BARBERA, J.
In order to pursue a civil action a plaintiff must demonstrate "standing" to bring the suit, meaning that the plaintiff must show that he or she "is entitled to invoke the judicial process in a particular instance." Adams v. Manown, 328 Md. 463, 480, 615 A.2d 611 (1992). When, as in the present case, a plaintiff seeks to redress what is claimed to be a public wrong, the plaintiff must also demonstrate that he or she has "suffered some special damage from such wrong differing in character and kind from that suffered by the general public." Weinberg v. Kracke, 189 Md. 275, 280, 55 A.2d 797 (1947).
Petitioners, two residents of Howard County, Maryland, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Howard County seeking a declaratory judgment that a variety of
Howard County moved to dismiss the action for declaratory relief, asserting, among other grounds, that Petitioners lacked standing to bring the action. Petitioners countered that their standing lay in the language of the Charter itself. The Charter reserves to "the people" of Howard County the right to petition to referendum "any law or part of a law" enacted by the County Council, see § 211, and defines certain planning and zoning activities as "legislative acts," which "may be petitioned to referendum by the people of the county pursuant to Section 211 of the Charter," see § 202(g). Notably, Petitioners expressly disclaimed any other form of standing.
The Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling, in pertinent part, that Petitioners lacked standing. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of dismissal, holding that Petitioners failed to show a concrete injury to their voting rights and thereby lacked standing. Kendall v. Howard County, 204 Md.App. 440, 453, 41 A.3d 727 (2012).
We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and now affirm the judgment of that Court.
Howard County adopted a charter form of home rule in 1968.
Inlet Assocs. v. Assateague House Condo. Ass'n, 313 Md. 413, 427-28, 545 A.2d 1296 (1988) (first and second alterations in original) (quoting E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 15.02 (3d ed.1981)).
Section 211(a) of the Charter reserves to the people the right to petition to referendum any law enacted by the County Council. That section, entitled "Scope of the referendum," provides, in relevant part,
In 1994, the people of Howard County successfully petitioned to referendum, and the majority of voters approved at the polls, a charter amendment clarifying that certain acts related to land use taken by the County must be passed by original bill, and therefore are subject to the people's
As we shall see, it is this section, in conjunction with the general referendum provisions in § 211, upon which Petitioners base their claim that they have standing to pursue declaratory relief for the County's alleged violations of the Charter.
Petitioners, Paul F. Kendall and Frank Martin, are taxpayers, property owners, registered voters, and residents of Howard County, Maryland. In 2009, Petitioners, along with other plaintiffs,
In their amended complaint, Petitioners claimed that, taken together, §§ 202(g), 207, 209, and 211 of the Charter establish the right of the people of Howard County to petition to referendum and vote on all County decisions that are "legislative acts." Petitioners alleged that by failing to adhere to the law-making procedures set forth in the Charter, particularly with respect to certain land use decisions,
The County moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court granted the County's motion on three grounds, ruling that Petitioners failed to: demonstrate particularized harm in connection with the identified County decisions, necessary to establish standing; join all parties who would be affected if the declaratory relief sought were granted; and exhaust administrative remedies.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Kendall, 204 Md.App. at 453, 41 A.3d 727. The Court noted that neither the failure to join necessary parties nor the failure to exhaust administrative remedies would alone justify dismissal in this case. Id. at 448-49, 41 A.3d 727. The Court concluded, though, that the Circuit Court properly dismissed the action for lack of Petitioners' standing to sue because they had demonstrated no "concrete injury" to their right to vote. Id. at 453, 41 A.3d 727 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7
We issued a writ of certiorari, Kendall v. Howard County, 427 Md. 606, 50 A.3d 606 (2012), to answer the following questions posed by Petitioners:
Because we hold that Petitioners' amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish standing, we do not reach the second question presented. We further express no view as to Petitioners' likelihood of success on the merits, particularly as to whether the County decisions identified in the amended complaint are "legislative acts," as Petitioners so contend.
In reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss, "we accept all well-pled facts in the complaint, and reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party." Converge Servs. Group, LLC v. Curran, 383 Md. 462, 475, 860 A.2d 871 (2004). We then determine whether the trial court was "legally correct in its decision to dismiss." Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. Phillips, 413 Md. 606, 618, 994 A.2d 411 (2010) (quoting McDaniel v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 400 Md. 75, 83, 926 A.2d 757 (2007)). Although it is "rarely appropriate" to dismiss a declaratory judgment action, dismissal is proper "when the party seeking such judgment has no standing and there is no justiciable controversy properly before the court." Roper v. Camuso, 376 Md. 240, 246-47 n. 3, 829 A.2d 589 (2003).
The County responds that the test for standing proposed by Petitioners "would bestow upon each and every `person in the County' the right to sue for any past, present or future perceived violation of the Charter, regardless of whether such person sustained an injury or adverse effect of any kind." The County submits that the Circuit Court properly dismissed the action because Petitioners have not alleged "any legally protectable interest sufficient to warrant the invocation of the court's power to provide declaratory relief." The County observes that Petitioners have made no attempt to show they have suffered any concrete or particularized harm as a result of the County actions identified in the amended complaint. As the County sees it, Petitioners' claim is best characterized as a "generalized interest" in forcing the County to comply with its own Charter, which does not, in and of itself, confer standing. We agree with the County.
"We have said time and again that the existence of a justiciable controversy is an absolute prerequisite to the maintenance of a declaratory judgment action."
In their amended complaint Petitioners attack a laundry list of County land use and zoning decisions, spanning several years, all of which Petitioners have asked the Circuit Court to invalidate as null and void ab initio. Petitioners' standing to litigate their claim fails under our cases involving county and municipal land use decisions, in each of which we have applied unfailingly the "special damage" requirement of standing principles. Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 230 A.2d 289 (1967), supplies an example. We plainly stated there that, when "a declaration[
We have held that a party's proximity to the area affected by a local land use decision may, under certain circumstances, satisfy this "specially damaged" standing requirement. Recently, in Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74, 59 A.3d 545 (2013), we summarized the principles of such aggrievement as follows:
Id. at 85, 59 A.3d 545; see also 120 West Fayette, 407 Md. at 271-72, 964 A.2d 662.
Alternatively, a party, as a taxpayer, may satisfy the "special damage" standing requirement by alleging both "1) an action by a municipal corporation or public official that is illegal or ultra vires, and 2) that the action may injuriously affect the taxpayer's property, meaning that it reasonably may result in a pecuniary loss to the taxpayer or an increase in taxes." 120 West Fayette, 407 Md. at 267, 964 A.2d 662; see also Citizens Planning and Housing Ass'n v. Cnty. Exec., 273 Md. 333, 339, 329 A.2d 681 (1974) ("[A] taxpayer may invoke the aid of a court of equity to restrain the action of a public official or an administrative agency when such action is illegal or ultra vires, and may injuriously affect the taxpayer's rights and property... only when some special damage is alleged and proved, or a special interest is shown which is distinct from that of the general public." (citations omitted)).
A particularly illustrative example of these two avenues for satisfying the standing requirement is found in Inlet Associates v. Assateague House Condominium Ass'n, 313 Md. 413, 545 A.2d 1296 (1988). In Inlet Associates, various plaintiffs sought, among other things, a declaration that Ocean City's transfer of a specified property interest to a developer by resolution was an illegal ultra vires act because the disposition was required, under the Ocean City Charter, to be passed by ordinance rather than resolution. Id. at 422-23, 545 A.2d 1296. Like the Howard County Charter, § C-411 of the Ocean City Charter established a procedure by which the people can petition ordinances to referendum. Id. at 426, 545 A.2d 1296.
Agreeing with the plaintiffs that "a simple resolution" was not sufficient "to validate the City's actions," and, instead, an ordinance was required, id. at 434, 545 A.2d 1296, we determined, as had the trial court, that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the requisite standing to complain, id. at 441, 545 A.2d 1296. We identified the various ways in which the plaintiffs had shown that the proposed development plan "would adversely affect the value and use of the plaintiffs' properties," which were situated near the proposed development site. Id. at 441-42, 545 A.2d 1296. We added that, as taxpayers, the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the "reasonable existence of [the] potential" for "pecuniary loss or increased taxes." Id. at 442-43, 545 A.2d 1296.
Inlet Associates demonstrates that plaintiffs who allege a local government has failed to use ordinances to take action, as required by their local charter, may invoke the well-recognized avenues of either property owner standing or taxpayer standing to vindicate their claim, if the facts and circumstances of that case so provide. Cf. 120 West Fayette, 407 Md. at 258, 269, 273, 964 A.2d 662 (holding that the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint were sufficient to establish either taxpayer standing or property owner standing where the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that a Land Disposition Agreement entered into by the defendants, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, violated the Charter and laws of the City); Ansell v. Howard County Council, 264 Md. 629, 634, 287 A.2d 774 (1972) (concluding that a plaintiff had standing under the circumstances, as a taxpayer, to seek a declaration that a County resolution was illegal and ultra vires because it should have been passed by "bill" or "ordinance" under the Howard County Charter).
Petitioners focus on the County's alleged failure to use the required original bill process for legislative acts, rather than the effects of those County decisions. Petitioners claim that they have been denied entirely the opportunity to exercise their right to petition what they believe are legislative acts to referendum, a right reserved in the Charter itself. Therefore, according to Petitioners, the right to referendum itself provides a basis for any person of Howard County to enforce that right by resorting to the judicial process, if they allege it has been infringed.
Petitioners further assert that, although the right to referendum was created by state law, it is protected under the federal Constitution because the infringement of that right consequently infringes "the associational and free speech rights attendant to a referendum effort" and, ultimately, the right to vote. These constitutional rights,
Petitioners rely in part for this contention on Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419 (4th Cir.2009), in their brief before this Court. The plaintiffs in that case challenged the validity of a North Carolina constitutional amendment, ratified by the voters in a statewide election, that "authorized local government entities to issue bonds for certain types of development projects without first receiving voter approval." Id. at 422. Without the amendment, "the North Carolina Constitution generally requires a referendum before a government entity may incur such a debt." Id. The plaintiffs claimed that the ballot language describing the amendment was misleading, thereby violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. However, the plaintiffs did not allege that "they — or any other voter, for that matter — were actually misled by the ballot language or that they unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the full text" of the
Contrary to Petitioners' view of the case, Bishop does not advance their cause. Notably, the Bishop Court specifically pointed out that "merely a claim of `the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law,'" is not sufficient to confer standing. Bishop, 575 F.3d at 424 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)). See also Bishop, 575 F.3d at 423 ("[W]hen the asserted harm is a `generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.") (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)).
Furthermore, the claims made by Plaintiff Moore, which provided him the requisite injury in fact, are distinguishable from those made by Petitioners in their amended complaint. Moore claimed that he was "deprived of his right to vote on the issuance of bonds to finance" a particular project in the city in which he resides, which would have been subject to a compulsory referendum but for the passage of the challenged amendment to the North Carolina State Constitution. Id. at 422. The Court concluded that Moore (but evidently no other claimant in that case) satisfied the injury in fact requirement because, although widely "shared by all residents of the city," the harm alleged was sufficiently concrete.
Petitioners also find support in several Supreme Court cases suggesting that, in the proper case, an allegation of the infringement of the right to vote, although shared by a large segment of the general public, may be sufficient to establish standing. For example, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), several plaintiffs mounted an equal protection challenge to a Tennessee statute that provided for apportionment of seats in the state legislature, alleging that it impaired their voting rights. In holding that the plaintiffs had standing, id. at 206, 82 S.Ct. 691, the Court explained that the asserted injury was "not merely a claim of `the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law,'" id. at 208, 82 S.Ct. 691 (quoting Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129, 42 S.Ct. 274, 66 L.Ed. 499 (1922)). Rather, the Court concluded,
We agree with the Court of Special Appeals that, in this case, the right to referendum and the related constitutional free speech and voting rights asserted by Petitioners are too attenuated from the allegedly unlawful County decisions identified in Petitioners' amended complaint. See Kendall, 204 Md.App. at 451, 41 A.3d 727 ("Contrary to the authorities [Petitioner] cites, where, generally, alleged failures in the petition process were at issue, or electoral issues were in the forefront, voting and referendum is decidedly in the background of [Petitioners'] action."). The federal cases cited by Petitioners involve claims much more closely connected to voting and referenda. See, e.g., Doe v. Reed, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2821, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (holding that the disclosure of referendum petitions, under Washington's Public Records Act, does not violate the First Amendment); Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 205, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999) (affirming the Tenth Circuit's separation of Colorado's "necessary or proper ballot-access controls from restrictions that unjustifiably inhibit the circulation of ballot-initiative petitions"); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 428, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988) (holding that a "Colorado statute prohibiting the payment of petition circulators imposes a burden on political expression that the State has failed to justify" and thus violated the First Amendment); Baker v. Carr, supra; Bishop v. Bartlett, supra; Initiative and Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082, 1086 (10th Cir.2006) (en banc) (involving a challenge to a Utah constitutional provision which required citizen initiatives related to wildlife management to be passed by a supermajority of the voters, as opposed to a simple majority for other types of initiatives). In contrast, the County decisions identified in Petitioners' amended complaint do not implicate Petitioners' constitutional rights, nor the right to referendum under the Howard County Charter, because those County resolutions, administrative decisions, regulations, etc., do not involve voting, speech, or the petition circulation process at all.
Petitioners' reliance on yet another federal case, LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C.Cir.2011), is likewise misplaced. Petitioners argue that LaRoque supports their contention that the alleged denial of the right of referendum is sufficient to establish standing. We disagree. In that case,
Id. at 780. The plaintiffs, in addition to seeking an injunction against enforcement
The Court held that Nix had standing to challenge § 5 "on the grounds that the provision exceeds Congress's enumerated powers." Id. at 793. The Court reasoned, in part, that Nix had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact, id. at 787, and his "concrete plan" to enter the upcoming election made those alleged injuries imminent, id. at 789. Contrary to Petitioners' reading of the case, the Court did not base its holding on the right of referendum alone, but also — and ultimately — on the specific injuries claimed by one plaintiff in particular, who had alleged he would be adversely affected in a way different from the general public.
The injuries alleged by Nix in LaRoque are markedly different from the injuries asserted by Petitioners here. Petitioners have alleged no specific and personal injuries stemming from the County's actions. They rely, instead, solely on the denial of the right to petition legislative acts to referendum, which is shared by all persons in Howard County.
Petitioners also mount, but do not pursue at any great length, the argument that to limit standing to pursue this action to property owners or taxpayers who allege some special harm as a result of the identified County decisions would constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For this proposition, Petitioners simply cite a line of Supreme Court cases establishing that, "if a challenged state statute grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others, `the Court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest.'" Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1969) (per curiam) (quoting Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969)).
The challenged state statutes in the federal cases cited by Petitioners granted certain persons the right to vote, while denying it to others. See Cipriano, 395 U.S. at 702-03, 89 S.Ct. 1897 (holding unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that permitted
Moreover, the fact that standing is limited to those with a concrete stake in the outcome, i.e., those who have been specially harmed by the County's decisions, does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, the very essence of the standing doctrine is that certain persons may invoke the judicial process in a given case, while others may not.
Petitioners have taken great pains to characterize their grievance as a deprivation of the right to referendum, the right to vote, and related free speech and association rights. Yet, at its core, Petitioners' complaint is grounded in one thing and one thing only: the allegation that the County's methods for accomplishing certain decisions violate its own Charter. As our colleagues on the Court of Special Appeals observed, this amounts to nothing more than "an abstract, generalized interest in the County's compliance with § 202(g) of the Charter," which is shared by all members of the general public in Howard County. Kendall, 204 Md.App. at 453, 41 A.3d 727. On this ground alone, Petitioners have not established standing. The Circuit Court properly dismissed the action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
Maryland Code (1974, 2013 Repl.Vol.) § 3-409(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.
120 West Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore, 407 Md. 253, 272, 964 A.2d 662 (2009).
