Judge Upholds Elections Board, Keeping Stop the Spend Off the November Ballot, Board President Says

Update, September 3, 2026: County Executive Marc Elrich has issued a statement welcoming the ruling, and the Committee to Control Montgomery County Spending has responded, saying it will begin collecting signatures for a 2028 ballot measure. Both are added at the bottom of this story.

A Montgomery County Circuit Court judge has upheld the county elections board’s decision keeping the “Stop the Spend” charter amendment off the November ballot, according to the president of the Board of Elections.

David Naimon, who presides over the board, said in a public post Thursday that Judge Marybeth Ayers ruled in the board’s favor after reviewing disputed signatures individually in court. If the ruling stands, county voters will not decide the spending cap question this November.

After her own thorough review and going through a large number of disputed signatures one-by-one in court today, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Marybeth Ayers just upheld Montgomery County Election Director Boris Brajkovic’s decision keeping Question A off the county ballot for failure to get 10,000 valid signatures.

Naimon added that board members have no role in reviewing petitions, and credited the election director and staff along with the board’s attorneys, Kevin Karpinski and John Karpinski.

A note on sourcing: Naimon’s statement is the basis for this report. Moderately MOCO has not obtained the court’s order, and the ruling was delivered orally from the bench, so no written opinion was available at publication. The Board of Elections is a party to the case. We will update this story as the order and any response from the committee become available.

What the Amendment Would Have Done

The proposed charter amendment, put forward by the Committee to Control Montgomery County Spending, would have tied year-over-year county spending increases to the regional rate of inflation. The county could exceed that rate only if all 11 members of the County Council voted to do so.

How the Count Got to Court

The committee submitted more than 11,000 signatures in July and added roughly 2,500 more later that month, needing 10,000 valid ones to reach the ballot. The verification came down to the final batch of signatures, and on August 17 the elections board determined the petition fell 302 valid signatures short of the threshold.

The committee asked the Circuit Court to overturn that finding. At a hearing Wednesday, its attorney, Joseph Sandler, argued the board had improperly rejected 329 signatures, most of them over problems with the affidavit signed by the petition circulator rather than anything the voter had done wrong. Judge Ayers said she would deliver an oral ruling Thursday morning at the courthouse in Rockville.

What Happens Next

Whether the committee will appeal is not yet known. Moderately MOCO has not yet reached the committee for comment.

One piece of the timing is already fixed. The Maryland State Board of Elections certified the content and arrangement of the November 3 general election ballots on August 31, three days before Thursday’s ruling. What that certification means for any further challenge is not clear from the record, and this story will be updated.

County Executive Welcomes the Ruling

County Executive Marc Elrich welcomed the decision in a statement published Thursday by MoCo Feed. Elrich opposed the charter amendment during the petition drive.

The petition drive failed, and I believe that is the right outcome for Montgomery County. But its supporters have made clear they intend to come back in 2028, so residents deserve to understand exactly what they are being asked to support. Giving any one of 11 Councilmembers the ability to block a budget could have real consequences for our schools, emergency services and other programs people depend on. Before anyone signs a petition, they should know what the proposal actually does and what it could mean for them.

According to the statement, supporters have indicated they intend to pursue the amendment again in the 2028 election cycle, and Elrich said he plans to spend the next two years using budget forums, community meetings and briefings to explain what the proposal would do. He also pointed to the county’s Triple-A bond ratings from Moody’s, S&P Global and Fitch as evidence against the case for the amendment.

Montgomery County does not have a fiscal discipline problem. Independent financial analysts have examined how we budget, plan and manage taxpayer dollars year after year and continue to give us the highest possible ratings. Residents also have an open budget process, public hearings and elected officials who are accountable to them at the ballot box. We should continue looking for ways to make government more accountable and responsive, but locking our budget to a rigid formula and giving one Councilmember veto power over it is the wrong approach.

The Committee to Control Montgomery County Spending has not said whether it will appeal Thursday’s ruling. Moderately MOCO has not reached the committee for comment.

The Committee Responds

The Committee to Control Montgomery County Spending said it was disappointed by the ruling and will try again, in a release published Thursday by MoCo Feed. The committee said it intends to begin collecting signatures for the 2028 ballot in early 2027. The release does not mention an appeal.

We respect the Court’s decision, although we are disappointed that Montgomery County voters will not have the opportunity to decide this issue on the November ballot. We remain committed to responsible County spending and intend to begin collecting signatures for the 2028 ballot in early 2027.

The release also puts numbers on how close the count was. The elections board rejected 4,376 signatures in all. The committee said it reviewed those, identified more than 400 it believed warranted another look, and challenged 329 whose signers it could locate in state voter-registration records. Because the petition finished 302 valid signatures short, winning all 329 would have carried it past the threshold by 27.

The committee argues those signatures were set aside over technicalities rather than genuine problems with the voters.

Our review found hundreds of signatures that we believe were rejected for minor technical, including questions involving dates, middle initials, handwriting, and abbreviations used by petition circulators. We believed the 329 signatures presented to the Court met the applicable requirements and should have been counted.

The committee did not fault the elections staff, noting that state law requires them to review thousands of signatures within 20 days and calling that a monumental task. It argued instead that Maryland should modernize the process by lengthening the review period and allowing registered voters to sign petitions securely online. It also said the signers of the petition have been silenced and county voters disenfranchised, language the release uses to describe the outcome.

On the substance, the committee took issue with the case Elrich made against the amendment. It said the measure “would not have eliminated any specific program or required cuts to schools, public safety, or other public services,” and would only have required unanimous council approval for a budget growing faster than inflation. Elrich has said giving a single councilmember that power could have real consequences for schools and emergency services.

---