How is an independent or petition candidate listed on a Maryland general election ballot?

Plain-English summary

Montgomery County's elections administrator ran into a genuine puzzle: two provisions of Maryland's Election Code, §9A-1 and §16-5(g), seemed to conflict about how to label candidates who get on the ballot by petition rather than by winning a primary. The state elections board asked the Attorney General to reconcile them and to say, in plain terms, when a petition candidate appears on the general election ballot as "independent," when as "other candidates," and when under a party name.

The Attorney General laid out the answer in four parts. A petition candidate registered as "declined" (Maryland's term for a voter who does not affiliate with a party) and not tied to any partisan organization is listed as "independent." A petition candidate who is affiliated with a "partisan organization" that is not a full political party, whether the candidate is registered as "declined" or as a party member, is listed under "other candidates." A petition candidate who is the nominee of a minor or new party (a party that nominates by petition rather than by primary) appears under that party's own name. And a candidate who is registered with a party but runs as the representative of a separate partisan organization, rather than as the party's nominee, is listed under "other candidates."

Getting there took the opinion through a century of election law. The key was the strange last sentence of §9A-1, which exempts candidates "registered as an independent" even though, as a technical matter, almost nobody is registered that way (unaffiliated voters are recorded as "declined"). Rather than treat that sentence as meaningless, the opinion read it, in light of Maryland's history of well-known independent statewide candidacies, to let a "declined" voter with no party or organizational ties be labeled "independent." The opinion also overruled part of a 1973 AG opinion that had reached the opposite result without addressing that exemption, and it recommended revising the certificate-of-candidacy form to capture the information needed for correct ballot labeling.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Maryland's election laws were later recodified out of Article 33 into the Election Law Article, so the specific section numbers analyzed here (§9A-1, §16-5(g), §7-1, and the rest) no longer match the current code, and the ballot-designation rules themselves may have been rewritten. Ballot-access rules also draw federal constitutional scrutiny that has continued to develop. Read the analysis, the labels, and the citations here as the law as it stood in 1990, and check the current Election Law Article before relying on any specific rule about how a candidate is listed.

Common questions

How does a Maryland petition candidate get labeled "independent" versus "other candidates"?
Under this 1990 opinion, a petition candidate registered as "declined" with no party or partisan-organization ties is labeled "independent." A petition candidate affiliated with a partisan organization that is not a political party, whether registered as "declined" or with a party, is labeled "other candidates."

What does "declined" mean on the registration rolls?
It is Maryland's designation for a voter who has chosen not to affiliate with a political party. The opinion notes that voters who do not pick a party are recorded as "declined," not as "independent," which is what made §9A-1's reference to candidates "registered as an independent" so hard to apply.

Can a candidate registered with a major party still run by petition?
Yes, in limited circumstances. The opinion, following earlier authority, recognized that a person registered with a party may be nominated by petition to represent a separate partisan organization (as long as the candidate did not appear on the primary ballot), and in that case the candidate is listed under "other candidates," not the party name.

When is a petition candidate listed under a party's actual name?
When the candidate is the nominee of a minor party or a newly formed party, that is, a party that nominates its candidates by petition rather than by primary election. Those candidates appear under that party's name.

Background and statutory framework

Maryland law gave candidates two routes onto the general election ballot: nomination by primary and nomination by petition. Major parties (those with at least ten percent of registered voters) had to nominate by primary, and a primary loser generally could not reappear as a petition candidate. Nomination by petition, under §7-1(a), was open to three groups: a candidate registered as an independent; a candidate affiliated with a partisan organization that is not a political party; and a candidate not belonging to a party that must nominate by primary. The Code separately defined a "political party" (an organized group meeting a vote-share or petition threshold) and a "partisan organization" (any combination of two or more persons formed to promote the success or defeat of a candidate, party, or proposition), so a party that lost its status could continue as a partisan organization.

The trouble was in the labeling provisions. Section 9A-1 said a candidate may not put a party name on the ballot unless it is a recognized political party, that candidates not affiliated with such a party are classified under "other candidates," and that this does not apply to candidates "registered as an independent." Provision §16-5(g), a much older ballot-arrangement provision, used "independent" in a narrow, technical situation involving rival claims to the same party name. The opinion traced §16-5(g) back to an 1896 revision and through 1912, 1967, and 1971 amendments, showing that "and none other" originally meant only that a party name could not accompany the word "independent," not that "independent" was reserved for that one scenario. It also explained that "independent" was first defined in 1967 and reworked in 1971, the same year the General Assembly enacted §9A-1 and the petition-candidacy provision for independents.

Confronting §9A-1's puzzling exemption for candidates "registered as an independent," the opinion considered four readings and rejected three: that the exemption is meaningless (to be avoided, since courts give effect to every word), that it was meant for a hypothetical "Independent Party" (implausible, since the first sentence already covers party candidates), and that it swept in everyone registered as "declined" (which produced illogical line-drawing). The fourth reading, grounded in legislative purpose and context, was that the General Assembly meant to let a voter registered as "declined" who wants to signal no party or organizational ties be listed as "independent." The opinion supported this with Maryland's history of prominent "declined" candidates listed as independents (including the 1968 U.S. Senate candidacy behind Lee v. Secretary of State, where the Court of Appeals recognized the right to run as an independent if registered as a "decline") and with the General Assembly's failure to change the language despite later independent candidacies. The practical upshot: minor and new party petition candidates go under their party name; petition candidates affiliated with a non-party partisan organization (however they are registered) go under "other candidates"; and "declined" candidates with no such affiliation go under "independent." The opinion overruled the contrary portion of a 1973 AG opinion and recommended updating the candidacy form.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article 33, §9A-1 and §16-5(g), the two ballot-designation provisions the opinion reconciled, along with §16-5(d) and §16-5(e) on ballot form
• Article 33, §7-1(a), the three categories of petition candidates, and §5-1(a) and §8-2, on primary nomination and primary losers
• Article 33, §1-1(a)(15) (political party), §1-1(a)(12) (partisan organization), and §1-1(a)(8B) (independent), plus §4B-1 and §4C-1 on party status
• Chapter 354 of the Laws of Maryland 1971 (enacting §9A-1 and §7-1), and the older ballot laws it traced (Chapter 202, Laws of Maryland 1896; Chapter 124, Laws of Maryland 1912; Chapter 392, Laws of Maryland 1967)

Cases:

• Lee v. Secretary of State, 251 Md. 134, 246 A.2d 562 (1968), recognizing a "declined" voter's right to run as an independent, and Fisher v. Dudley, 74 Md. 238, 24 A. 155 (1891)
• Morris v. Prince George's County, 319 Md. 597, 603, 573 A.2d 1346 (1990); Potter v. Bethesda Fire Department, 309 Md. 347, 353, 524 A.2d 61 (1987); State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416, 348 A.2d 275 (1975); and Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 525 A.2d 628 (1987), on statutory construction
• Auerbach v. Mandel, Civil Nos. 72-141 and 72-142 (D. Md. 1972); Anderson v. Morris, 636 F.2d 55, 58 n.9 (4th Cir. 1980); and Mather v. Morris, 649 F.2d 280 (4th Cir. 1981), on petition candidacies by party members representing partisan organizations
• Tyler v. Board of Supervisors, 213 Md. 37, 131 A.2d 247 (1957), on the §16-5(g) rival-party-name scenario

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1990/Volume75_1990.pdf (this opinion appears at printed pages 201-212 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

Elections — Candidates — Ballots — Ballot Designation of Petition Candidates

August 8, 1990

Mr. Marvin Meyn
Deputy Administrator
State Administrative Board of
Election Laws

 You have conveyed the request of Douglas Jernigan, Elections Administrator for Montgomery County, that we reconcile, to the extent possible, certain inconsistencies in Article 33 of the Maryland Code ("the Election Code" or "the Code") relating to the designation of petition candidates on the general election ballot.1 Specifically, you ask whether a candidate who is registered as "declined" — that is, unaffiliated with any political party having legal status in Maryland — and who desires to appear on the ballot as an "independent" may be designated as such in light of two ambiguous and seemingly conflicting provisions of the Code, §§9A-1 and 16-5(g). Furthermore, you ask for guidance in ballot designation for petition candidates who are registered as "declined" but who are affiliated with an organized group that is not a political party and who wish to be designated on the ballot as that group's candidate.

 For the reasons stated below, we conclude as follows:

(1) A petition candidate who is registered as "declined" and who is not affiliated with a partisan organization may be listed on the general election ballot only under the designation "independent."

  (2) A petition candidate who is registered as "declined" but who is affiliated with a partisan organization that is not a political party may be listed on the general election ballot only under the designation "other candidates."

  (3) A petition candidate who is registered with a political party that nominates its candidates by petition, rather than by primary election, and who is the nominee of that party may be listed on the ballot only under the designation of that party.

 (4) A petition candidate who is registered with a political party but who is running not as the nominee of that party but rather as the representative of a partisan organization may be listed on the ballot only under the designation "other candidates."2

I

Statutory Background

A. Political Entities

  The Election Code defines a "political party" as "an organized group of the electorate that attempts to control government through the election of its candidates to office" and that meets one of two criteria: for parties that have previously attained legal status, polling "3 percent or more of the entire vote cast in the State in the last general election ..."; or for parties seeking to gain (or regain) legal status, filing a valid petition with the signatures of at least 10,000 registered voters. §§1-1(a)(15) and 4B-1(a).3

 The Election Code also recognizes a type of political entity that is not necessarily a political party, the "partisan organization": "'Partisan organization' means any combination of two or more persons formed for the purpose of assisting the promotion of the success or defeat of any candidate, political party, principle, or proposition to be submitted to a vote at any election." §1-1(a)(12). If, for example, a political party lost its party status but its adherents continued to act jointly in pursuit of its electoral objectives, the former party would be a "partisan organization."

B. Methods of Nomination

 Article 33 sets forth two methods by which a candidate, other than a candidate for President of the United States and a delegate to a national convention, may have his or her name printed on the general election ballot: nomination by primary election and nomination by petition.

 The first is expressly limited to a political party with which at least ten percent of the State's registered voters are affiliated ("a major party"). Section 5-1(a) requires major parties to nominate all of their candidates for public office at primary elections. Furthermore, boards of election are not permitted to print the names of any candidate on a general election or special election ballot representing a major party if the candidate not nominated at the preceding primary election. Id. Nor, except for candidates for President or judicial offices or in the case of a vacancy in nomination, may a person who loses a primary appear on the succeeding general election ballot as a candidate for any office. §8-2.

 The second method, nomination by petition, is open to any of three types of candidates: (i) "a candidate for public office who is registered as an independent"; (ii) a candidate "who is a member of or affiliated with a partisan organization which is not a political party as defined in this article"; or (iii) a candidate "who is not a member of a political party whose nominees must be nominated by means of primary elections ...." §7-1(a).

C. Ballot Designation

 Although §7-1 identifies the categories of petition candidates, it does not itself indicate how the several categories are to be listed on the ballot. For that one must turn to two provisions, §§9A-1 and 16-5(g), that are opaque even by the standards of the Election Code.

 Section 9A-1 provides:

            A candidate for public office may not designate the political party with which he is affiliated on the ballot at any election held hereunder unless such party is a political party as defined in §1-1(a)(15) of this article. Candidates for public office who are not affiliated with a political party as defined in §1-1(a)(15) of this article shall be classified under the heading "other candidates" on the ballot. The provisions of this section shall not apply, however, to candidates for public office who are registered as an independent.4

 At least the first sentence of the provision is clear, and correlates with the portion of §7-1(a) that authorizes nomination by petition of political party members whose party is not required to nominate its candidates by primary election. A candidate of either a new party (one recently formed by petition) or a minor party (one that garnered between three and ten percent of the statewide candidates' vote in the prior general election) who files the requisite nominating petition appears on the ballot under that party's name. See 57 Opinions of the Attorney General 210, 213 (1972).

 The section's last two sentences suggest a dichotomy: Those "who are not affiliated with a [legally recognized] political party" are to be listed under "other candidates," except for those "who are registered as an independent" and who presumably are to be listed under the designation "independent."

 Candidates "who are not affiliated with a political party" might fall in the second group of petition candidates under §7-1(a), those "who [are] member[s] of or affiliated with a partisan organization which is not a political party" if, for example, the candidate is representing a former party that lost its official status.

   But some "partisan organization" petition candidates might be affiliated with a political party, and their ballot designation status is not clear under §9A-1. In Auerbach v. Mandel, Civil Nos. 72-141 and 72-142 (D. Md. 1972), the federal district court found that a person who is associated by registration with a major party nevertheless may be nominated by petition as a candidate for a partisan organization with which the candidate is affiliated (provided that the candidate did not appear on the primary election ballot). This interpretation has been extended to a petition candidate who is registered as a member of any validly formed political party. See 58 Opinions of the Attorney General 277, 278-80 (1973) ("[A] candidate who is affiliated with a partisan organization may be nominated by petition, regardless of whether he is also affiliated with a political party recognized under Maryland law."). See also Anderson v. Morris, 636 F.2d 55, 58 n.9 (4th Cir. 1980). Such a candidate represents the partisan organization, not the political party.

  The last sentence of §9A-1, making the rest of the section inapplicable to "candidates ... who are registered as an independent," is also problematic. It tracks the language of the portion of §7-1(a) allowing nomination by petition if a candidate "is registered as an independent." An "independent" is defined in the Election Code as "any voter who has declined to affiliate with a political party." §1-1(a)(8B). However, few if any candidates are "registered as an independent." Voters who do not affiliate with a political party are registered as "declined," not "independent." See §3-8(b)(1) and (4); Instructions of the Attorney General For the Use of Officers of Registration and Elections at 8 (1988).5

 The treatment of "independent" petition candidates is further complicated by another provision, §16-5. This section sets forth in detail the form and arrangement of ballots, including specific directions relating to the order of offices and candidates as well as the ballot designation for those offices. The term "independents" is used in two different subsections of §16-5. Subsection (e) simply provides that "independents" shall be listed on the ballot after candidates of the principal majority party, candidates of the principal minority party, and candidates of other parties listed in order of highest voter registration.

 Subsection (g), after directing that a petition candidate who is the candidate of a political party shall have the name of that party stated on the ballot to the right of the name of the candidate, provides:

          [B]ut if there shall have been any nomination for the same office by a primary election claiming the same party name, duly certified as hereinbefore provided, there shall be then printed to the right of the name of the candidate so nominated by petition, only the word "Independent" and none other. If the same party name shall be claimed on behalf of nominations made by more than one primary election and duly certified as aforesaid, the officers by whom the ballots are to be prepared, or a majority of them, shall determine which nominees are justly entitled to the party name, and to the right of the names of other nominees there shall be printed upon the ballot only the word "Independent" and none other.

The phrase "and none other" might suggest that the term "independent" is to be used only under the peculiar circumstances identified in §16-5(g).

II

Legislative History

 The substantive equivalent of the current §16-5(g) was enacted as part of a complete revision of the Election Code, Chapter 202 of the Laws of Maryland 1896, §50. The pertinent language was as follows:

     [I]f there shall have been any nomination for the same office by a convention or primary election claiming the same party name, duly certified, as hereinbefore provided, the word "independent" shall precede the party name .... If the same party name or emblem shall be claimed on behalf of nominations made by more than one convention or primary election and duly certified, as aforesaid, the officers by whom the ballot is to be prepared, or a majority of them, shall determine which nominees are justly entitled to the party name, or emblem and the word "independent" shall precede the party name of the other group or groups of nominees ....

 The main difference between the language then and now is that the original enactment permitted the party name to follow the word "independent."6 Under the fairly liberal candidacy requirements of the time, the Code imposed no restrictions on who could be nominated by petition. See former §42. Indeed, former §54 expressly recognized that one candidate could appear on the ballot representing more than one party or principle if nominated by multiple certificates.

 In an apparent effort to bring some order out of what must have been a fairly chaotic ballot, the General Assembly changed the ballot arrangement section to require a candidate nominated by multiple parties to choose a single party for the ballot designation and added the proviso, retained in the Code today (§16-5(d)), that a party name shall consist of one word only. Chapter 124, Laws of Maryland 1912. The same legislation made another change, of significance to the construction of §16-5(g) in the current Code — the phrase "the word 'Independent,' and none other" replaced the phrase "the word 'Independent' shall precede the party name." Thus, the original meaning of "and none other," language retained in §16-5(g) today, was the disallowance of the party name along with the word "independent." Except for minor, non-relevant differences, the ballot access language in the 1912 statute is reflected in the current §16-5(g).

 The term "independent" was defined for the first time by Chapter 392 of the Laws of Maryland 1967, at which time the Election Code was repealed in its entirety and a new Code enacted. The new definition, former §1-1(a)(8A), was as follows:

          "Independent" means any voter who has declined to affiliate with a political party entitled to nominate candidates at a primary election or primary meeting [i.e., major or minor parties, but not new parties].

It is not clear why the General Assembly chose to add a definition of "independent," since no other provision of that recodification made a specific reference to independents, except the historic ballot arrangement provision discussed above. Perhaps there was some connection, not now discernable, to a well-publicized independent candidacy for Governor the year before.

 In 1971, as a result of a fairly extensive revision of Article 33, three separate additional provisions relating to independents were enacted. See Chapters 352 and 354, Laws of Maryland 1971. The definition of "independent" was revised and renumbered to read as it does today.7 More importantly, the same law, Chapter 354, enacted §9A-1, with its exception for "independents," and §7-1, with its provision for petition candidacy for "independents."

III

Analysis

 In an effort to discern a rational purpose behind the drafting of §9A-1, we look first at the language itself. In drafting the exemption contained in the third sentence of §9A-1, the General Assembly declared that the independent candidates to which the section does not apply are those "registered as an independent," not those declared to be independents through the operation of §16-5(g). Indeed, those declared to be independents under §16-5(g) would in all likelihood be registered as a member of a major party. Since the General Assembly did not link the reference to independents in §9A-1 to the substance of §16-5(g), only four possible interpretations remain.

  The first is that the exemption in the last sentence of §9A-1 is meaningless — that is, since no one is officially registered as an "independent," the proviso applies to no one. This interpretation must be avoided if at all possible. "When we look at the statutory language, we attempt to give effect to all the words in the statute." Morris v. Prince George's County, 319 Md. 597, 603, 573 A.2d 1346 (1990). Indeed, we are particularly reluctant to treat this language as a nullity in light of the fact that, during the same legislative session, the General Assembly also modified the definition of "independent" and provided that candidates registered as independents could run as petition candidates. "[R]esults that are unreasonable, illogical or inconsistent with common sense should be avoided ...." Potter v. Bethesda Fire Department, 309 Md. 347, 353, 524 A.2d 61 (1987) (quoting State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416, 348 A.2d 275 (1975)).

 The second interpretation is that the General Assembly drafted the exemption in 9A-1 to permit a candidate affiliated with an official political party known as the Independent Party, should such a party ever exist, to be listed on the ballot as an Independent. However, the first sentence of §9A-1 already permits candidates affiliated with official political parties to be designated under the party name. Thus the exemption would deny the party name to Independent Party candidates. This interpretation, too, is implausible.

 The third interpretation is that the General Assembly meant to encompass all candidates registered as "declined" under the term independent for the purpose of the §9A-1 exemption. Following that interpretation through to its logical conclusion, however, only candidates registered with a minor or new party but affiliated with a partisan organization would then be designated as "other candidates." Such a result makes little sense; it is hard to see why the General Assembly would have wanted to treat petition candidates affiliated with a partisan organization who are registered with a party differently than those who are registered as "declines," when both are representing the partisan organization.

 The fourth interpretation reflects an effort to discern the "legislative purpose, the general aim or policy, the ends to be addressed ...," and measure the meaning of the statute by "the context within which statutory language appears." Morris v. Prince George's County, 319 Md. at 603-04. See also Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 525 A.2d 628 (1987).

 Taking context into account, our best assessment is that the General Assembly intended to permit a candidate who is registered as a "decline" and who wants to represent to the voter that his or her candidacy is unfettered by ties to party or partisan organization to be listed on the ballot as an "independent."

In the late 1960's, not long before §9A-1 was enacted, there had been two well-publicized State races in which candidates registered as "declined" were officially listed on the ballot as independents. In 1966, Hyman A. Pressman appeared on the general election ballot as an independent candidate for Governor of Maryland. And in 1968, George P. Mahoney appeared on the general election ballot as an independent candidate for Senate of the United States.

 Mr. Mahoney's desire for an independent candidacy gave rise to a decision by the Court of Appeals, Lee v. Secretary of State, 251 Md. 134, 246 A.2d 562 (1968), in which the right of a candidate to be designated on the ballot as an independent was explicitly recognized. Mr. Mahoney, having failed to attain elective office as a registered Democrat, changed his registration to "decline" in order to run for the Senate of the United States as an independent petition candidate. The fact that the Baltimore County Board of Supervisors of Elections reopened the registration books during a period when the books were to remain closed, in order to let Mahoney change his registration, fueled the ire of a Mr. Lee, who filed suit seeking to enjoin Mahoney's independent candidacy. The Court of Appeals found that the Baltimore County Board erred in letting Mahoney change his registration when the books should have been closed, but also decided that Lee failed to seek correction of the registration records in accordance with the statutory remedy, thus depriving the courts of jurisdiction to accomplish the result sought, the disqualification of Mahoney as an independent candidate.

 In so holding, the Court of Appeals affirmed Mahoney's right to run as an independent if he was registered as a decline: "The weakness of [Lee's ineligibility argument] is that Mahoney's eligibility to run as an independent candidate depended on whether the registration lists showed, at the time he sought to do so, that he was registered as a decline." 251 Md. at 141. See also Fisher v. Dudley, 74 Md. 238, 24 A. 155 (1891).

 Moreover, the General Assembly has not altered the language of §9A-1 in the face of post-1971 races in which candidates have appeared on the ballot as independents. In 1976 Bruce Bradley appeared on the November 2, 1976 general election ballot as an independent candidate for the United States Senate; in 1980 John B. Anderson and his running mate appeared on the November 4, 1980 general election ballot as independent candidates for President and Vice President of the United States; and in 1984 Lawrence K. Freeman appeared on the November 6, 1984 general election ballot as an independent candidate for United States Senator.

 Moreover, our interpretation of §9A-1 parallels and is a logical extension of the categories of candidates nominated by petition. As discussed in Part I above, §7-1(a) recognizes that subcategories of "declined" voters exist for purposes of candidate differentiation: those who wish to register as independent, having no party or organizational allegiance or affiliation; and those who wish to be politically affiliated with a partisan organization that is not a party. Both groups of candidates are composed of voters who are listed on the registration rolls as "declined." Section 7-1(a) also permits a candidate not registered as declined to be on the ballot as a representative of a partisan organization that is not a party.8

 The practical result of our analysis of the statutory provisions relating to ballot designation for petition candidates is the following categorization: Minor party and new party candidates are listed under their party name; petition candidates affiliated with non-party partisan organizations, whether registered as "declined" or as a member of a legally recognized political party, are listed under "other candidates"; and candidates registered as "declined" who are not affiliated with a partisan organization are listed under "independents."9 A petition candidate who is registered as a member of a political party may be designated as "independent" only if the circumstances identified in §16-5(g) occur.10 We recommend that the certificate of candidacy form for petition candidates be revised to obtain the information necessary for the correct ballot designation.

IV

Conclusion

 In summary, it is our opinion that petition candidates who are registered as "declined" are to be designated on the ballot as "independent" if they are unaffiliated with either a political party or a partisan organization. Petition candidates, whether registered as "declined" or with a party affiliation, who are affiliated with a partisan organization that is not a political party are to be designated on the ballot under "other candidates."

                                           J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                           Attorney General

                                           Elizabeth L. Nilson
                                           Special Assistant to the
                                           Attorney General

                                           Jack Schwartz
                                           Chief Counsel
                                             Opinions & Advice

1
Except as otherwise specifically indicated, all statutory references in this opinion are to Article 33.

2
A petition candidate may not be listed on the general election ballot with the designation of a party required to nominate its candidates by primary election (presently, the Democratic and Republican parties). §5-1(a). Nor, except for candidates for President or judicial offices or in the case of a vacancy in nomination, may a candidate who loses a primary election appear as a petition candidate for any office on the general election ballot. §8-2(a).

3
If a party is formed by petition but then fails to obtain at least three percent of the vote for statewide candidates, it loses its party status. §4C-1(a) and (b). Thereafter, it can regain party status by filing the requisite petition for party formation. §4C-1(c).

4
When this provision was originally enacted as Chapter 354 of the Laws of Maryland 1971, the word "independent" was capitalized. The change in capitalization was made in Chapter 11, Laws of Maryland 1987, at the same time that certain technical style changes were made.

5
These instructions provide: "Whenever a voter declines to state a party affiliation, the word 'Declined' should be recorded opposite his or her name so that, for every registered voter, either a party affiliation or the word 'Declined' is recorded. The preferred term to use is 'Declined' rather than 'Independent'." The Election Code requires the Attorney General to issue "necessary" instructions. §25-3.
On the official registration form, a voter may check "Democratic," "Republican," "Decline to affiliate with a Political Party" or "Other (Specify)." Hence, a voter may simply check the "Decline" line or write in the name of a minor party or partisan group with which the voter is affiliated, or the voter may even write in the word "independent." Although some of the larger counties keep a record of the voter's actual designation of choice, all official registries throughout the State reflect only a party designation or "declined."

6
Chapter 392 of the Laws of Maryland 1967 deleted the prior reference to nomination by convention.

7
The change clarified the definition's reference to political party by including any party meeting the §1-1(a)(15) definition. Therefore, new parties were encompassed by the reference to "political party."

8
A recent example of a candidate representing a partisan organization is Thomas P. Mathers, who appeared on the May 19, 1981 special election ballot as a candidate for United States Congress (Fifth District) under the designation "other candidates." Mr. Mathers was the candidate of the Libertarian Party of Maryland, an organization that qualified as a political party in 1980 but lost its party status in 1981 because of the failure of its presidential candidate to poll at least three percent of the vote statewide. See Mather v. Morris, 649 F.2d 280 (4th Cir. 1981).

9
We hereby overrule the portion of 58 Opinions of the Attorney General 211, 280 (1973) asserting that "a candidate who qualifies for nomination by petition because he is an independent ..., must be listed on the ballot under the heading 'other candidates'." Inexplicably, the former conclusion was reached without any discussion of the proviso excepting candidates registered as independents from the requirements of §9A-1.

10
Although surely an infrequent occurrence, the kind of dispute identified in §16-5(g) could still occur. A ballot designation challenge growing out of the adoption of the Baltimore County Charter in 1956 caused the Court of Appeals in Tyler v. Board of Supervisors, 213 Md. 37, 131 A.2d 247 (1957) to decide that the nominees of the Democratic State Central Committee for the first election of members of the County Council should be designated as Democrats (pursuant to §1103 of the Charter of Baltimore County) and that a petition-challenger, a registered Democrat, was to be designated as "independent" pursuant to former §69 of Article 33, which is now §16-5(g).