BLAIR LEE III, Acting Governor

3161

53 Geo. L. J. 953, 991 (1965); Hyatt, "Runaway
Bureaucracy: How to Get it Under Control", State
Legislatures 8-10 (March/April 1978).

6    See also, Remarks of [then Assistant Attorney General]
J. William Rehnquist to the Section of Administrative
law of the American Bar Association Meeting in Dallas,
Texas (August 12, 1969).

7    While the federal experience is wholly analogous, state
legislative veto provisions pose no federal
constitutional issue; for it cannot be doubted "that
the states under our federal scheme have, within broad
constitutional limits, the exclusive power to allocate
the functions of the executive, judicial, and
legislative powers as they wish." U.S. v. Handel, 415
F. Supp. 1025, 1031 (D. Md. 1976).

8    "Eleven states [including Maryland], now use this
system." Id.

9    "This action usually is taken on the recommendation of
the reviewing committee. Fourteen state legislatures
currently have this power; of these, seven states may
repeal by joint or concurrent resolution and five by
statute. Oklahoma law permits repeal of a regulation
by simple resolution of either house. Kansas law
requires passage of a statute to repeal an existing
regulation, but passage of a concurrent resolution is
sufficient to prevent a proposed regulation from taking
effect." Id.

10   "Of the four state legislatures which have this power,
only Ohio permits legislative ratification of the
suspension by concurrent resolution; Minnesota, South
Dakota and Wisconsin require passage of a statute. "

Id.

11   "The suspension is considered permanent unless the
legislature reverses the committee's action.
Connecticut, Michigan, Tennessee and West Virginia are
the only legislatures which use this system." Id.

12   The recommendations are summarized at Appendix One
hereof.

13   The Attorneys General of Idaho, Minnesota, Montana,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia
and West Virginia report no Opinions of the Attorney
General thereon and no litigation thereon; the Attorney
General of Alaska has rendered no opinion thereon, but
in litigation thereon has taken (unsuccessfully at the
trial level) the position that the statute is
constitutionally impermissible (see. Voluntary v.
Alaska, In the Superior Ct., 3d Jud. Dist., C.A. No.