CORE ISSUE

SUMMARY: The Constitution of Maryland (Article III, Section 29) requires that all bills passed by the General Assembly embrace but one subject. Over the years there have been numerous court challenges to various statutes that have resulted in a significant amount of case law on the Single Subject Rule. In general, these opinions have held that this constitutional provision was designed to be interpreted liberally so as to not thwart the will of the legislative branch.

The United States Constitution and a few state constitutions do not have a Single Subject Rule. As a consequence, certain legislative tactics, such as the use of "riders" to attach amendments unrelated to, or only marginally associated with, the primary purpose of particular bills are employed frequently in Congress and the legislatures of these states. Conversely, efforts to employ these same techniques are rare in Maryland, and up until the 2000 session there was little interest in abolishing the Single Subject Rule in the state constitution.

The move to repeal the Single Subject Rule was prompted by a Court of Appeals decision (David Migdal et al. v. State of Maryland et al.) issued in the middle of the 2000 session which invalidated a bill from the 1998 session on the basis that it violated the one subject constitutional provision. The issue in question was the grafting of a bill that was defeated earlier in the 1998 session dealing with the independence of directors of some investment companies, on to another piece of legislation concerning the process for designating resident agents. With the ardent urging of the Attorney General’s Legislative Office, the head of which had represented the State in the Migdal case, General Assembly leaders in both houses launched a late session blitz to effectively remove the Single Subject Rule from the state constitution.

The MSBA mounted an aggressive campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment to weaken the Single Subject Rule. The Association’s staunch opposition to this bill was based on the observation of lawmaking in Congress, and the mischief that is a central part of that process. At the federal level, amendments unrelated to legislation under consideration are added as a means of circumventing the committee process and avoiding public hearings on these issues. As a consequence, some bills approved by Congress often contain provisions that are objectionable to the President, but become law simply because the Chief Executive seeks enactment of the central purpose of the legislation. Not only does this process create confusion for lawyers and judges who must interpret these laws, it also reinforces public cynicism and the perception that the federal legislative process is completely under the control of well-heeled special interest groups.

Ironically, the MSBA was assisted in its efforts to kill the legislation by several representatives of special interest groups. While these lobbyists recognized the advantages for themselves if the bill passed, they also were afraid that their colleagues on the opposing side of many proposals would use the repeal of the one subject rule to accomplish their own selfish ends. In order to appreciate this reasoning, it is important to recognize that most veteran lobbyists have molded successful careers by learning to skillfully manage arcane bill drafting techniques and parliamentary procedures for the entire 90 day session, and by cultivating friendships with strategically placed legislators within standing committees. To change a central rule of the game, that all bills must deal with only one subject, could enable those with less experience and fewer connections to succeed simply by focusing attention on only one institution, the six-person conference committee. By successfully managing the conference committee during the closing days of the session, when tensions are high and attention spans are short, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of bills that had been killed by standing committees earlier in the session could be slipped into unrelated proposals and passed into law almost unnoticed. This prospect would have an unsettling impact not only on the form of bills that passed, but also on the clientele of some of the most powerful legislative agents in Annapolis.

Despite the strong sponsorship of the bill, rank and file members of both the Senate and the House reacted negatively to the proposal. Arguments from the bill’s supporters, that the legislature needed greater flexibility to deal with late session crises by amending proposals that were nearing passage, were undercut as the General Assembly suspended its rules to allow the introduction of several bills in the closing weeks of the session. This maneuver, along with an expedited hearing process, demonstrated that the legislature had sufficient leeway under the present rules to deal with late-breaking events. By the time the session neared sine die, there was little enthusiasm to move either the Senate or House bill, and both measures were allowed to die peacefully in their respective committees.

Because constitutional amendments normally are not introduced in odd-numbered years, no single subject bill was filed in 2001. Given the strength of the opposition to the 2000 single subject measure, any similar proposal submitted in 2002 in all likelihood will face long odds for success.

MSBA 2002 POSITION: Strongly oppose abolition of the Single Subject Rule.

SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
House Bill 1436, General Assembly of Maryland, 2000

Return to 2002 Final State Legislative Program Table of Contents

Back To Top