3134

VETOES

agency "has exceeded the authority delegated to it by the
General Assembly". A disapproved rule has no effect unless,
within one year of disapproval, the General Assembly adopts
a joint resolution approving the rule. The bill also
contains procedures for the temporary adoption of a rule
pending the General Assembly's review.

The Committee on Administrative, Executive, and
Legislative Review (AELR Committee) is the successor to the
Committee on Legislative Review which had originally been
established in 1964 as an adjunct of the General Assembly's
Legislative Council. Id 1972 the General Assembly renamed
this Committee as the AELR Committee and altered its powers
and duties.

Under present law each Executive Branch agency must
submit to the AELR Committee every proposed rule or
regulation, or amendment or repeal thereof. Committee
approval of the proposal is not required, except to the
extent that the agency desires that a rule be adopted on an
emergency basis.

When the AELR Committee was thus restructured in 1972,
I believe that there was a legitimate concern among the
members of the General Assembly about the increasing volume
of rules being promulgated by Executive Branch agencies. A
second concern was that this increased regulatory activity
could, in some instances, begin to infringe upon the
Legislature's duty to determine policy. Therefore the
Committee was given its current oversight function, and I
believe that it has alleviated the General Assembly's
concerns while performing that function.

House Bill 619 would now vest in the AELR Committee,
subject to ultimate review by the General Assembly at its
next session, the duty to approve or disapprove a rule or
regulation proposed after July 1, 1978. This function is
usually characterized as a "legislative veto" provision.
The wisdom and constitutionality thereof has been the
subject of an increasing amount of comment and controversy
at the federal and State levels.

The Attorney General has advised me, in a lengthy
Opinion, that at least 14 States have enacted some form of
legislative veto mechanism, and that the Attorneys General
of several of these States have expressed grave concerns
regarding their constitutionality. However, the concerns
expressed by these legal officers are questions of first
impression in the Maryland Courts.

In his Opinion, which I have attached to this message,
the Attorney General has focused upon several Constitutional
issues inherent in the provisions of House Bill 619. He has
concluded that House Bill 619 is "not clearly
unconstitutional". That conclusion ultimately is based upon