|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3922
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have reviewed House Bill 1333 which places
certain restrictions on the fundraising activities of the
Democratic State Central Committee and have concluded
that the bill raises serious constitutional problems in
light of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal
protection of the laws.
Specifically, House Bill 1333 amends Maryland Code
(1976 Repl.Vol.) Article 33, Section 11-1(b), which sets
forth required provisions in the constitution and bylaws
of all political parties by adding the following
language:
"The constitution of the Democratic State Central
Committee shall also contain a provision that no
funds shall be solicited, raised, or expended by the
State Democratic Party except in the name of the
Democratic State Central Committee, and all money
raised and all expenditures made by the Democratic
State Central Committee shall be held and disbursed
by the duly elected treasurer of the Democratic
State Central Committee."
The latter requirement, viz. that Democratic State
Central Committee expenditures be held and disbursed by
its treasurer, is mere surplusage because Article 33,
Section 26-4 and Section 26-6 impose such
responsibilities on all political committees. However,
the requirement that the Democratic party solicit, raise
or expend funds only in the name of the Democratic State
Central Committee is a new statutory obligation which is
not imposed on the Republican State Central Committee or
on any local central committee of either major party.
Pursuant to Article III, Sections 42 and 49 of the
Maryland Constitution, the General Assembly has pervasive
control over the conduct and regulation of elections,
including the activities of political parties and party
governing bodies. County Council v. Montgomery
Association, 274 Md. 52, 60—62 (1975). However, no state
can pass a law regulating political parties that violates
the Fourteenth Amendment's command that "No state
shall...deny to any person... the equal protection of the
laws." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968).
We note that House Bill 1333, unlike other party
regulating measures whose constitutionality has been
sustained against an equal protection challenge, see
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and Kenneweg v.
Allegany County, 102 Md. 119 (1905),* on its face
purports to treat one party differently than another. We
also should emphasize that political parties "enjoy a
constitutionally protected right of political
association," Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 487
(1975), and restrictions on fundraising can affect that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
