3528

VETOES

Harry Hughes
Governor

May 14, 1981

Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: House Bill 486

Dear Governor Hughes:

The title of House Bill 486 states a purpose of

"requiring the District Court or a circuit court in
this State to continue a certain temporary ex parte
order with respect to domestic violence for a certain
period of time under certain circumstances." (Emphasis
supplied).

There is no requirement, however, in the bill that the court
continue an ex parte order. Rather, the body of the bill
would permit the court to do so under certain circumstances.

Article III, Section 29 of the Constitution of Maryland
requires that:

"... every Law enacted by the General Assembly shall
embrace one subject and that shall be described in its
title."

The Court of Appeals has stated that this provision
requires that a bill's title "must not be misleading by
apparently limiting the enactment to a much narrower scope
than the body of the Act is made to encompass ...." Painter
v. Mattfeldt, 119 Md. 466, 474 (1913). In weighing the
adequacy of a title, the Court has frequently inquired
whether it was sufficient to put legislators and the public
"on notice" of its intended provisions. Dinneen v. Rider,
152 Md. 343, 358 (1927); Quenstedt v. Wilson, 173 Md. 11, 22
(1937).

Clearly, the title is misleading in its failure to put
readers "on notice" as to the provisions of the Act. As the
discretionary authority contained in the body of the bill
goes well beyond the narrow scope of the title, we conclude
that the title is defective and that House Bill 486 is
unconstitutional in its failure to comply with Article III,
Section 29 of the Constitution of Maryland.

Very truly yours,
Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General