MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                                 1899

Specifically, Senate Bill 441 would place these supervisors in a salary grade that
will not exist on July 1, 1973, the effective date of House Bill 531.

Because of the inconsistency between the two bills, Senate Bill 441 must be
vetoed.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel
Governor

Senate Bill No. 507 - Suspension of Driver's License

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Sections 6-205.1 and 6-205.2
of Article 66-1/2 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1970 Replacement
Volume and 1972 Supplement), title "Vehicle Laws," subtitle "Subtitle 6.
Drivers' Licenses," subheading "Part II. Cancellation. Refusal, Suspension or
Revocation of Licenses," providing a mandatory minimum and maximum
length of time that a person's driver's license shall be suspended for refusing to
take a chemical test to determine the alcohol content of their blood, deleting
language referring to "the chemical test to determine the alcoholic content of
blood, breath, or urine" and substituting language that refers to "a chemical
test of blood, breath or urine to determine the alcohol content of blood"; and
making certain technical corrections to the language of these sections.

June 1, 1973.

Honorable William S. James
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. President:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Constitution, I have
today vetoed Senate Bill 507.

This bill would establish, inter alia, certain maximum and minimum periods of
suspension of a person's driver's license for refusal to take a blood alcohol content
test.

As presently worded, §6-205.1 of Article 66-1/2 of the Annotated Code of
Maryland provides that, upon a driver's refusal to take a blood alcohol content
test, the Motor Vehicle Administration may suspend that person's driver's license
for a period not to exceed sixty days. Should the Administration find that the
operator had justifiable cause for refusing to take the test, the Administration is
granted a certain degree of flexibility, in that it may decide not to suspend that
operator's license.

Senate Bill 507, in addition to providing for a minimum ten-day suspension,
would also amend the present law in a manner which raises a question as to
whether the administration would retain this degree of flexibility in making its
determinations. The bill is, in fact, internally inconsistent on this point.

From the proposed amendment to §6-205.1 (a), which sets forth the language
required in the contract to be signed as a condition precedent to the issuance or
renewal of a license, it would appear that the suspension requirement is mandatory