J. MILLARD TAWES, Governor                         1425

April 22, 1966.

Honorable J. Millard Tawes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Re: Senate Bill 376
Dear Governor Tawes:

At your request, we have reviewed Senate Bill 376 which was
passed at the regular session of the General Assembly.

The Bill, which is in the form of an addition to the Motor Ve-
hicle laws, is adequately described in its title as

"... requiring lifetime revocation of operator's and chauf-
feur's license of any person convicted of a third offense per-
taining to driving while under the influence of drugs or in-
toxicants, or under federal law, the law of any other state or
a valid ordinance of any city, town or county of this State
and permitting review of such revocation after a period of
years."

We have no doubt that such legislation (as so expressed) is not
only constitutional but also a most salutary and long-overdue safe-
guard to the users of the State's highways. It is therefore with the
greatest reluctance that we have reached the conclusion that the
text of the bill establishes a procedure which is unconstitutional.

After providing that the Department of Motor Vehicles "shall
forthwith revoke and not thereafter reissue" the operator's or chauf-
feur's license of any person who has been convicted of three viola-
tions of laws proscribing driving while under the influence of drugs
or alcoholic beverages, the section to be enacted by the Bill concludes
with this sentence:

"At the expiration of ten years from the date of revocation
.... such person may petition any court of record having criminal
jurisdiction in the county or city wherein such person resides,
and for cause shown, said license may in the discretion of the
court be restored on such terms and conditions as the court
may prescribe."

It can immediately be seen that, whether viewed as the is-
suance of a new license or as a reinstatement of the old, this pro-
vision seeks to confer upon the judiciary a function otherwise con-
ferred upon the Department of Motor Vehicles. Code (1957 Edition),
Article 66½, Sections 86—108. Of some significance also is the fact
that none of the limitations, guides or standards imposed upon the
Department by those sections—indeed no limitations, guides or stand-
ards of any sort—appear to be imposed upon the criminal court.

In a number of decisions, the Court of Appeals has held that
the attempted conferral of primary licensing authority upon the
judiciary is unconstitutional. Cromwell v. Jackson, 188 Md. 8
[liquor license]; Close v. Southern Md. Agr. Asso., 134 Md. 629
[gambling license]. Inferential support for this holding has been
seen in cases holding invalid attempts to empower courts to call
elections (Board of Supervisors v. Todd, 97 Md. 247) and to ap-