Opinion by Eldridge, J.

We issued a writ of certiorari in this case to determine the validity of several provisions of the Maryland Election Code which prescribe the manner in which a minor political party nominates its candidates for offices other than United States President and Vice President.

I.

As this case comes to us on appeal from a grant of the respondents' motion for summary judgment, we shall set forth the facts in the light most favorable to the petitioners. Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 695, 785 A.2d 726, 728-729 (2001), and cases there cited. Nevertheless, there do not appear to be any disputed factual issues which are material to our decision in this case.

On August 16, 2000, the Green Party qualified as a statutorily-recognized "political party" in Maryland, after satisfying all of the requirements of Article 33, § 4-102. These requirements included, inter alia, submitting a petition supporting the recognition of the Green Party bearing at least 10,000 signatures. See § 4-102(b)(2)(i). Those who signed this party-forming petition were neither required to be affiliated as Green Party members nor obligated to support future Green Party candidates.

The Green Party then sought to nominate David M. Gross as its candidate for the November 2000 election for the United States House of Representatives in Maryland's first congressional district. Although the Election Code sets forth three procedures for a political party to nominate its candidates, the Green Party was limited to nomination via a second petition signed by at least 1% of the total number of registered voters in that congressional district. This limitation was essentially the product of two factors: first, the Green Party was not a "principal political party," and, second, less than 1% of Maryland's voters were registered as members of the Green Party.

On August 7, 2000, the Dave Gross for Congress campaign submitted a timely nominating petition containing 4,214 signatures of voters purporting to be registered in Maryland's first congressional district. On August 23, 2000, however, the Board notified the Green Party that Mr. Gross's name would not be included on the general election ballot because the nominating petition requirements had not been satisfied. The Board claimed that it could verify only 3,081 valid signatures, fewer than the 3,411 required by Maryland's 1% nomination petition requirement. A number of reasons were set forth by the Board for subtracting more than 1,100 signatures. Among these reasons, the Board claimed that many signatures were by "inactive" voters.

On September 5, 2000, the Green Party filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County alleging that several of Maryland's ballot access restrictions are unconstitutional. The Party sought declaratory and injunctive relief, relying, inter alia, on the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the Green Party asserted that the Board's actions deprived the Green Party, the plaintiff voters, and the plaintiff candidate, of their rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under various provisions of the Maryland Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The Party also argued that such requirements violate international law and treaties of the United States. In addition, the Green Party sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Maryland's ballot access restrictions on third-party candidates and an order requiring the Board to place Mr. Gross's name on the ballot for the November 2000 general election.

After a hearing on September 8, 2000, the Circuit Court denied the Green Party's motions for interim relief. The election then proceeded, with this case being placed on the regular docket of the Circuit Court. After filing its answer, the Board then filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. The Board argued that the case should be dismissed as moot because the election had already been held. In the alternative, the Board claimed that summary judgment in its favor was appropriate because there were no genuine issues of material fact. The Board argued that, as a matter of law, it was entitled to a declaration that (a) the Board's petition-validation procedures and the Board's actions in refusing to place Mr. Gross' name on the ballot were fully consistent with Maryland's election laws and (b) that the Board's actions were not in violation of any rights granted to the Green Party under Maryland or federal law.

On February 28, 2001, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County held that the Green Party's request for declaratory relief was not moot since the issues were "`capable of repetition, yet evading review,'" quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n. 8, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1282 n. 8, 39 L.Ed.2d 714, 727-728 n. 8 (1974). Accordingly, the Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Board, declaring that the Green Party "has not shown that Maryland's election laws are unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Constitution, Maryland Constitution, or various international treaties. . . ." The Circuit Court stated that, "[s]ince requirements more stringent than Maryland's requirement have been upheld, as a matter of law, Maryland's 1% requirement is constitutional."

The Green Party appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, but this Court issued a writ of certiorari prior to consideration of the case by the intermediate appellate court. Green Party v. Board of Elections, 365 Md. 472, 781 A.2d 778 (2001). We shall reverse the Circuit Court's judgment and remand the case to the Circuit Court for the entry of a declaratory judgment in accordance with this opinion.

II.

Numerous issues under the federal and state constitutions have been debated by the parties both in the Circuit Court and in this Court. We need not and shall not decide any of the issues raised under the federal constitution or federal law. Our holdings in this case, that certain provisions in the Maryland Election Code and practices by the Board are invalid, shall be based entirely upon Article I of the Maryland Constitution and Articles 7 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. See Dua v. Comcast Cable, 370 Md. 604, 618 n. 6, 805 A.2d 1061, 1069-1070 n. 6 (2002) ("As pointed out in Frankel v. Board of Regents, 361 Md. 298, 313-314 n. 3, 761 A.2d 324, 332 n. 3 (2000), by not reaching the federal constitutional issues `we do not suggest that the result in this case would be any different if the sole issue were whether the [statutes] violated the federal Constitution. `We simply are making it clear that our decision is based exc1usively upon the [Maryland Constitution] and is in no way dependent upon the federal [Constitution]. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3476, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201, 1214 (1983); Perry v. State, 357 Md. 37, 86 n. 11, 741 A.2d 1162, 1189 n. 11 (1999)."

III.

An important issue raised in this case, but not covered by the Circuit Court's declaratory judgment, concerns the "inactive" voters whose signatures were not counted. The Board acknowledges that it invalidated numerous signatures by "inactive" voters, that is, formerly registered voters whose names had been placed on "inactive voter registration" lists. The precise number of these invalidations is not disclosed by the record.

The Board's purported authority for disqualifying the signatures stems from the Election Code and the Board's corresponding regulations in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). These provisions create two voter registries for any particular area: one for active voters and another for "inactive" voters. They further provide that anyone whose name appears on the inactive voter registry will not have his or her signature counted if it appears on a petition. Moreover, Art. 33, § 1-101 (gg), states that the term "registered voter" in the Election Code "does not include an individual whose name is on the list of inactive voters." Some of these provisions, and the Board's practices in applying them, are inconsistent with the voter qualifications and the right to vote set forth in Article I of the Maryland Constitution and Articles 7 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Before addressing in detail the Election Code provisions and the Board's practices, we shall first review some of the state constitutional requirements.

A.

The Maryland Constitution prescribes the exclusive and uniform qualifications for being on the list of registered voters and being entitled to vote. The right to vote is conferred upon any United States citizen, age eighteen or older, who is a Maryland resident, and who is not disqualified by a criminal conviction or mental disability. Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights emphasizes that "every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution" has "the right of suffrage." Furthermore, Article I, § 1, mandates that, once entitled to vote in the election district of his or her residence, a qualified voter remains entitled to vote in that district until he or she "shall have acquired a residence in another election district. . . ."

Article I, § 1, of the Constitution and Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights underscore three significant points applicable to the instant case. First, the right to vote is not subject to expiration for voter inactivity or for any other non-constitutional qualification. Second, a qualified voter who moves from one residence to another within the same election district remains fully qualified. Third, a qualified voter who may be in the process of moving from one election district into another remains qualified to vote in his or her original district until the change in domicile is fully effective. See, e.g., Kemp v. Owens, 76 Md. 235, 242, 24 A. 606, 608 (1892) (Bryan, J. concurring) ("A voter who has resided six months in a legislative district . . . and then moves into another legislative district cannot vote in this second district until he has resided therein for the space of six months; but in the meantime he is a legal voter in the district from which he removed"). See also Oglesby v. Williams, 372 Md. 360, 812 A.2d 1061 (2002) (the constitutional requirement of residence for political or voting purposes is one of a place of fixed, present domicile, which, once established, is presumed to continue until superseded by a new domicile).

Article I, § 2, of the Maryland Constitution requires the General Assembly to provide a system of "uniform Registration" of the names of all qualified voters. Specifically, § 2 imposes three important limitations on the creation and management of the voter registry. First, it commands the General Assembly to create the registry under the specific terms set forth in the section. Second, it requires a uniform registration of the names of all the voters possessing the qualifications set forth in § 1 and not disqualified under § 4. Finally, it states that such registration "shall be conclusive evidence" of the registered voter's right to vote. Thus, § 2 contemplates a single registry for a particular area, containing the names of all qualified voters, leaving the General Assembly no discretion to decide who may or may not be listed therein, no discretion to create a second registry for "inactive" voters, and no authority to decree that an "inactive" voter is not a "registered voter" with all the rights of a registered voter. Furthermore, § 2 provides that, once registered, the registration shall be "conclusive" evidence of the right to vote. In other words, the Maryland Constitution does not require anything more from the voter on election day. If the Board later discovers that the voter has voted illegally, § 5 calls for criminal penalties.

Disqualification from the right to vote in Maryland is limited to voters who either are convicted of infamous or other serious crimes or who are under care or guardianship for a mental disability. See, e.g., State v. Bixler, 62 Md. 354 (1884) (holding that this section refers to such crimes that were "infamous" at common law). Nowhere in Article I does it state or suggest that voting rarely, sporadically, or infrequently, are grounds for being stricken from the uniform registry.

In State Administrative Board of Election Laws v. Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore City, 342 Md. 586, 679 A.2d 96 (1996) (hereinafter referred to as " SABEL"), this Court declared unequivocally that being a frequent or active voter is not a valid requirement for voting in Maryland. The SABEL case dealt with a change in Maryland's Election Code from the repealed Art. 33, § 3-20, which had directed local boards to purge inactive voters annually, to its replacement, § 3-17A, which limited removal from voter rolls to cases where the voter (a) requested to be removed, or (b) was ineligible under Article I, § 4, of the Maryland Constitution, or (c) had died, or (d) had moved away. See SABEL, 342 Md. at 589-591, notes 1-2, 679 A.2d at 97-99 notes 1-2.

Referring to the qualifications listed in Article I, § 1, of the Maryland Constitution, and the limitations listed in Article I, § 4, the SABEL opinion stated (342 Md. at 599, 679 A.2d at 102):

"These prerequisites are the exclusive qualifications for voting in Maryland. See Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (`every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage'); Jackson v. Norris, 173 Md. 579, 594, 195 A. 576, 584 (1937); Kemp v. Owens, 76 Md. 235, 24 A. 606 (1892). See also Board v. Goodsell, 284 Md. 279, 283, 396 A.2d 1033, 1035 (1978). Moreover, the General Assembly may neither expand nor curtail the qualifications necessary to vote. See, e.g., Langhammer v. Munter, 80 Md. 518, 527, 31 A. 300, 301-302 (1895) (`But whatever may be done, no restrictions can be imposed that will require other or different qualifications for voting, than those prescribed by the first Article of the Constitution of the State'); Southerland v. Norris, 74 Md. 326, 328, 22 A. 137, 137 (1891) (`These qualifications [for voting in Maryland], fixed by the organic law, can neither be enlarged nor curtailed by the General Assembly')."

Accordingly, we continued, "having voted frequently in the past is not a qualification for voting and, under the Maryland Constitution, could not be a qualification." SABEL, supra, 342 Md. at 599, 679 A.2d at 102. The SABEL opinion then emphasized that "the sole purpose of former § 3-20, as well as present § 3-17A, was to set forth a procedure or remedy by which election boards could remove from the voter registration rolls the names of persons who had died, moved away, or incurred a voting disability under Article I, § 4, of the [Maryland] Constitution." Ibid. We further stated that § 3-17A was a more narrowly tailored procedure than the one set forth in former § 3-20. See 342 Md. at 599-600, 679 A.2d at 102.

These conclusions were reiterated by this Court the following year, in Gisriel v. Ocean City Elections Board, 345 Md. 477, 502-503, 693 A.2d 757, 770 (1997). In that case, a group of citizens filed a petition to bring a zoning ordinance to referendum, but the local election board determined that the petition lacked the requisite number of signatures. In a reversal of roles, it was the persons filing the petition, not the Board, who argued that inactive voters should be stricken from the rolls in order to lower the total number of registered voters, making it easier for their petition to meet the 20% signature requirement. The Court squarely rejected their argument, relying upon our earlier decision in SABEL, supra, 342 Md. 586, 679 A.2d 96, and stating that, "[i]n no event should [the inactive voters'] names be removed from the voter registration list." Gisriel v. Ocean City Elections Board, supra, 345 Md. at 504, 693 A.2d at 770.

B.

Against this background, however, the Maryland Election Code provides for a separate inactive voter registration list and sanctions removal from that registry for voters whose names have remained on the inactive voter registration list for a specified period of time. As earlier mentioned, Title 1 of the Election Code, in § 1-101(gg), excludes an individual whose name appears on the inactive voter registry from the definition of "registered voter." Section 1-101(gg) is obviously inconsistent with Article I, §§ 1 and 2, of the Maryland Constitution, and Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights, which set forth the qualifications for voters and provide for a single uniform voter registration list which is conclusive evidence of the right to vote. This is significant in the present case because § 6-203(b), addressing validation of petitions, states that "[t]he signature of an individual shall be validated and counted if . . . [t]he individual is a registered voter in the county specified." Since persons on the "inactive" voter registry are not deemed registered voters, their signatures are not counted.

Title 3 of the Election Code, which addresses voter registration generally, states that registration is permanent unless it is cancelled pursuant to the provisions of Title 3. See § 3-101(d)(2). Section 3-502 lists the circumstances under which an election official may remove a voter from the registry. Under that section, a voter may be removed only if the voter requests to be removed, is ineligible under the disqualifications enumerated in § 3-102(b), has died, or has moved away.

The circumstances set forth in § 3-502 are constitutionally valid bases for removal from the voter registration list. Nonetheless, the Board's practice of creating a separate "inactive voter" registration for voters whom it suspects might have moved out of an election district, and the Board's subsequent removal of such "inactive voters" from that registration list without affirmative proof that the voter has, in fact, moved to a different election district, cannot be squared with the constitutional provisions.

As was represented in oral arguments before us, the local boards customarily mail out a sample ballot to registered voters prior to an election. If the sample ballot is returned by the postal service, this prompts the local board to send the voter in question a "confirmation notice" under § 3-504(c). In relevant part, § 3-504(c) states:

"(c) Change of address outside the county. — If it appears from information provided by the postal service or an agency specified in § 3-505(b) . . . that a voter has moved to a different address outside the county, the election director shall send the voter a confirmation notice informing the voter of his or her potential inactive status as described in subsection (f) of this section."

Although the above-quoted statute provides for the sending of a confirmation notice only when the postal service provides information that the voter has moved outside the county, at oral argument we were informed that, in practice, a confirmation notice may be sent whenever the sample ballot is returned by the postal service.

Under § 3-504(f)(1), a voter's failure to respond to the confirmation notice triggers his or her placement on the "inactive voter" registration list. Once placed on the inactive voter registration list, the voter must then submit a written affirmation that he or she in fact remains a resident of the same county in order to be allowed to vote and in order to be restored to the regular voter registration list. See § 3-504(f)(2). Without such a written affirmation, if the voter simply fails to vote in the next two elections, the now-inactive voter is removed from the inactive voter registration list. Regardless of such voter's constitutional qualifications under Article I, § 1, he or she is removed from both registration lists. Thus, § 3-504(f)(3) provides:

"(f) Inactive list. —

* * *

"(3) An inactive voter who fails to vote in an election in the period ending with the second general election shall be removed from the registry."

This language is reiterated in § 3-504(e)(2), addressing the local election director's discretion to remove a voter from the registry:

"(e) Removal from registry. — The election director may not remove a voter from the registry on the grounds of a change of address unless:

(1) The voter confirms in writing that the voter has changed residence to a location outside the county in which the voter is registered; or

(2)(i) The voter has failed to respond to the confirmation notice; and

(ii) The voter has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, corrected the record of the voter's address) in an election during the period beginning with the date of the notice through the next two general elections."

Nevertheless, under Title 3, subtitle 6 of the Election Code, which deals with the resolution of registration disputes and challenges, a presumption arises that a voter is properly registered unless there is affirmative proof to show otherwise. Section 3-602(e)(2) states (emphasis added):

"(e) Hearing decision. — * * *

(2) An individual may not be removed from the registry unless the individual's ineligibility is substantiated by affirmative proof. In the absence of such proof, the presumption shall be that the individual is properly registered."

This presumption is reiterated in § 3-603(c), which addresses judicial review of a decision rendered in a hearing by a local board. That section provides (emphasis added):

"(c) Determination of residency. — In determining whether an individual is or is not a resident of an election district or precinct, the presumption shall be that an individual shown to have acquired a residence in one locality retains that residence until it is affirmatively shown that the individual has acquired a residence elsewhere."

These presumptions reflect the mandate in Article I, § 1, of the Constitution, that "[a] person once entitled to vote in any election district, shall be entitled to vote there until he shall have acquired a residence in another election district or ward in this State."

There is an obvious conflict between the passive form of "proof" that the local boards rely on, under §§ 3-504(e) and (f), to place individuals on inactive voter registration lists and ultimately to remove them from any voter registration list, and the requirement for affirmative proof of the voter's change in residence set forth in §§ 3-602(e)(2) and 3-603(c).

It is not difficult to think of situations where the present confirmation notice practice to "prove" that voters have moved out of an election district could go awry. Under the current practice, confirmation notices are sent whenever the postal service returns a sample ballot. But the sample ballot might be returned because the voter has moved to another residence in the same election district, or is on vacation, or refuses to accept the mailed material, or for other reasons. Similarly, the confirmation notices may go unanswered for any number of legitimate reasons, including the voter being elsewhere on vacation, mistaking the notice for election-related campaign literature or junk mail and not reading it, or simply forgetting to respond to it. Interestingly, § 3-504(e), discussed supra, limits an election director's discretion to remove a voter from the registry on the grounds of a change of address to two alternative scenarios. Under the first scenario, described in § 3-504(e)(1), the director may remove a voter who confirms in writing that he or she has changed his or her residence to a location outside the county in which he or she was originally registered. This would satisfy the requirement for affirmative proof of a change in domicile. The second scenario under § 3-504(e) (2), however, authorizes a voter's removal for inaction which might be caused by numerous factors other than moving to a different election district.

In addition to the threat of being wholly disenfranchised, an inactive voter will not be counted as part of the registry nor will his or her signature be counted for the purpose of verifying petition signatures. In addition to the previously mentioned effect of § 1-101(gg), §§ 3-504(f)(4) and (5) provide:

"(f) Inactive list. —

* * *

"(4) Individuals whose names have been placed on the inactive list may not be counted as part of the registry.

"(5) Registrants placed on the inactive list shall be counted only for purposes of voting and not for official administrative purposes as petition signature verification. . . ."

Therefore, §§ 1-101(gg) and 3-504(f) creates a group of "second-class citizens" comprised of persons who are "inactive" voters and thus not eligible to sign petitions. Not only does this scheme violate Article I of the Maryland Constitution, but it also seems flatly inconsistent with the equal protection component of Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights, which we discuss in some detail in Part IV of this opinion, infra. In addition, see Board v. Goodsell, 284 Md. 279, 288-293, 396 A.2d 1033, 1038-1040 (1979); O. C. Taxpayers v. Ocean City, 280 Md. 585, 594-596, 375 A.2d 541, 547-548 (1977).

In addition, the dual registration system and the treatment of inactive voters are antithetical to the thrust of Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which safeguards "the right of the People to participate in the Legislature," the right of "every citizen having the qualifications" of Article I also having "the right of suffrage," as well as ensuring that "elections . . . be free and frequent." As the Green Party correctly points out, Article 7 has been held to be even more protective of rights of political participation than the provisions of the federal Constitution. See, e.g., Jackson v. Norris, 173 Md. 579, 195 A. 576 (1937) (protecting the right to vote for the candidate of one's choice by requiring that there be a space on the ballot in which a voter may write the name of his choice). See also Munsell v. Hennegan, 182 Md. 15, 22, 31 A.2d 640, 644 (1943) ("The weight of authority . . . is that electors should have the fullest opportunity to vote for candidates of any political party, and while this right, in cases where the public furnishes the ballots, may be restricted by the dictates of common sense, and by considerations of convenience in the size of the ballots, and by considerations of excessive costs, such restrictions will not be upheld when they are destructive of freedom of choice by the voters"). It seems clear that, if the only method left open for the members of a political party to choose their candidates is via petition, then the right to have one's signature counted on a nominating petition is integral to that political party member's right of suffrage. There is no constitutional reason why a once-qualified registered voter, who chooses not to vote frequently, should find his or her right to take part in the nomination process curtailed.

Moreover, for the same reasons that we have held unconstitutional §§ 1-101(gg), 3-504(e)(2), 3-504(f)(1), 3-504(f)(3), 3-504(f)(4), and 3-504(f)(5), we also invalidate COMAR 33.05.07.03(D) (2002). Section 6-207(b) of the Election Code authorizes the State Board to promulgate regulations to establish a process for verifying petition signatures. Under regulation .03(B), a voter who is rendered "inactive" by the Board's assumption that the voter moved out of his or her election district may become reinstated for voting purposes by listing the original address next to his or her signature on a nominating petition. See COMAR 33.05.07.03(B). Nevertheless, despite the voter's reinstatement into the "active" registry, regulation .03(D) cautions that "[i]n all events, the signature of the inactive voter may not be counted for purposes of the petition itself." COMAR 33.05.07.03(D). Hence, a constitutionally-qualified voter can, by signing a nominating petition, confirm that his or her address never changed, but cannot have his or her signature counted by reason of the Board's mistaken assumption that the address did change. As stated above, eliminating a qualified voter's only option to nominate a candidate is not consistent with state constitutional requirements.

Furthermore, the practice of having a separate registry of inactive voters invites unnecessary confusion and the specter of statistical manipulation. If inactive voters are not counted for petition purposes, then consistency would demand that they cannot be counted among the total number of voters which the percentage signature requirement is based upon. But cf. Gisriel v. Ocean City Elections Board, supra, 345 Md. 477, 693 A.2d 757 . For instance, if the total number of registered voters in an election district is 11,000, but 1000 of these voters are on the inactive registration list, then a one percent signature requirement would apparently direct a petition-circulator to obtain 100 signatures, or 1% of 10,000. On the other hand, if inactive voters' names are permitted to appear on petitions, then, in the example above, the circulator must collect 110 signatures to meet the requirement of 1% of 11,000. Moreover, since state election officials transmit voter turnout statistics in terms of a percentage of the active voter turnout only, this can lead to bizarre outcomes, such as having a voter turnout of more than 100%. See Larry Carson, " Inactives" Don't Figure in State's Voter Count, Balt. Sun, Nov. 13, 2002, at 1B. This confusion would not arise if the Board maintained one uniform registry, as required by Article I, § 2, of the Maryland Constitution.

In conclusion, we stress that the Maryland Constitution sets forth the exclusive qualifications and restrictions on the right to vote in the State of Maryland. The Legislature may not impose additional qualifications or restrictions by requiring voters to cast their votes frequently. Nor may the Board regulate the registry to effect such unconstitutional ends. Additionally, insofar as a minor political party's only option to nominate a candidate is through the process of submitting nomination petitions, a scheme which improperly invalidates a registered voter's signature on a nominating petition unconstitutionally infringes on the right of suffrage guaranteed to all qualified voters by Article I of the Maryland Constitution and Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that any statutory provision or administrative regulation which treats "inactive" voters differently from "active" voters is invalid.

IV. A.

The Green Party does not contend that the 1% signature requirement for a candidate nominating petition alone is unconstitutional. Rather, the Green Party urges that the combination of requirements applicable to minor political parties does not pass constitutional muster. Among other things, the Green Party argues that, by requiring only minor political parties to make a double-showing of support, Maryland's Election Code creates a discriminatory classification in violation of equal protection principles under both the federal and Maryland constitutions. The Green Party asserts that, once a group has submitted the required 10,000 signatures to receive official recognition as a political party, it has demonstrated a "significant modicum of support" and no further showing of support should be necessary for the name of a minor political party's candidate to be on the ballot.

The Board asserts that the Green Party's challenge is "virtually identical" to the challenge brought in Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971) (upholding a 5% signature requirement on a candidate-nominating petition), and that "the Green Party has cited no case disputing the essential holding in that case — that a state may constitutionally require . . . [a] minor party candidate to demonstrate a significant modicum of public support, in the form of a nominating petition bearing signatures of 5% of the relevant electorate, before placing the candidate's name on the ballot." (Respondents' brief at 16-17). The Board argues that this case is governed by Jenness and that, therefore, the Board is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The Board has not called to our attention any opinion by this Court which supports the result it seeks.

The Circuit Court in the case at bar applied the analysis set forth in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1569, 75 L.Ed.2d 547, 557 (1983), and relied on other United States Supreme Court precedents upholding nominating petition requirements. The requirements in those cases, however, are quite distinguishable from the scheme in the instant case. The Circuit Court in this case reasoned as follows (some internal citations omitted, and parallel citations added):

" Anderson states that there must be some regulation of elections `if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.' Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1569, 75 L.Ed.2d 547, 557 (1983). Likewise, the state has a right to require candidates to make a preliminary showing of substantial support. See Anderson, supra, 460 U.S. at 788 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. at 1570 n. 9, 75 L.Ed.2d at 557 n. 9. `It is both wasteful and confusing to encumber the ballot with the names of frivolous candidates.' Ibid. The state's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulations. See Anderson, supra, 460 U.S. at 788, 103 S.Ct. 1570, 75 L.Ed.2d at 557.

"Administrative convenience readily falls under the rubric of a state's `regulatory interests,' the importance of which the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized. Wood v. Meadows, 207 F.3d 708, 715 (4th Cir. 2000). The Court has expressly approved a state's interest in limiting the number of candidates on the ballot. Id. The state's important interest in showing public support along with limiting confusion has been repeatedly held as legitimate and even compelling. These interests have supported nominating petition requirements similar to or more stringent than Maryland's 1% requirement. See California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 120 S.Ct. 2402, 147 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000).

* * *

"Maryland's ballot access requirement of 1% is less stringent than what has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. See American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974) (Demanding signatures equal in number to 3% or 5% of the vote in the last election is not invalid on its face). The Supreme Court, in Jenness v. Fortson, upheld Georgia's petition requirement of 5%. The Court stated that, while 5% may be somewhat higher than what is required in other states, when coupled with the fact that Georgia has imposed no arbitrary restrictions upon the eligibility of any registered voter to sign a petition, that number is constitutional. Jenness, 403 U.S. at 438-439, 442, 91 S.Ct. at 1974, 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d at 560-561, 562. Plaintiffs have not alleged that any other provision of the Maryland election law is unconstitutional except for the 1% petition requirement. Since requirements more stringent than Maryland's requirement have been upheld, as a matter of law, Maryland's 1% requirement is constitutional."

The Board claims that Jenness and its progeny are "precisely on point." We disagree. The statutory scheme challenged in Jenness is clearly distinguishable from Maryland's requirements for the nomination of minor political party candidates. Under Georgia's election statute, there was no need for a fledgling political group to submit an initial party-forming petition in order to become a recognized "political body." If a political group had not garnered 20% or more of the vote in the previous state-wide election, it was automatically granted the status of being a recognized "political body" and could choose its candidates by petition. As Justice Stewart explained in Jenness, supra, 403 U.S. at 433, 91 S.Ct. at 1971-1972, 29 L.Ed.2d at 557-558 (emphasis supplied and footnotes omitted):

"The basic structure of the pertinent provisions of the Georgia Election Code is relatively uncomplicated. Any political organization whose candidate received 20% or more of the vote at the most recent gubernatorial or presidential election is a `political party.' Any other political organization is a `political body.' `Political parties' conduct primary elections, regulated in detail by state law, and only the name of the candidate for each office who wins this primary election is printed on the ballot at the subsequent general election, as his party's nominee for the office in question. A nominee of a `political body' . . . on the other hand, may have his name printed on the ballot at the general election by filing a nominating petition. This petition must be signed by `a number of electors of not less than five per cent. of the total number of electors eligible to vote in the last election for the filling of the office the candidate is seeking. . . .'"

As pointed out above, the Green Party's challenge involves more than just an objection to the 1% nominating petition requirement alone. The Green Party challenges the combination of requirements applicable to minor political parties, maintaining that, even if the State has a legitimate interest in showing public support and limiting confusion on the ballot, these interests are satisfied by submitting the initial party-forming petition signed by 10,000 Maryland voters.

B.

In our view, the Election Code's two-tiered petitioning requirement for minor parties discriminates against minor political parties in violation of the equal protection component of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. As earlier discussed, we shall not address the federal constitutional issues debated by the parties.

Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights states as follows:

"That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land."

In Frankel v. Board of Regents, supra, 361 Md. at 313, 761 A.2d at 332, we stated that "`[a]lthough Article 24 does not contain an express equal protection clause, the concept of equal protection nevertheless is embodied in the Article,'" quoting Renko v. McLean, 346 Md. 464, 482, 697 A.2d 468, 477 (1997). See also State Administrative Board of Election Laws v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 342 Md. at 594 n. 6, 679 A.2d at 100 n. 6; Gilchrist v. State, 340 Md. 606, 623 n. 3, 667 A.2d 876, 884 n. 3 (1995); Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 101 n. 17, 660 A.2d 447, 462 n. 17 (1995); Maryland Aggregates v. State, 337 Md. 658, 671-672 n. 8, 655 A.2d 886, 893 n. 8, cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1111, 115 S.Ct. 1965, 131 L.Ed.2d 856 (1995); Verzi v. Baltimore County, 333 Md. 411, 417, 635 A.2d 967, 969-970 (1994); Lawrence v. State, 295 Md. 557, 560, 457 A.2d 1127, 1128 (1983); Attorney General v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683, 704, 426 A.2d 929, 940-941 (1981); Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Goodsell, supra, 284 Md. at 293 n. 7, 396 A.2d at 1040 n. 7; Governor v. Exxon Corp., 279 Md. 410, 438 n. 8, 370 A.2d 1102, 1118, n. 8 (1977) aff'd, 437 U.S. 117, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 57 L.Ed.2d 91 (1978); Bruce v. Dir., Chesapeake Bay Aff., 261 Md. 585, 600, 276 A.2d 200, 208 (1971).

Moreover, "the `federal and state guarantees of equal protection are obviously independent and capable of divergent application.'" Frankel v. Board of Regents, supra, 361 Md. at 313, 761 A.2d at 332, quoting Maryland Aggregates v. State, supra, 337 Md. at 671-672 n. 8, 655 A.2d at 893 n. 8 (internal citations omitted). See also Dua v. Comcast Cable of Md., Inc., supra, 370 Md. at 621, 805 A.2d at 1071 ("[W]e have also emphasized that, simply because a Maryland constitutional provision is in pari materia with a federal one or has a federal counterpart, does not mean that the provision will always be interpreted or applied in the same manner as its federal counterpart"); Verzi v. Baltimore County, supra, 333 Md. at 417, 635 A.2d at 970 ("We have consistently recognized that the federal Equal Protection Clause and the Article 24 guarantee of equal protection of the laws are complementary but independent, and `a discriminatory classification may be an unconstitutional breach of the equal protection doctrine under the authority of Article 24 alone,'" quoting Attorney General v. Waldron, supra, 289 Md. at 715, 426 A.2d at 947); Kirsch v. Prince George's County, 331 Md. 89, 97, 626 A.2d 372, 376, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1011, 114 S.Ct. 600, 126 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) ("the two provisions [the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Article 24] are independent of one another, and a violation of one is not necessarily a violation of the other").

Under the present statutory scheme, a candidate from one of the two "principal political parties" is deemed to have a significant modicum of support, regardless of the voter turnout at the party's primary election. For instance, if a Democrat runs unopposed in the Democratic Party's primary election, he or she will become the Democratic candidate on the general election ballot even if that candidate receives only one vote at the primary. The Maryland statutes provide that candidate nomination by primary is only available to two political parties: the "political party whose candidate for Governor received the highest number of votes . . . at the last preceding general election" and to the "political party whose candidate for Governor received the second highest number of votes . . . at the last preceding general election." See supra n. 5; § 8-202(a)(1)(i) and §§ 1-101(ee), (w), and (dd). Therefore, the requisite "significant modicum of support" for a principal political party's candidate is derivative of his or her party's support at the last preceding general election. This is so even if the principal political party's current candidate is new to the political scene or did not run in the last preceding general election. The candidate of a "principal party" does not have to show any personal "modicum of support" to be on the general election ballot; the "modicum of support" is the prior support of the party itself.

On the other hand, primary elections are completely closed to minor political parties, and nomination by convention is limited to minor political parties who can establish that 1% of Maryland's registered voters are affiliated with the minor party. Therefore, the only option left for other minor political party candidates to be nominated is by petition signed by not less than 1% of the total number of registered voters who are eligible to vote for the office for which the nomination by petition is sought. See § 5-703(e).

The requisite 1% showing of support is in addition to the initial showing of support which the minor political party has already demonstrated upon submitting its party-forming petition containing the signatures of 10,000 voters. Unlike the candidate of a principal political party whose "significant modicum of support" is based on his or her party's support at the last preceding gubernatorial election, the minor party's candidate may not derive the required quantum of support from his or her party's support in its party-formation petition. And, unlike the unaffiliated, independent candidate who must only submit one petition signed by 1% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office in question, see § 5-701(2)(ii), a minor political party must submit two separate petitions before it can run a candidate for office in a general election.

The Board attempts to explain this discrepancy by stating (respondents' brief at 8, 22-23, emphasis added):

"Even though the Green Party submitted more than 10,000 valid signatures of Maryland voters who agreed to support the recognition of the Party, this does not mean that . . . any particular Green Party candidate will have the support of a significant number of Maryland voters. Those who signed the party-forming petition were not required to . . . pledge their support for future party candidates.

* * *

"Surely the State of Maryland need not assume that, merely because a potential candidate is endorsed by a small, though recognized, political party, that candidate must necessarily have `a significant modicum of support' among Maryland voters. * * * For these reasons, it is completely reasonable for the State to require a nominating petition to show that any particular candidate of a party with which fewer than 1% of the State's voters are affiliated has a `significant modicum of support.'"

It is, however, equally true that an unopposed Democratic or Republican primary nominee may not necessarily have the support of a significant number of Maryland voters merely because his or her party has chosen that particular candidate to run in his or her party's primary.

As we noted in Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Goodsell, supra, 284 Md. at 286, 396 A.2d at 1036, "[t]he first step in dealing with a contention that a particular classification denies to members of one class the equal protection of the laws is to determine the appropriate standard for reviewing the classification." In Hornbeck v. Somerset County Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 597, 640-641, 458 A.2d 758, 781 (1983), the Court stated:

"It is well recognized that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law is afforded to all persons under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their civil and personal rights. Leonardo v. County Comm., 214 Md. 287, 304, 134 A.2d 284 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 906; Tatlebaum v. Pantex Mfg. Corp., 204 Md. 360, 369, 104 A.2d 813 (1954). Our cases hold that where all persons who are in like circumstances are treated the same under the laws, there is no deprivation of equal protection, but a law which operates upon some persons or corporations, and not upon others like situated or circumstanced, or in the same class, is invalid. Waldron, supra, 289 Md. at 726; Wheeler v. State, 281 Md. 593, 603, 380 A.2d 1052 (1977); Salisbury Beauty Schools v. St. Bd., 268 Md. 32, 60, 300 A.2d 367 (1973).

"We have frequently considered the standard of review to be applied in determining whether the equal protection or equal treatment guarantees of . . . Article 24 have been violated by a challenged enactment. See, e.g., Washabaugh v. Washabaugh, 285 Md. 393, 404 A.2d 1027 (1979); Attorney General v. Johnson, 282 Md. 274, 385 A.2d 57 (1978); Wheeler v. State, supra; Governor v. Exxon Corp., supra; Davidson v. Miller, 276 Md. 54, 344 A.2d 422 (1975); Matter of Trader, 272 Md. 364, 325 A.2d 398 (1974); Bureau of Mines v. George's Creek, supra. Attorney General v. Waldron, supra, affords a concise distillation of the controlling principles. `Strict scrutiny' is required of a legislative classification when it . . . deprives, infringes upon, or interferes with personal rights or interests deemed to be `fundamental.' 289 Md. at 705-06. Laws which are subject to this rigorous standard violate the equal protection guarantee unless the State can demonstrate that the statute is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. Id. at 706."

And in O. C. Taxpayers for Equal Rights, Inc. v. Ocean City, supra, 280 Md. at 594, 375 A.2d at 547, this Court emphasized:

"It is not, however, within the power of a legislative body to make a statutory classification which confers upon one class privileges which are denied to another class, unless the classification, at minimum, has some rational basis. Moreover, we are, of course, here dealing with the right to vote, and thus the classification is subject to some degree of special scrutiny."

See also Hargrove v. Board of Trustees, 310 Md. 406, 416-417, 529 A.2d 1372, 1377 (1987); Broadwater v. State, 306 Md. 597, 602-603, 510 A.2d 583, 585-586 (1986); Attorney General v. Waldron, supra, 289 Md. at 705-706, 426 A.2d at 941; Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Goodsell, supra, 284 Md. at 286, 396 A.2d at 1037.

This Court's decision in Board of Supervisors of Elections v. Goodsell, supra, is particularly helpful in our analysis. That case dealt with a candidate, Vincent F. Goodsell, who desired to run for the office of County Executive of Prince George's County. The Board of Elections for Prince George's County refused to place his name on the ballot, claiming that the County Charter required a County Executive candidate to have been a `qualified' voter of Prince George's County for at least five years immediately preceding his election and that Goodsell had not met this requirement. Although Goodsell had resided within the county for more than five years prior to filing for office, he had been registered to vote there for just over two years. He argued that if the County Charter required that a candidate be a registered voter for the five years immediately preceding the election, then such requirement would violate equal protection principles by discriminating against residents of Prince George's County who had not been registered to vote for five years. The Board argued, inter alia, that the pursuit of public office is not a fundamental right, that, therefore, the rational basis test should apply, and that there was a rational basis for the classification.

Quoting from Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 856, 31 L.Ed.2d 92, 99-100 (1972), the Goodsell Court acknowledged (284 Md. at 287, 396 A.2d at 1037, internal quotations and citations omitted):

"`[T]he rights of voters and the rights of candidates do not lend themselves to neat separation; laws that affect candidates always have at least some theoretical, correlative effect on voters. Of course, not every limitation or incidental burden on the exercise of voting rights is subject to a stringent standard of review. . . . Texas does not place a condition on the exercise of the right to vote, nor does it quantitatively dilute votes that have been cast. Rather, the Texas system creates barriers to candidate access to the primary ballot, thereby tending to limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose. The existence of such barriers does not of itself compel close scrutiny. . . . In approaching candidate restrictions, it is essential to examine in a realistic light the extent and nature of their impact on voters.'

"The [ Bullock] Court then stated that . . . many potential office seekers would as a practical matter be precluded from running for office, that the effect on voters is neither incidental nor remote, and that the voters are substantially limited in their choice of candidates. Because of this impact upon voter choice, the Court concluded that the Texas filing requirements were subject to the same `close scrutiny' test which is applicable to laws placing barriers upon the right to vote."

See also Hargrove v. Board of Trustees, supra, 310 Md. at 426, 529 A.2d at 1382 ("[T]he constitutional right to be a candidate for elective office is a corollary of the constitutional protection of the elective franchise").

As we noted in Goodsell, supra, 284 Md. at 288, 396 A.2d at 1037-1038, "`the extent and nature of the impact on voters, examined in a realistic light, is the key to the' appropriate standard for judicial review," quoting Henderson v. Fort Worth Independent Sch. Dist., 526 F.2d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1976). It seems clear that, not unlike the exorbitant filing fees in Bullock v. Carter, or the five year registration requirement in Goodsell, the double petitioning requirement set forth by the Maryland Election Code denies ballot access to a significant number of minor political party candidates. On that basis, the challenged statutory provisions' impact on voters is substantial. Consequently, the provisions challenged in the instant case must withstand a higher degree of scrutiny than the so-called "rational basis test." It is incumbent upon the Board to show that the two-tiered petitioning requirement imposed upon minor political parties is "`reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of legitimate' governmental objectives, . . . or `necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.'" Goodsell, supra, 284 Md. at 289, 396 A.2d at 1039.

The Board argues that it has "articulated legitimate State interests to justify Maryland's 1% nominating petition requirement. * * * [T]he primary interest served by Maryland's nominating petition requirement is to show public support for the nominee." (Respondents' brief at 29-30). The Board also advances "the State's interest in limiting the number of candidates on the ballot so as to avoid confusion and avoiding a ballot overloaded with the names of `frivolous' candidates having virtually no support among the voters." ( Id. at 30).

These interests, however, are satisfied by the initial party-forming petition requiring 10,000 signatures alone. In this case, the Board required the Green Party to submit an initial petition listing the signatures of 10,000 Maryland voters, followed by a second petition containing less signatures, namely 3,411, representing 1% of the registered voters in the first congressional district. If many of the 10,000 initial petition signers were from the first congressional district, nothing prevents the same voters from signing the second petition. It is difficult to comprehend how the second petitioning requirement adds very much more, in the way of showing public support, to the first petitioning requirement.

Furthermore, an unaffiliated, independent candidate need only submit one petition bearing the signatures of 1% of the registered voters in the district for the office sought, and that single petitioning requirement is deemed to show a sufficient modicum of support. The additional burden of two petitioning requirements for a minor party candidate, and the requirement that a greater modicum of support be shown, is not justifiable.

The 10,000 signature petitioning requirement initially imposed upon minor political parties sufficiently prevents the ballot from being overloaded with "frivolous" candidates. "Regardless, in a democracy, the appropriate judges of which candidates are frivolous, and which candidates have the greater commitment . . . are the voters on election day." Goodsell, supra, 284 Md. at 290, 396 A.2d at 1039.

For the reasons stated above, we hold that the second petitioning requirement applicable to minor political parties' candidates discriminates against those parties and candidates in violation of the equal protection component of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY REVERSED, AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENTS.