This petition does not argue against term limits. How it’s done matters. When you try to rewrite the rules, you invite not just bad governance—you invite legal challenge.
There is a constitutional safeguard in Maryland against exactly this kind of maneuver. And this retroactive proposal triggers it. Let’s be clear about the facts.
The legal analysis cited below is a law review piece written by Judge Friedman—a current Maryland appellate judge and recognized constitutional scholar. His analysis directly addresses the key issue of retroactive term limits: Can the government change eligibility rules after the fact by imposing retrospective restrictions?
Under Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the answer is unequivocally NO!
“No ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed…”
Judge Friedman walks through how Maryland courts interpret Article 17 not just for criminal law, but for civil laws too—especially ones that retroactively impose new restrictions on rights and eligibility. That’s exactly what this proposal does.
Article 17 prohibits retrospective civil restrictions, including laws that disqualify someone from holding office after they’ve already served under the previous rules. That’s what makes retroactive term limits constitutionally vulnerable, no matter how much Commissioners Collins, Coates, and Patterson try to downplay it.
The core legal test is this: Is a new rule being applied to actions that were already completed under a different legal framework?
📣 Please sign and share this petition to protect fair governance and uphold the rule of law.
📖 Read the full legal analysis here: