|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3923
|
|
|
|
|
MARVIN MANDEL, Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
right, Buckley v. Valeo, supra, at 14-23.** However, we
need not decide whether these factors require that strict
standards of equal protection scrutiny be applied to
House Bill 1333, because it is our opinion that no
rational basis exists for the discrimination which would
be created by the bill.
If the purpose of the bill is to remedy an alleged
abuse found to exist in the use of outside fundraising
committees, no valid reason exists to confine the
restriction only to the State Central Committee of a
particular party.*** Moreover, no valid distinction can
be drawn on the basis of the amount of funds handled by
the Democratic State Central Committee in light of the
substantial funds solicited, raised and expended by the
Republican counterpart.****
For these reasons, we must conclude that the
distinction among the political parties made by House
Bill 1333 lacks a rational basis and that the bill
therefore cannot be squared with the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As we have stated
frequently in the past, we must note that the ultimate
determination of whether a statute is violative of equal
protection is one for the courts, where a full record of
the purpose and effect of the statute can be made. Such
a record is not before us now.
Very truly yours,
Francis E. Burch
Attorney General
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* In Buckley v. Valeo, supra, at 31, the Supreme Court
said that "it is important... to note that the [Fair
Election Campaign" Act applies the same limitations as
contributions to all candidates regardless of their
present occupations, ideological views, or party
affiliations." And in Kenneweg, the Maryland Court of
Appeals in upholding a state law setting different
primary dates for the major parties, stated:
"...it is contended that the denial of equal
protection consists in according to one particular
party a longer campaign for its candidates than to
the other by reason of the primaries of the former
being fixed for an earlier day than the primaries of
the latter. Both political parties are treated
precisely alike under similar circumstances. The
right to hold a primary first is not given to either
party by name, but to the one which had cast the
highest vote for the highest State officer at the
preceding election..." 102 Md. at 127.
**Cf. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S. Ct. 2673(1976) where the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
