IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY. KRISHANTI VIGNARAJAH, P.O. Box 152, Columbia, MD 21045 Plaintiff, v. Case No. LARRY HOGAN FOR GOVERNOR, P.O. Box 6559, Annapolis, MD 21404 MARY WAGNER, Director of Voter Registration, Maryland Board of Elections, P.O. Box 6486, 151 West Street, Suite 200, Annapolis, MD 21401, and MARYLAND BOARD OF ELECTIONS, P.O, Box 6486, 151 West Street, Suite 200, Annapolis, MD 21401 Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Krishanti Vignarajah, by and through her undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Krishanti Vignarajah, @ Democrat, is a candidate for governor of Maryland. 2. Arriving in Maryland as an infant and the product of Baltimore County public schools from kindergarten through high school, Vignarajah is a lifelong Marylander whose entire family still lives in the state where she grew up and where she is raising her daughter. 3. Yet, within hours of Vignarajah’s statement in August 2017 stating her intention to seek office, unnamed opponents claimed to reporters that Vignarajah was legally ineligible.4, Maryland’s Constitution requires that a candidate for governor be a resident and registered voter in Maryland for at least five years before the coming gubemnatorial election. 5. No one disputes that Vignarajah, who registered to vote in 2006 and was raised in Maryland from the time she was a baby, was a resident and registered voter in Maryland well before the five-year window. Instead, her opponents’ argument is that her residency and registered voter status were terminated when she worked and voted in Washington, D.C. 6. Their claim is meritless. Maryland law makes clear that Vignarajah has been and conti muously remained a resident and registered voter of Maryland starting before the requisite five-year time period through the present. 7. On voter registration, Maryland law specifies a series of conditions, at least one of which must be satisfied before a voter is removed from the state’s voter registry. Vignarajah’s opponents have not identified a ground for removal that is on Maryland’ list and applies in ‘Vignarajah’s case. Neither registering to vote nor voting in another jurisdiction are among the ‘enumerated removal triggers in Maryland, 8. Despite this, Vignarajah’s opponents insist that when she registered to vote and voted in Washington, D.C., her Maryland voter registration should have been cancelled— promoting the fiction that itis illegal to be a registered voter in more than one state.’ In fact, Maryland’s removal statute expressly forbids terminating a voter's registration if one of the statutory circumstances is not present. Thus, removing Vignarajah from Maryland’s voter registration list would actually have violated state law. As it happens, the Board of Elections followed the law, and Vignarajah’s voter registration has remained intact since 2006, “tn ality, being registred in multiple states is nether uncommon nor improper. Is unlawful to vote in more than one stat inthe same election. Vignarajah has never done this, and no one has suggested that she ever has. 29. During the five-year time period required to run for governor, Vignarajah’s voter registration status was temporarily changed to “inactive,” raising the question of whether an inactive voter is a registered voter or whether only active voters count as registered voters in Maryland. Maryland’s highest court has twice conclusively answered this question, both times ruling that the Maryland Constitution does not permit any distinction between “active” and “inactive” voters and that both must be treated as registered voters in Marylan 10. On residency, Maryland’s highest court has established that when a person like Vignarajah is already a resident of Maryland, she can lose her original residence and gain a new one only if she takes up a new “place of dwelling” and has the intent both to make that abode her permanent residence and to abandon and not return to her original residence. As she has affirmed ina swom statement, Vignarajah intended no such thing when she worked in Washington, D.C. 11, Maryland courts have said a person’s intent is the “controlling factor” in deciding his or her residence. Accordingly, for someone who grew up and went to elementary, middle, and high school in Maryland, whose entire family remains in Maryland, who became a licensed attomey in Maryland, who got married and had her daughter in Maryland, who after every sojourn for school or service has retumed to Maryland, and is now raising her family in Maryland, to conclude that Vignarajah ever had the intent to abandon Maryland and make a life elsewhere would bbe to contrive a political windfall for her opponents that defies the reality of her entire life ‘See Exhibit | (swom affidavit by Vignarajah).. 12. Neither clear state law nor binding appellate decisions, however, has stopped Vignarajah’s opponents from continually rekindling the issue. 2 See Doe v: Montgomery County Board of Elections, 46 Ma, 697 (2008); Maryland Green Party», Maryland Board of Elections, 377 Ma. 127 (2003)13, Two weeks ago, Vignarajah officially kicked off her campaign with a three-day, Policy-focused, statewide road trip and—standing in front of her first home in Maryland, a basement apartment on St. Agnes Lane—formally announced she was running for governor. Vignarajah joined a crowded race as a unique candidate—she is the only candidate who is a ‘woman, the only product of Maryland public schools, the only immigrant, and the only mother. 14. The same day this unique candidacy began in camest, Vignarajah’s opponents, including the campaign lawyer for the incumbent govemnor, repeated their baseless attacks on Vignarajah’s eligibility 15. Because of the Defendants’ public statements and the confusion and uncertainty they have generated with respect to Vignarajah’s candidacy, there is now an actual legal controversy between Vignarajah and the Defendants, all of whom have concrete interests in the outcome and who have taken antagonistic positions with respect to Vignarajah’s eligibility to seck office. The matter cannot be settled without judicial resolution, which is imminent and inevitable at the request of one \didate or another. Furthermore, Vignarajah has established a candidate committee, affirmed her status as a resident and registered voter of Maryland for the requisite five years, and asserted the right and privilege to seek the office of govemor, which the Defendants have now publicly challenged. In these circumstances, Maryland’s Declaratory Judgment Act empowers this Courtto issue a declaratory judgment that would serve to terminate this controversy once and for all. Further delay in resolving this dispute and the attendant uncertainty are harmful to Vignarajah’s campaign and patently unfair to her candidacy. It is indeed difficult to conceive of circumstances more suitable to resolution through the procedure of seeking a declaratory judgment from this Court, as provided by Maryland law. Accordingly, Vignarajah now seeks adeclaratory judgment affirming her eligibility to have her name on the ballot and to allow the voters to decide who should be Maryland’s next governor. PARTIES 16. _ Krishanti Vignarajah is a declared, Democratic candidate for govemor of Maryland. A resident of Maryland from the time she was an infant, Vignarajah, 38, now lives in Gaithersburg, Maryland and has been registered to vote in Maryland since 2006. On August 9, 2017, Vignarajah publicly stated her intention to run for governor of Maryland and, on September 19, 2017, formally announced her candidacy. She has registered a candidate committee with the Maryland State Board of Elections, is building a campaign team, and raising campaign funds. Vignarajah has not yet filed a certificate of candidacy, but will do so before the applicable deadline in February 2018, 17, Defendant Larry Hogan for Governor (“Hogan”), headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the candidate committee formed by Governor Lawrence J. Hogan. The committee has raised millions in anticipation of Governor Hogan’s reelection campaign and has now openly attempted to intercede in the Democratic primary through its campaign attorney, Dirk Haire, who has directly and publicly challenged Vignarajah’s eligibility to run against Governor Hogan. 18. Defendant Mary Wagner is the Director of Voter Registration for the Maryland State Board of Elections, and she is sued in her official capacity. 19. Defendant Maryland State Board of Elections manages and supervises elections conducted by the local boards of election in Maryland’s 23 counties and the City of Baltimore, The State Board—which consists of five members appointed by Governor Hogan, three Republicans and two Democrats—is responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of Maryland election laws and promoting fair and equitable elections throughout the state, Through Wagner, its Director of Voter Registration and a registered Republican, the Board has publiclyindicated, without reference to any legal authority or enabling law, that it would have removed Vignarajah from Maryland’s voter registration list had it learned that Vignarajah had registered to vote in Washington, D. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and is empowered to grant declaratory relief pursuant to MD. CoDE ANN., CTS, & JUD, PROC. §§ 1-501 & 3-403. 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to Mp. Cove ANN., CTS. & JUD, PROC. § 6-102(a). 22. Venue is proper under MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 6-201. BACKGROUND, A. Vignarajah announces bid to become first female governor of Maryland 23. Maryland has fourteen federal and statewide elected officials, including eight ULS. Representatives, two U.S. Senators, the Comptroller, Attomey General, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor. Not one of those officeholders today is a woman. And no woman in state history has ever by election or elevation become governor of Maryland. 24. Seeking to challenge and change this history, Krishanti Vignarajah, a Maryland resident since 1980 and registered voter since 2006, announced this summer her intention to seek the Democratic nomination for governor of Maryland. 25. The announcement generated significant interest in national and local media. Daily Kos assembled a list of reasons she could win the primary and knock off Governor Hogan, writing: “Hogan is popular, but Goopers actoss the country are running scared. In a wave election, I like Vignarajah’s chances.” Upworthy said Vignarajah was “a force to be reckoned with” in a piece titled, “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare is running for governor of Maryland.” Cosmopolitan ranan in-depth interview with Vignarajah, and Glamour published a full-length story on her. Local commentators opined on Vignarajah’s chances of upsetting Governor Hogan. Two popular blogs covering Maryland politics, Maryland Matters and A Miner Detail, referred to Vignarajah as “the freshest of fresh faces, with an inspiring life story, smarts, an adorable family and impeccable Obama connections,” and as “a policy-driven, fresh-faced woman who isn’t afraid to take on the establishment,” respectively. The Baltimore Sun quoted supporters who described Vignarajah “as a charismatic and engaging speaker who represents the sort of change Democratic voters upset about Trump's presidency wished they could send to Washington.” Enthusiasm for her candidacy is also reflected in the more than 170,000 online views of a short local news segment on WBAL-TV. about Vignarajah’s announcement two weeks ago. B. Larry Hogan for Governor challenges Vignarajah’s legal eligibility to be governor 26. Vignarajah’s bid apparently also caught the attention of her opponents and their political operatives, who, upon Vignarajah’s announcement, peddled claims about her eligibility to run for governor. ‘They que tioned whether she had been a registered voter for the five years required by Maryland's Constitution, and suggested that she abandoned her Maryland residency when she worked in the Obama Administration and co-owned property in Washington, D.C. 27. Vignarajah’s opponents declined to cite any legal provisions or case law to support their spurious claims, but nevertheless succeeded in prompting fringe and mainstream radio and print media to ask dogwhistle questions of Vignarajah about her “citizenship” and whether her parents immigrated legally to the United States. 28. On September 19, 2017 (the day of Vignarajah’s formal announcement), the incumbent govemor’s campaign openly challenged Vignarajah’s legal eligibility. In a statement to the press, Hogan’s campaign attorney Dirk Haire asserted, without legal citation, “after manyyears as a Washington D.C. insider, Krishanti_Vignarajah does not_even_meet residency requirements and has shown she simply doesn’t have what it takes to lead our state.” Erin Cox, Krishanti Vignarajah, the only woman running for Maryland governor, launches campaign, BALT. SUN, Sept. 19, 2017 (emphasis added). The Sun identified Haire as Hogan's campaign attorney and chairman of the Maryland GOP. Neither Haire nor Hogan have retracted or amended the statement—or, alternatively, clarified that Haire was speaking on his own behalf or solely on behalf of the Maryland Republican Party, not on behalf of Larry Hogan for Governor. 29. Also, Governor Hogan serves on the Executive Committee of the Republican Govemors’ Association (RGA), a partisan group organized to elect Republican governors, which has also attacked Vignarajah, publishing multiple stories and social media posts questioning her eligibility to run. So far, Haire appears to have been quoted in his capacity as Hogan’s campaign lawyer in the context of attacking only one candidate: Krish Vignarajah. Thus, the Hogan campaign's decision to challenge and speak up about only one candidate in the Democratic gubematorial primary, unusual as that is in general for an incumbent, is all the more notable in light of the campaign’s silence regarding every other Democratic primary candidate, 30. Even before Hogan’s campaign raised the issue, Mary Wagner, Director of Voter Registration for the Maryland State Board of Elections and a registered Republican, told the Washington Post that the Board would have canceled Vignarajah’s voter registration in Maryland iffit had been notified that Vignarajah registered to vote in Washington, D.C. See Ovetta Wiggins & Josh Hicks, Md, attorney general is asked 10 opine on ex-White House aide’s eligibility to run for governor, WASH. POSt, Aug. 11, 2017; Josh Hicks, Krishanti Vignarajah launches campaign for Maryland governor, WASH. Post, Sept. 19, 2017.31, Before Wagner volunteered to the press this uncharacteristic statement representing what the Board of Elections would have done in a specific scenario, Wagner sent to the Board’s attorneys an email that she then made available to a local media outlet. In the now-public email, Wagner wrote: “It looks like the 5 year residence requirement is going to be an issue for the upcoming election” and “fat issue is whether a person that voted in 2014 in DC cancels her residence in Maryland.” Andrew Metcalf, Vignarajah Ducks Eligibility Questions as She Launches Gubernatorial Campaign, BETHESDA BEAT, Sept. 20, 2017. 32. Then, on or about September 20, 2017 (the day after Vignarajah’s formal kickoff), Wagner shared in another interview that Vignarajah’s formal campaign launch on September 19" prompted her to further press the issue with the Attorney General's Office and confirmed that the Board was actively consulting with its lawyers. Wagner explained that while the issue had not been urgent before, Vignarajah’s launch announcement now made it pressing: “This was not a pressing matter when she was just talking about running,” Id. 33. Wagner commented on the controversy and represented to the public the Board’s views without affording Vignarajah the courtesy of advance notice or an opportunity to give her perspective or provide additional information. Instead, Wagner disclosed to the local magazine that Vignarajah’s registration had gone inactive based on information received from a consortium, of states that share confidential voter information. 34. The articles citing Wagner acknowledged that Vignarajah’s voter registration was reactivated. Wagner, however, seemingly failed to clarify to media outlets that Vignarajah always remained a registered voter and was never, in fact, terminated by her or the Board—nor did she explain that Maryland law treats both active and inactive voters as registered voters and that drawing a distinction between them would violate Maryland’s Constitution,35. Indeed, none of the Defendants nor any of Vignarajah's other political rivals who have injected the eligibility issue into political debate have cited any legal authority to support their position. Nevertheless, it as been a question that has arisen in conversations with voters, reporters, donors, and volunteers, some of whom have interpreted Wagner’s statements as carrying the imprimatur of the Board of Elections. Hence, until a judicial determination puts the question to rest, Vignarajah’s opponents will have furthered their aim to sow confusion and create a meritless distraction for voters and for a candidate whose deep roots in Maryland, powerful personal and professional story, and bold ideas and vision for the State would otherwise be the focus C. Vignarajah has been a Maryland resident from the time she was an infant 36. Vignarajah was born in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In 1980, when she was nine months old, her family immigrated to the United States. They lived in a rented apartment on St. Agnes Lane in Woodlawn, Maryland, beginning in October 1980. After five years, in August 1985, her family bought a single-family house on Upper Mills Circle in Catonsville, Maryland. 37. Vignarajah attended Maryland public schools from kindergarten through 12 grade. Starting at Edmondson Heights Elementary School for kindergarten, Vignarajah then attended Woodbridge Elementary School and Johnnycake Middle School, and graduated valedictorian from Woodlawn High School, all public schools in Baltimore County. 38. Vignarajah attended Yale University for college and then Oxford University on a Marshall Scholarship. Afterward she worked at McKinsey & Company before returning to Yale for law school in 2005. Every winter, spring, summer, and semester break, she would return to her home in Catonsville. Even during summers primarily spent working abroad, Vignarajah still spent time in Catonsville before and after her travels. 1039. Upon graduating from Yale Law School in 2008, Vignarajah served for a year as a law clerk to Chit Judge Michael Boudin on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts, Afterward she once again retumed home to Catonsville in June 2009, studied and sat for the Maryland Bar Exam that summer while living in Catonsville, and commuted for several months to Washington, D.C., where she worked at a law firm while applying for jobs in government. 40. In October 2009, Vignarajah and her mother purchased an apartment in Washington, D.C, parily because of the long hours she was working in D.C. and partly as an investment, She never intended that dwelling to be a permanent residence, and it has never performed that function. The apartment merely served as a convenient nearby dwelling after long days and nights at work. Most of Vignarajah’s personal belongings remained at her home in Catonsville, including most of her clothing and shoes, furniture, artwork, personal and professional records, and books. 41. On December 17, 2009, Vignarajah was swom into the Maryland Bar. She has never been a member of the Bar of any other jurisdiction. 42. On September 11, 2011, Vignarajah received and accepted an offer to serve at the USS. State Department as Senior Adviser, first under Secretary Hillary Clinton and later Secretary John Kerry. Both were political appointments, meaning they were term-limited appointments where she served at the pleasure of the President and her employment would be terminated at the end of the Administration. 43. In May 2015, Vignarajah joined the White House, serving as policy director for First Lady Michelle Obama where she led the “Let Girls Leam” initiative. This position was also 1 presidential appointment and, accordingly, on January 20, 2017, her government service with the Obama Administration came to an end, u44, Even during the time when she worked in Washington, D.C., Vignarajah still spent many weekends and some weeknights at her home in Catonsville. In addition, she maintained ‘numerous other ties to Maryland while she worked and had an apartment in Washington, D.C., which confirm that she did not intend to acquire a new permanent residence or abandon her lifelong home, Examples dating back at least five years include: 45, Much of Vignarajah’s personal and professional mail was delivered to her home in Maryland, including her personal cellphone bill and credit card and bank statements, even when she worked in Washington, D.C. Vignarajah has always had a personal cellphone with a Maryland “410” area code. Beginning in 1999, she maintained a bank account with the Municipal Employees Credit Union (MECU), a Baltimore bank with no locations in D.C. Since 2011, Vignarajah also maintained a safe deposit box for personal valuables like jewelry at the Bank of America next to her home in Catonsville Vignarajah was swom into the Maryland Bar in December 2009. She has never been a member of the D.C. Bar or the Bar of any jurisdiction other than Maryland, Vignarajah received healthcare at locations convenient to her home in Catonsville, ceven for the years she worked in D.C. She regularly saw a dentist at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry, where she had a root canal in 2013. The optometrist at the Sam’s Club in Catonsville performed eye exams and fitted her for contact lenses. Vignarajah purchased several sets of glasses from the Catonsville Walmart, She filled her prescriptions at the Giant grocery store pharmacy on Route 40, Vignarajah’s OB/GYN before and during her pregnancy practiced at Johns Hopkins Greenspring Station, Her daughter’s pediatrician is in Columbia, Maryland. No less than a dozen times a year, Vignarajah attended services at the Murugan ‘Temple in Lanham, Maryland, the same temple where she worshiped as a child. After Vignarajah left the White House, she created Generation Impact LLC, a small consulting firm that she registered in Maryland in February 2017 with her Catonsville address. 46. In May 2016, she was married along the waters of the Choptank River in Cambridge, Maryland; her marriage was recorded in Dorchester County; and she celebrated with a homecoming reception back in Catonsville, 1247. This past June, Vignarajah’s daughter was born at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. A month after her daughter's arrival, Vignarajah bought a new home in Gaithersburg, Maryland. She will raise her daughter in the same state where she was raised and went to school, where every member of her immediate family lives, and where she intends to grow old. D. Vignarajah has been a registered voter in Maryland since 2006 48. Vignarajah has been a continuously-registered Maryland voter since October 2006, 49. While working in Washington, D.C., Vignarajah registered to vote in that {jurisdiction in 2010 and voted there several times between 2010 and 2014. 50. Vignarajah never voted in more than one jurisdiction in the same election. 51. Being registered to vote in more than one jurisdiction is neither uncommon nor improper. And no provision of Maryland law would allow anyone to terminate Vignarajah's registration or remove her from the state’s voter registration list because she registered to vote or voted outside of Maryland. 52, At no point was Vignarajah’s Maryland registration terminated, nor has she ever been removed from Maryland’s voter registration list at any point for any length of time. 53. Hence, Vignarajah has been a registered voter in Maryland without interruption for ‘more than the constitutionally-required five years leading up to next year’s general election. LEG. L CONTEXT AND CLAIMS A. Eligibility requirements of Article II of the Maryland Constitution 54. Under the Maryland Constitution, in order to serve as governor, a person “must have attained the age of thirty years, and must have been a resident and registered voter of the State for five years next immediately preceding his [or her] election.” Mp. Consr. Art. Il, § 5 1358. Vignarajah, 38, satisfies the age requirement—which is uncontested—as well as the five-year residency and voter registration requirements, which Defendants dispute. B. Legal residency for candidate eligibility purposes 56. Although a person can readily change and even have multiple “abodes,” “habitations,” or “places of dwelling,” the Court of Appeals of Maryland has said that, for candidate eli ibility purposes, @ person's legal “residence” is her “domicile” and that once a domicile is fixed, it ean only be altered when the person has (1) actually moved to a new abode and has both (2) the intent to establish this abode as her domicile and (3) the intent to abandon her original domicile for good, 57. In Oglesby v, Williams, 372 Md. 360, 374 (2002), the Court of Appeals explained: “[Tyhe principles for determining a person’s domicile are well settled. A domicile once established continues until a new domicile is established” and “once a person’s place of domicile is determined, there is a presumption that it continues until superseded by new domicile.” Moving from one place of dwelling to another is not enough to change one’s domicile. Rather, “[in order to effect a change of domicile, there must be an actual removal to another habitation, coupled with ‘an intention” both to “abandon(]” the former domicile and to “acquifre}" a new one. Id. 58. ‘The Court has emphasized that the “abandonment of the old domicile [must be] so ‘permanent as to exclude the existence of an intention to return to the former place.” Jd. at 374. 59, The strength of the legal presumption respecting a candidate's original permanent residence has overpowered other key factors including where a person lives, votes, and has other ties for an interval of time. In fact, in cases where the candidate seeks office in his original permanent residence, Maryland's courts have accepted the candidate’s affirmation that he never intended to abandon that residence and always intended to return, even when other significant 4considerations including voting supported a different residence—especially where a person resides elsewhere for the sake of a government job of limited tenure. See, e.g., Gallagher v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Elections, 219 Md, 192 (1952) (concluding that Theodore MeKeldin preserved his residency for candidate eligibility purposes in Baltimore City, where he affirmed that he never intended to abandon his home in Baltimore City and always intended to return, even after living in Annapolis, registering to vote and voting in municipal elections there, and establishing many other significant ties to Annapolis during his eight-year tenure as governor of Maryland). 60. The Maryland Court of Appeals further observed that “a myriad of cases . . . hold that a change in residence or abode to enable a person to perform the duties and functions of a civil office not of life tenure, whether elective or appointive, does not, of itself, constitute a change of domicile.” Gallagher, 219 Md, at 203. Accord Shenton v. Abbott, 178 Md. 526 (1940) (official ‘who gave up his Annapolis residence and business office and took up residence in Baltimore while working for the Maryland Veteran’s Commission did not abandon his domicile in Annapolis). 61. For Vignarajah—someone raised with deep roots in Maryland—to be stripped of her original residency, she would have to be found to have both intended to permanently abandon her home state and also to make Washington, D.C. her new domicile. Neither is true. 62. Ina case where the candidate's ties to D.C. during the requisite five-year period have all been during her tenure with the federal government in the context of term-limited presidential appointments, to block Vignarajah from running for governor would be unjust and. ‘unmoored from Maryland law—especially where Maryland’s highest court has repeatedly said the “controlling factor in determining a person's domicile is his [or her] intent,” Oglesby, 372 Md. at 373 (quoting Roberts v. Lakin, 340 Md. 147 (1995)). She cannot have legally abandoned her Maryland residency without intending to do so—and she manifestly never had that intent. 15C. Voter registration in Maryland 63. _Itis undisputed that Vignarajah became a registered Maryland voter in 2006. 64. Under Maryland law, a registered voter can be removed from the statewide voter registration list only in certain enumerated circumstances. Mb. CODE ANN., ELEC. LAW § 3-501 65. Those circumstances include a signed, authenticated request by the voter on a cancellation notice, MD. CODE ANN., ELEC. LAW § 3-501(1); disqualification because of a felony conviction, mental disability, or death, § 3-501(2); or an administrative complaint adjudicated, after appeal, against the voter, § 3-501(4). None of those even arguably apply here. 66. The only other circumstance where a voter may be deregistered is if (A) the voter has moved outside the state, and (B) the election director sent notice that the voter would be placed into “inactive status,” and either (1) the voter confirmed a change in residence, or (2) the voter failed to respond to the notice, was therefore moved to “inactive” status and the voter then failed to vote through the next two general clections in Maryland, ELEC. LAW §§ 3-501(3), 3-502. 67. This ground for removal is also not present in Vignarajah’s case. And, because Maryland law prohibits removal unless these conditions are met, terminating Vignarajah’s voter registration without a confirmation notice and without waiting two general elections would have violated the governing statute and hence been unlawful. See ELEC. LAW § 3-502(e) (stating that, unless the requisite conditions are satisfied, the “election director may not remove a voter from the voter registration list on the grounds of a change of address” (emphasis added). 68. Importantly, neither registering to vote in another jurisdiction nor voting in another jurisdiction are listed as grounds for terminating a voter's registration in the State of Maryland. By contrast, other states explicitly provide for such removal and use plain language to spell this out, See, eg., GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-232(b) (“When an elector of this state moves to another 16county or state and registers to vote and the registration officials send a notice of cancellation reflecting the registration of the elector in the other county or state, the Secretary of State or the board of registrars . .. shall remove such elector’s name from the list of electors. It shall not be necessary to send a confirmation notice to the elector in such circumstances.”); DEL. CODE ANN. tit, 15, § 1707(@) (“The Department shall consider notification from another state, election jurisdiction or election official that a person registered to vote in Delaware has applied to register 10 vote or who has registered to vote in another state as permission from that person to cancel that person's Delaware voter registration.”); OR. REV. STAT. ANN, § 247.555(1)() (“A county clerk may cancel the registration of an elector... [i}f the county clerk receives written evidence that the elector has registered to vote in another county in this state or in another state.”) 69. Maryland has not adopted these kinds of voter registration removal provisions. Consequently, had Wagner or the Board of Elections deregistered Vignarajah using standards or protocols adopted by other states but absent in Maryland, that action would have contravened the plain and mandatory requirements of Maryland’s relevant laws. 70. Further simplifying the analysis in this case is that whatever other states may do and whatever individuals like Wagner claim they would have done (authorized or not), ultimately, Vignarajah was never in fact removed from Maryland’s voter registration list. And, Wagner’s commentary to the press that Vignarajah was moved at some stage to “inactive” status is beside the point. Maryland’s Court of Appeals has expressly held that the State Constitution draws no distinction between “active” and “inactive” voters and has conclusively said that both qualify as registered voters. See Doe v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 406 Md. 697, 726 (2008) (" emphasize that there is no room, after our decision in [Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Board 0of Elections, 377 Md. 127 (2003)], for the maintenance of an ‘inactive’ list to define registration status, because both ‘active’ and ‘inactive’ voters are registered voters.” 71. Thus, Vignarajah has been a continuously registered voter in Maryland since 2006. No matter how much it would suit their party’s interests, neither Hogan nor Wagner can lawfully change that today. COUNT I (Declaratory Judgment as to Eligibility) 72. Vignarajah incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully restated. 73. Vignarajah seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court pursuant to the Maryland Declaratory Judgment Act. See Mp. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 3-401 et seq. 74, A real and substantial controversy presently exists that is justiciable and ripe for resolution by this Court concerning Vignarajah’s eligibility to seek office and serve as governor of Maryland if elected. * tn Doe v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, the Court of Appeals stated: We recently had the opportunity to interpret whether the term “registered voter" inchided “inactive” voters in Maryland Green Party ¥. Maryland Board of Elections (2003)... At the time of Green Party, Section 1-101(mm) of the Election Law Amtile stated that “registered voter’ does not include an individual whose name is on a list of inactive voters," and Section 3-504({}(4) provided that [i}ndividuals whose names have been placed on the inactive list may’ not be counted as part of the registry.” We declared these provisions unconstitutional, because the Maryland Constitution, in speaking of registered voters, did not distinguish an “inactive” voter from a registered one: both are registered voters] ‘Doe, 406 Md. at 723-24. Doe then quoted Green Party, which already had definitively said: (Section 2 of Article I af the Maryland Constitution] contemplates a single registry fora particular area, containing the names of alf qualified voters, leaving the General Assembly no discretion to decide who may or may not be listed therein, no discretion to ereatea second registry for “inactive” voters, and no authority to decree that an “inactive” voter isnot a “registered voter” with all the rights ofa registered voter. Green Party, 377 Md, at 142-43 (emphasis and alteration a originally contained in Doe). 1875. Under Mp. Cope ANN., C18. & JUD. PROC. § 3-409, this Court may grant a declaratory judgment if it will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding, where any one of the following is true: (a) an actual controversy exists between contending parties; (b) antagonistic claims are present between the parties involved which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation; or (c) a party asserts a legal relation, status, right, or privilege, and this is challenged or denied by an adversary party, who also has or asserts a concrete interest im it. Each of these three criteria are satisfied in this case, and any one of them alone is sufficient to justify the issuance of a declaratory judgment by this Court: There exist actual controversies between Vignarajah and both Hogan’s reelection campaign and the Maryland State Board of Elections, as represented by Wagner. Wagner, in her capacity as Director of Voter Registration for the Board, has made the unfounded claim that the Board would have cancelled Vignarajah’s Maryland voter registration upon learning of her registration in Washington, D.C. and predicted to the Board’s attorneys that this would be “an issue for the upcoming election.” For his part, Hogan’s campaign lawyer has baldly asserted that Vignarajah does not meet the residency requirement to run for governor. Hence, this case presents “more than a mere difference of opinion or a theoretical question”; rather, it “present[s] a state of facts involving persons adversely interested in matters in respect to which [the] declaration is sought.” Harford Cty. v, Schultz, 280 Md. 77, 81 (1977). Vignarajah and the Defendants have offered antagonistic claims as to her eligibility, which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation. It was the lawyer for Hogan's campaign who has now clearly and publicly claimed that Vignarajah does not meet constitutional residency requirements. Wagner has now characterized the issue as “pressing,” repeatedly sought advice of counsel, and already declared (contrary to Maryland law) that the Board would unilaterally have dissolved Vignarajah’s voter registration, which is a constitutional requirement to run for governor. Wagner’s outreach and statements to the press doubting a candidate’s eligibility before that candidate has even sought from the Board a ruling or certificate of candidacy compromise the Board's independence and make its decision the inevitable subject of appeal either by Vignarajah, Hogan, or another opponent. In the end, these disputes can only be settled through litigation, which—in light of the Defendants’ statements and public posture they have taken—is now imminent and inevitable. Hogan and Wagner have explicitly and repeatedly cast doubt on Vignarajah’s eligibility to run for governor and decided to implicate themselves in a Democratic primary race. Under these circumstances, Vignarajah, as she secks the support of voters, volunteers, and donors, is entitled to prompt, independent judicial resolution of this legal dispute. 19cc, Vignarajah asserts legal status, rights, and privileges—among them, her status as a resident and registered voter of Maryland and her right and privilege to seek office and serve as governor of Maryland. ‘The Defendants have directly and publicly challenged her status, rights, and privileges. Both have concrete interests in this: the Board of Elections is charged with making a preliminary determination about a candidate's eligibility for office, and Hogan has a keen interest in disqualifying the one Democratic challenger his campaign has decided to focus on. Vignarajah has concrete interests in filing her certificate of candidacy and paying the required filing fee ($290) without uncertainty and on a date before the deadline that her campaign chooses; in resolving as expeditiously as possible this manufactured challenge, which may involve appeals by both sides; and in definitively removing the doubts her opponents have tried to sow, so that the voters of Maryland can focus on and ultimately decide who is most qualified to serve them as governor. 76. The Defendants’ public statements do not have the force of a decision by this Court. Yet their comments seemed designed to hinder Vignarajah’s, smpaign and fundraising efforts and have created the sort of “uncertainty” that a declaratory judgment is meant to resolve. A political contest among the candidates would still ensue, but a judicial determination of Vignarajah’s cligibility would “terminate” the legal controversy that has arisen between the parties. 77. For the reasons set forth in this complaint, Vignarajah satisfies the age, residency, and registered voter requirements of Article 2, § 5 of the Maryland Constitution and is therefore eligible to become govemor of Maryland. 78. Vignarajah respectfully requests that this Court issue a declaratory judgment that Vignarajah satisfies all constitutional requirements to seek office and serve as governor of Maryland, specifically, that Vignarajah has attained the age of 30 years and been a resident and registered voter for five years immediately preceding the 2018 gubernatorial election, and that Defendants’ statements and challenges to the contrary are in error, PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Vignarajah respectfully requests that this Court: 79. Enter a declaratory judgment confirming that Vignarajah satisfies the eligibility requirements of Article 2, § 5 of the Maryland Constitution to become governor of Maryland, 20specifically, that she has attained the age of 30 years and been a resident and registered voter for five years immediately preceding the 2018 gubernatorial election. 80. Provide such additional and further relief as appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, 451 Andrew D. flerman ‘Andrew D. Herman (pro hac vice admission motion pending) Miller & Chevalier Chartered 900 Sixteenth St. NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 626-5800 (phone) (202) 626-5801 (Facsimile) aherman@milchev.com (s/Adam W. Braskich ‘Adam W. Braskich Client Protection No. 141216016 Miller & Chevalier Chartered 900 Sixteenth St. NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 626-5800 (phone) (202) 626-5801 (facsimile) abraskich@milchev.com Counsel for Plaintiff Dated: October 6, 2017 21 451 Phil Spector Spector Client Protection No. 1512160290 Messing & Spector LLP 1200 Steuart Street, Number 2112 Baltimore, MD 21230 (410) 635-0687 (phone) ps@messingspector.comAFFIDAVIT OF KRISHANTI VIGNARAJAH To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, I, Krishanti Vignarajah, swear and affirm to the following: Background in Maryland 1. Foras long as I can remember, Maryland has been my home. 2, Iwas born in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and am now 38 years old, In 1980, when I was nine months old, my family immigrated to the United States. 3. My parents, brother, and I lived in @ rented apartment on St. Agnes Lane in Woodlawn, Maryland, beginning in October 1980. After five years, in August 1985, my family bought a single-family home on Upper Mills Circle in Catonsville, Maryland. 4, attended Maryland public schools from kindergarten through 12" grade. I began at Edmondson Heights Elementary School for kindergarten, then attended Woodbridge Elementary School and Johnnycake Middle School, and graduated valedictorian from Woodlawn High School, all public schools in Baltimore County. 5. My patents are now both retired after long careers as educators in Maryland public schools. My mother started teaching in Baltimore City at Baltimore Polytechnic Institute (Poly) and finished her teaching carcer at Morgan State University. My father proudly devoted 37 years to teaching in Baltimore City high schools, teaching math and physics at Edmondson High School, Frederick Douglass High School, Southern High School (now Digital Harbor High School), and Westen High School. After coming to Maryland in 1980, neither of my parents have lived or worked anywhere else6. I was a Girl Scout growing up and hiked and camped in Maryland’s state parks. For vacation, my family often crisscrossed the state in our stime-green Oldsmobile station wagon, spending time nearly every summer at the beach in Ocean City, Maryland, 7. Ttwasan honor to attend Yale University for college, where I majored in molecular biology and political science. I then studied at Oxford University on a Marshall Scholarship and worked at McKinsey & Company, before returning to Yale for law school in the fall of 2005. 8. Every winter, spring, summer, and semester break, I retumed to my home in Catonsville, One summer in college, I commuted from Catonsville to Washington, D.C. to intern with Senator Paul Sarbanes; one summer in law school, I commuted from Catonsville to Washington, D.C., to work at a law firm. Even the summers I worked abroad, I spent time in Catonsville before and after my travels 9. Upon graduating from Yale Law School in 2008, I served for a year as a law clerk to Chief Judge Michael Boudin on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Afterward, I again returned home to Catonsville in June 2009, studied and sat for the Maryland Bar Exam that summer while living in Catonsville, and commuted for several months to Washington, D.C., where I worked at a law fitm as I applied for jobs in government. 11. On September 11, 2011, I received and accepted an offer to serve at the U.S. State Department as Senior Adviser, first under Secretary Hillary Clinton and later Secretary Jobn Kerry. Both were political appointments, meaning they were term-limited appointments where I served at the pleasure of the President. Consequently, I expected that my employment would conclude at the end of the Administration, 12, In May 2015, 1 joined the White House, serving as policy director for First Lady Michelle Obama where I led the “Let Girls Leam” initiative. This position was also a presidentialappointment and, accordingly, on January 20, 2017, my government service with the Obama Administration came to an end, Announcement & Attacks 13, In August 2017, I publicly stated my intention to run for Governor of Maryland. 14, Within hours, I began to read news coverage citing opponents who anonymously had circulated attacks concerning whether I was eligible to run, claiming that I was not a registered voter for the five yeats required by Maryland’s Constitution, and that 1 had abandoned my Maryland residency because I worked and owned property in Washington, D.C. 15, 1am requesting a declaratory judgment in order to confirm my eligibility to seek office—and to make sure it is the voters, not my opponents, who ultimately decide who is most qualified to be Maryland's next Governor. Yoter Registration 16. With respect to my voter registration, public records confirm that I have been a continuously-registered voter in Maryland since October 2006, i.e., far longer than the required five years. See Attachment 1. 17, While working in Washington, D.C., I registered to vote in that jurisdiction in 2010 and voted there several times between 2010 and 2014. 18, Although I have been registered to vote in Maryland and D.C., I have never voted ‘in more than one jurisdiction in the same election. It is my understanding that being registered to vote in more than one jurisdiction is neither uncommon nor improper. 19. Tam not aware of any provision of Maryland law that would allow anyone to terminate my registration or remove me from the state’s voter registration list because I registered. to vote or voted outside of Maryland.20. Consistent with this, my Maryland voter registration has, in fact, at no point been terminated, nor have I ever been removed from Maryland’s voter registration list at any point for any length of time. 21. Hence, I have been a registered voter in Maryland without interruption for more than the constitutionally-required five years immediately preceding next year’s general election. Marvland Resideney 22. In October 2009, my mother and I purchased an apartment in Washington, D.C., partly because of the long hours 1 was keeping in D.C. and partly as an investment. I never intended that dwelling to be a permanent residence, and it has never performed that function 23. have had the privilege over my career to study, work, and live in a number of places, but I have never intended to acquire a new permanent residence outside Maryland or abandon my residency here. 24, Even when I worked in Washington, D.C,, I still spent many weekends and some ‘weeknights in Catonsville helping my parents, who by then were both in their mid-70s. 25. The apartment served as a convenient dwelling and after long days and nights at ‘work, I was grateful to have a place nearby. Even then, most of my personal belongings remained at my home in Catonsville, including most of my clothing, furniture, artwork, personal and professional records, books, and a lot of shoes. 26. _ Inaddition, I maintained numerous other ties to Maryland while I worked and had an apartment in Washington, D.C., which confirm that I did not intend to acquire a new permanent residence or abandon my lifelong home. Examples dating back at least five years include: a. Thad much of my personal and professional mail detivered to my home in Maryland, including my personal cell phone bill and credit card and bank statements, even while I worked in Washington, D.C. I have also always kept my personal cellphone with a Maryland “410” area code.b. Beginning in 1999, I have maintained my bank account with the Municipal Employees Credit Union (MECU), a Baltimore bank with no locations in Washington, D.C. Since 2011, Thave also maintained a safe deposit box for personal valuables like jewelry at the Bank of America next to my home in Catonsville. ©. On December 17, 2009, Iwas swom into the Maryland Bar. I have never been a member of the D.C. Bar or the Bar of any other jurisdiction. 4d. I received healthcare at locations convenient to my home in Catonsville, even for the years I worked in D.C. I regularly saw a dentist at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry in Baltimore City, where I had an unforgettable root canal in 2013 . The optometrist at the Sam’s Club in Catonsville performed my eye exams and fitted me for contact lenses. I purchased several sets of glasses from the Catonsville Walmart. I filled my prescriptions at the Giant grocery store pharmacy on Route 40. £. My OBIGYN before and during my pregnancy practiced at Johns Hopkins Greenspring Station, right off 695, My daughter’s pediatrician is located in Columbia, Maryland. 8. Ido not go as often as I should, but no less than a dozen times a year, I attended services at the Murugan Temple in Lanham, Maryland, the same temple where I worshiped and prayed as a child. 27. After eft the White House, I created Generation Impact LLC, a small consulting firm that I registered in Maryland in February 2017 with my Catonsville address. 28. In May 2016, I was married along the waters of the Choptank River in Cambridge, Maryland; my marriage was recorded in Dorchester County; and we celebrated with a homecoming reception back in Catonsville. 29. This past June, our daughter was born at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 30. After her arrival, we bought a new home in July in Gaithersburg, Maryland, I will raise my daughter in the same state where I myself was raised and went to school, where every ‘member of my immediate family lives, and where I intend to grow old. 31. Thave been blessed with many opportunities to study and work in places across the country and around the world, and to serve my country in our nation’s capital alongside two of the‘greatest women in American history, First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton, In every case, have always intended to retum to my home in Maryland. And I always have. I solemaly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Prish. Vagnanayol Krishanti Vignarajah October 6, 2017KEVIN KAMENETZ KATIE A, BROWN, Director County Bene rdf ons VOTING RECORD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES APPEAR ON THE REGISTRIES OF THE _01 DISTRICT __03 PRECINCT OF BALTIMORE. COUNTY, MARYLAND: NAME: KRISHANTI VIGNARAJAH RESIDENCE: IMMUpper Mills Cir, Baltimore, MD 21228-2413 DATE OF BIRTH: 09/16/1979 QUALIFIED VOTER: Yes DATE OF REGISTRATION: 10/17/2006 PARTY AFFILIATION (IF ANY): Democrat VOTER LD #: 750079460 REMARKS: 11/08/2016 DATE September 27, 2017 BALTIMORE COUNTY SEAL BOARD OF ELECTION 11112 Gilroy Ra Suite 104 | Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031-1328 | Phone 410-887-5700 | Fax 410-887-0894 | TTY 410-744-7602 ‘www: baltimorecountymd govelections