clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws and Journals, 1982, August Special Session
Volume 743, Page 47   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
1982 SENATE 35
the General Assembly was needed. As I pointed out then, the
Maryland Constitution clearly infers that any modification
to the schedule of court fees requires action by the entire
Legislature in the manner set forth in Article III. 1981
Laws of Maryland at 3327-28. Senate Bill 408 requires schedules of court costs and
fees to be submitted to the General Assembly for approval by
joint resolution. The resolution "may adopt, modify or
reject any or all of the fees determined by the
Administrator.11 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


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws and Journals, 1982, August Special Session
Volume 743, Page 47   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 11, 2023
Maryland State Archives