5064
VETOES
Administrator." The Attorney General has again pointed out
that the power to modify proposed court costs and fees is a
lawmaking function which must follow the procedures
prescribed by the Maryland Constitution for enacting
legislation. Since the Constitution requires that bills
enacted by the General Assembly be submitted to the Governor
for approval, the modification of the schedule of costs and
fees by means of a joint resolution does not conform to the
lawmaking procedures prescribed in the Constitution since
such resolutions are not subject to gubernatorial veto.
Moreover, I believe that the power to adopt or reject
schedules of costs and fees by joint resolution amounts to
lawmaking without compliance with constitutional procedures.
This is so because the power to adopt or reject proposed
schedules implies the power to modify. An actual or
threatened disapproval of a schedule submitted by the State
Court Administrator, coupled with an invitation to resubmit
a schedule containing certain costs, fees or other terms, is
tantamount to the power to modify. I believe that such an
indirect power to modify court fee schedules suffers from
the same constitutional objections as are identified in the
letter of the Attorney General, which is attached to this
letter.
For these reasons, I have decided to veto Senate Bill
408.
Sincerely,
Harry Hughes
Governor
May 28, 1982
REVISED LETTER
Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Re: Senate Bill 408
Dear Governor Hughes:
|