot CountyPaul S. Carroll8th Judicial CircuitPhilip Senan JacksonOrphans Court of Caroline CountyRon FearinsFifth Circuit CourtRonald A. Silkworth7th Judicial CircuitSheila R. Tillerson AdamsOrphans Court of Calvert CountyTheodore Philip LeBlancOrphans Court of Calvert CountyThomas Michael Pelagatti7th Judicial CircuitToni E. ClarkeOrphans Court of Prince George's CountyVicky L. Ivory-OremOrphans Court of Prince George's CountyWendy A. CartwrightOrphans Court of Talbot CountyWilliam J. HowardThird Circuit CourtYolanda L. Curtin Primary For candidate lists and results from the judicial primary on June 24, 2014, please see: Maryland primary elections, 2014.
Process Primary election Circuit and orphans' court judges compete in a partisan primary for the Republican and/or Democratic nomination. Candidates may cross-file with both parties. The candidates who receive the most votes from each primary advance to the general election to compete against each other, as well as any minor party or independent candidates.
Below is an example of the elections process for the circuit courts provided by the Maryland State Board of Elections:
- In Circuit X, there are two incumbent judges who must stand for election. They are candidates A and B, a Democrat and Republican respectively. They both file Certificates of Candidacy to appear on both the Democratic and Republican Primary ballots. Candidate C, a Democrat and qualified member of the Bar also files a Certificate of Candidacy to appear on both the Democratic and Republican primary ballots.
- In the primary election, the Democratic Party selects candidates A and C (i.e. those two candidates received the most votes) and the Republican Party selects candidates A and B.
- In the general election candidates A, B, and C all will appear on the ballot since they each won one or both of the primary elections in which they appeared on the ballot.
- On the general election ballot, in addition to candidates A, B, and C, candidate D will also appear on the ballot. Candidate D is a member of the Green Party and a qualified member of the Bar and received the Green Party's nomination.
- The two candidates who receive the most votes will be elected to office.
” —Maryland State Board of Elections
General election Appellate judges stand for retention in the general election. Trial court judge candidates who advanced from the partisan primary run in the general election without party affiliation.