Second review may be defined as the
exercise of legislative authority by one
house in a bicameral assembly over the
legislative actions of the other house.2
This mechanism is said to be one of
the essential benefits of the bicameral
system.3 Many of the studies of Ameri-
can legislative assemblies during the last
fifty years have placed great emphasis
upon the effectiveness of second review
and, for that reason, have advocated bi-
cameralism.
In considering the fundamental issue
of whether Maryland should retain the
bicameral legislature, the following
analysis was undertaken. With research
material from the most recent session of
the General Assembly for which com-
plete records were available, this paper
is addressed to the inquiry :
To what degree, and with what
effectiveness, is second review present
in the Maryland General Assembly?
By what standard can the degree and
effectiveness of second review be
measured? It seems clear that the value
1 This article is the one referred to as "Sec-
ond Review of Legislation" in note 238 on
page 244 of the report of the constitu-
tional convention commission (1967). It
was prepared for the Commission by R. Joel
Slomoff, research assistant to the Constitu-
tional Convention Commission and student at
the University of Maryland School of Law;
B.S., 1964, Wayne State University.
2 The term requires further elaboration.
When a bill is introduced into the house of
origin, it is sent to a committee for study. If
it is reported favorably out of the committee,
it goes to the floor for reading and possible
passage. Once passed, it goes to the second
house where second review commences.
3 Michener, The Structure of the Maryland
Legislature: Unicameralism v. Bicameralism,
supra at 108.
|
of second review lies in the improvement
of legislation by those who disagree,
either in substance or in method, with
the initial body. If bills are not better
for having undergone a second look,
then the review is merely redundant. An
improvement can be said to be a bene-
ficial change in a bill after the bill's
passage by the house of origin. Since all
changes in a bill after the bill's passage
by the house of its origin are amend-
ments,4 it follows that an improvement
of the bill depends upon the presence
of beneficial amendments. To decide
which amendments are beneficial would
be difficult and of dubious accuracy.
Therefore, an assumption was made in
favor of review; that all amendments
are an improvement and, hence, benefi-
cial.5
The presence of these amendments is
important from two aspects : the number
of amendments is evidence of the
amount of second review and the nature
of the amendments is evidence of the
quality of second review. Both aspects
are necessary for a proper evaluation.
Thus, the standard by which the degree
and effectiveness of second review is to
be measured is the number and nature
of amendments made to bills by the re-
viewing house.
4 It must be noted that the term "amend-
ment" is here applicable only to those changes
which were made in fact. This is necessary
because a proposed amendment which is de-
feated leaves the bill exactly as it was; hence,
not improved.
5 The reader is encouraged to return to this
assumption after having completed the paper,
and ascertain his own figure — which will be
somewhat less than 100 per cent. Reexamin-
ing the result with this figure in mind should
reflect a more personal view.
117
|
