Statement of Case

 
Appellant Cindy Walsh, a candidate for the Democratic Party’s 2014 nomination
for Governor, seeks to invalidate the results of the primary election and to exact
$500,000 in damages from rival candidates and public officials Attorney General
Doug Gansler; the Chair of State Board of Elections, Bobbie Mack; and the State
Administrator, Linda Lamone being the State Appellee; Anthony Brown and
Heather Mizeur being rival candidates. The Appellant’s Amended Complaint
provided the specific claims against each Appellee and the Federal and Maryland
law supporting these specific claims. She attached the Maryland election law that
states these agencies are required to enforce both Federal and Maryland laws.
Cindy Walsh claims systemic violations of Federal and Maryland election laws by
media and 501c3 organizations in Maryland choosing to participate in the 2014
Democratic Primary for Governor damaged her campaign and changed the results
of this primary election. The Appellant claims she communicated these violations
throughout the primary election the Maryland to the agencies tasked with oversight
and enforcement of these election laws, the Maryland Board of Elections and the
Maryland Attorney General’s office. Each offending media and 501c3
organization were made aware of the violations committed and the election laws to
which they were required to adhere. The failure to respond to these reported
violations were deliberate, willful, and done with malice with the Appellant never
received any response from the agencies, organizations, and individuals to whom
these complaints were sent. These irregularities were so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland. 
The Amended Complaint added a new Appellee and redefined the terms of
relief.  Since this case is against the Appellee and not the media and 501c3

organizations (that will come in a Federal lawsuit after the conclusion of this
Maryland Court case), the Complaint focused on violations detailing failures in

-2-
duty and acts that defined how the Appellee violated these election laws. Cindy
Walsh gave specific times, dates, and venues in her Response to Motion to
Dismiss. The complaint does not require that evidence is shared, it only outlines
the claims with the legal standings to support these claims.  The judge was required
to consider all Appellant motions and responses in the decision to dismiss, not only
the Amended Complaint.

The Appellant shows Democratic Primary for Governor was filled with election irregularities that damaged the candidate Cindy Walsh, changed the results of the election, and kept voters from going to the polls educated on the candidates and issues in this primary. This was done deliberately, willfully, and with malice by the Appellees who participated in the race as candidates and the Appelles tasked with oversight and enforcement of Maryland and Federal election laws. Any interpretation of court rulings as regards FCC and IRS election law would not allow such extreme disregard for these laws. The precedents surrounding media and 501c3 participation allows flexibility with equal time as falls into four categories of media operations and it allows 501c3s to select with very specific directions not to harm a candidate while doing so. Popular support rulings look primarily at third party candidates, not major party candidates and the guidelines for exclusion in Maryland are too arbitrary and target platform.
The constant attempt to categorize the Appellant as marginal in an election with
results that had the three candidates supposedly having popular public support
receiving the following percentage of total registered Democratic votes----Brown,
12%; Ganlser, 5%; and Mizeur, 5% in an Democratic primary election bringing
only 20% of voters to the polls. App 1, 2, 3. The national media polling is not scientific and markets candidates with gimmicky polling procedure. The reason voters do not come to the
polls is tied directly to how a few people are allowed to claim candidates like
Cindy Walsh ‘marginal’. This is exactly what this complaint addresses. This case
is well-founded with strong merit. The Appellant asks the Maryland Special
Appeals Court to remand this case back to the lower court for trial.





-3-