If a Maryland town purges me from its voter list, can I still vote in town elections?

Plain-English summary

The Commissioners of Poolesville, a small Montgomery County town, asked the Attorney General in 1990 whether Maryland's five-year voter purge statute, Article 33, §3-20, applied to their municipal elections. That statute told county election boards to cancel the registration of any voter who had not cast a ballot in a primary, general, or special election for five years. Poolesville had its own charter provision doing something similar for its own list, and wanted to know how the two fit together.

The Attorney General concluded the state purge statute did not apply to municipal registration lists. Section 3-20 reached only the county board's list, and voting in a municipal election did not even count toward the five-year clock, so a town was free to apply its own charter purge to its own list. But the more important point for voters was the second half of the answer. Under Maryland's then-new universal registration law, registering with the county board counted as registration for elections in a municipality within that county. So a Poolesville resident who had been dropped from the town's own list, but who was still on the county's rolls, remained entitled to vote in Poolesville elections. The town's purge mattered in practice only for the narrow group on a municipal supplemental list who were not registered with the county.

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 here no longer match the current code, and federal law now governs much of how states may remove voters from the rolls. The opinion's footnote also noted a then-pending federal challenge to §3-20. Read the analysis and the citations here as the law as it stood in 1990, and check the current Election Law Article and federal law before relying on any specific purge rule.

Common questions

Did Maryland's five-year voter purge law apply to town elections?
No, under this 1990 opinion. Article 33, §3-20 directed county election boards to cancel long-inactive registrations on the county list. It did not apply to the separate registration lists that municipalities like Poolesville kept.

If a town dropped me from its voter list, could I still vote in town elections?
Yes, as long as you remained registered with the county. Under universal registration, county registration counted as registration for elections in a municipality within the county, so a resident on the county rolls could still vote in town elections despite being purged from the town's own list.

Could a town run its own voter purge at all?
Yes. The opinion said nothing in state law barred a town from applying its own charter purge provision to its own registration list. It just did not cut off the right to vote for residents who stayed registered with the county.

When did a town purge actually keep someone from voting?
Mainly for people on a municipal supplemental list who were not registered with the county. If the town purged someone who was only on that supplemental list, that person could not vote in town elections until re-registering, either with the town or, if a resident, with the county.

Background and statutory framework

Poolesville required its voters to register and, by charter, directed its supervisors of elections to cancel the registration of any voter who had not participated in a municipal election within the five preceding calendar years. The state statute, Article 33, §3-20, separately told county boards of elections to cancel the registration of any voter who had not voted in a primary, general, or special election within five years. Two features of the state scheme kept it from touching municipal lists: participation in a municipal election did not satisfy the state statute's voting requirement (Article 33, §1-1(a)(6)), and §3-20 imposed no duty on municipal election officials, since charter elections were left to be regulated by the municipal charter (Article 33, §2-9(a)).

The opinion then explained why the two purge provisions neither overlapped nor conflicted: the charter provision governed the town's list, the state provision governed the county's list. The decisive statute was the universal registration provision, Article 33, §3-2(d)(2), which deemed a voter's county registration to be registration for elections in a municipal corporation within the county. So a resident dropped from the Poolesville list under the charter, but still on the county list because the voter had voted in a state or county election, "shall be deemed" registered for Poolesville elections, a phrase the opinion read (citing out-of-state authority) to mean "shall be treated as if." That construction did not make the town's purge meaningless: under Article 33, §3-2(d)(9), a municipality could keep a supplemental list of people not registered with the county, and a person purged from that supplemental list would not be able to vote in town elections until re-registering. The bottom line: the state purge statute did not reach municipal lists and did not bar a town's own purge, but a resident who stayed on the county rolls could still vote in municipal elections regardless of a charter purge.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article 33, §3-20 of the Maryland Code, the five-year county voter purge statute at issue, including §3-20(a)(1)
• Article 33, §1-1(a)(6), providing that municipal-election voting did not satisfy the state statute's voting requirement, and Article 33, §2-9(a), leaving charter elections to the municipal charter
• Article 33, §3-2(d)(2), the universal registration provision deeming county registration to be registration for municipal elections, and §3-2(d)(9), on municipal supplemental lists
• Provisions of the Poolesville Town Charter (§82-6A, D, E, F, and J) on registration and the town's own purge

Cases:

• Watts v. Brewer, 243 N.C. 422, 90 S.E.2d 764, 767 (1956), and Swanson v. Employment Sec. Agency, 81 Idaho 385, 342 P.2d 714, 719 (1959), read for the meaning of "shall be deemed"

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 197-200 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

Municipalities — Voter Registration — Application of Purge Provisions

April 4, 1990

Richard S. McKemon, Esquire

 On behalf of the Commissioners of Poolesville, you have requested our opinion on whether Article 33, §3-20 of the Maryland Code applies to municipal elections.1

 For the reasons stated below, we conclude as follows: Article 33, §3-20, which requires county boards of election supervisors to cancel the registration of voters who have not voted in any election for five years, does not apply to registration lists maintained by municipal corporations like the Town of Poolesville. A municipality is free to apply its own cancellation provisions to the registration list that it maintains. However, even if a resident of a municipality has been deleted from the municipal registration list as a result of a local "purge" provision, that resident nevertheless remains entitled to vote in municipal elections so long as he or she is registered with the county.

I

Poolesville Charter Provisions

 The Town of Poolesville requires registration of its voters. §82-6A, D, E, and F of the Poolesville Charter. In general, residents of the town are qualified as voters.2

 The Poolesville Charter requires its supervisors of elections to cancel the registration of any voter who "has not participated in an election within five (5) preceding calendar years." Charter §82-6J. An "election" means a municipal election, at which voters vote for a Poolesville public officer or ballot question. Charter §82-6A.

II

Article 33, §3-20

 Section 3-20(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a county board of elections is to cancel the registration of a voter who "has been registered but has not voted at least once in a primary, general, or special election within the five preceding calendar years ...." Participation in a municipal election does not satisfy this requirement. See Article 33, §1-1(a)(6). Nor does §3-20 impose any duty on municipal election officials. See Article 33, §2-9(a).3

III

Effect of Universal Registration

 The purge provisions of the Poolesville Town Charter and of the State Election Code are neither overlapping nor conflicting. The former applies to the registration list maintained by the Town of Poolesville. The latter applies to the registration list maintained by the Board of Supervisors of Elections for Montgomery County. Nothing in State law prohibits Poolesville from applying its purge provision to voters on its registration list.

 However, it does not follow that a voter removed from the Poolesville list because the voter has not voted in a Poolesville election for five years is necessarily precluded from voting in a Poolesville election in the future. The newly effective universal registration law contains the following provision: "Registration with a county board of elections, by a voter who resides in a municipal corporation located within the county shall be deemed registration for elections in that municipal corporation." Article 33, §3-2(d)(2).

  Thus, if a voter has been deleted from the Poolesville registration list pursuant to Charter §82-6J but nevertheless has voted in a State or county election and thus has not been removed from the county registration list pursuant to §3-20, that voter "shall be deemed" to be registered for elections in Poolesville. In this context, the phrase "shall be deemed" means "shall be treated as if." See Watts v. Brewer, 243 N.C. 422, 90 S.E.2d 764, 767 (1956). See also Swanson v. Employment Sec. Agency, 81 Idaho 385, 342 P.2d 714, 719 (1959). Hence, such a voter would be entitled to vote in Poolesville elections.

This construction of Article 33, §3-2(d)(2) does not make a nullity out of Poolesville's separate purge provision. Poolesville is free to administer and maintain "a supplemental list of those persons who are not registered with the county board but who may otherwise be qualified to register to vote with a municipal corporation." Article 33, §3-2(d)(9). Thus, if Poolesville applied the purge provision of Charter §82-6J to a voter who was on the supplemental list only, that person would not be entitled to vote in Poolesville elections until the person reregistered with Poolesville (or, if the person were a resident of Poolesville, registered with the county).

IV

Conclusion

 In summary, our opinion is as follows: Article 33, §3-20 of the Maryland Code does not apply to registration lists maintained by municipalities and does not preclude a town's application of its separate purge provision. Nevertheless, if a resident of a municipality remains on the county's registration list, that voter may vote in municipal elections even if the voter has been removed from the town's registration list as a result of a purge provision in the municipal charter.

                                          J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                          Attorney General

                                          Jack Schwartz
                                          Chief Counsel
                                          Opinions & Advice

1
A suit currently pending in federal court challenges the constitutionality of §3-20. Hoffman, et al. v. State of Maryland, et al. Civil Action No. K-90-669 (D. Md. filed Feb. 28, 1990). However, the suit raises no issue about the applicability of §3-20 to municipal elections. Hence, we are not foreclosed from addressing your inquiry.

2
"Residents of the Town of Poolesville shall be registered and qualified as voters if they are citizens of the United States of America, over the age of eighteen (18) years on or before the date of election, residents of the Town of Poolesville for thirty (30) days preceding an election, have not been convicted of an infamous crime (unless pardoned by the Governor), and are not under guardianship proceedings or a judgment of non compos mentis." Charter §82-6D.

3
Section 2-9(a) provides as follows: "[I]n any incorporated city or town in the State (other than the City of Baltimore) in which the municipal elections are regulated by ... the charter of the municipality, the conduct of municipal or charter elections shall continue to be so regulated as heretofore or may hereafter be provided by ... the charter of the municipality and the same shall continue in force therein."