Could Baltimore City's legislative delegation take back its approval of a city borrowing plan once it had already voted to approve it?

Plain-English summary

The Director of the Department of Legislative Reference asked the Attorney General about a new procedure created by a 1982 constitutional amendment to Article XI, §7, which let Baltimore City's creation of debt or extension of credit be approved either through prior General Assembly authorization or, as a new alternative, by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly representing Baltimore City (the "City Delegation") within the first 30 days of the legislative session before the measure went to a public referendum. The Director wanted to know whether the Delegation could rescind its approval once given, and how that approval should be recorded. The opinion concluded that the Delegation could rescind its approval at any time before its 30-day window closed, relying on the general principle that one legislative act does not bar a later act rescinding it, since no debt could actually be created or credit extended until the voters approved the measure in a referendum anyway. On recording, the opinion found no constitutional requirement that the Delegation's approval appear in either House's Journal, but concluded that the Delegation's approval could be entered in the Journal by an appropriate motion, or that the General Assembly could go further and amend a separate statute to require that the approval be published in the Session Laws.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The opinion analyzed a constitutional amendment to Article XI, §7 that had been ratified by voters only the year before, in the 1982 general election, and noted that recording procedures for the City Delegation's approval were left largely to the discretion of each House of the General Assembly rather than fixed by any statute. Maryland's constitutional and statutory framework for Baltimore City debt approval and legislative recordkeeping may have changed since 1983; verify the current version of Article XI, §7 and any implementing legislation before relying on any specific rule described here.

Common questions

Once Baltimore City's legislative delegation approved a city borrowing plan, could it change its mind?
Yes, according to this opinion, as long as it acted within the 30 days the Maryland Constitution allowed for the Delegation's decision. The opinion relied on the general rule that a prior legislative act does not prevent its own later rescission, citing State v. Fisher, and noted that no debt or credit extension could actually occur until the measure passed a public referendum anyway.

Did the Maryland Constitution require the Delegation's approval to be written down anywhere official?
No. The opinion found no constitutional requirement that the approval be entered in either House's Journal. It concluded, however, that the fact of approval, certified by the chairmen of the House and Senate delegations, could be entered on the Journals through an ordinary motion, and that the respective Houses could even amend their own rules to require it.

Could the General Assembly require that the Delegation's approval be published for the public to see?
The opinion suggested a path for this: since the Delegation's approval was not itself a "law" and so was not subject to the constitutional requirement that laws be published, the General Assembly could instead amend a separate statute, Article 41, §82 of the Maryland Code, to require publication of the City Delegation's approval in the Session Laws.

Background and statutory framework

Article XI, §7 of the Maryland Constitution, as amended by the voters at the 1982 general election, governs Baltimore City's creation of debt or extension of credit. It continues to require a municipal referendum before any such debt or credit extension takes effect, but as an alternative to requiring the General Assembly to authorize the measure in advance, the amended section allows the measure to instead be approved by "a majority of the members of the General Assembly representing Baltimore City no later than the 30th day of the regular session of the General Assembly immediately preceding its submission to the voters."

On rescission, the opinion applied the settled principle, drawn from State v. Fisher, that a prior legislative act does not preclude the same body from rescinding it in a later act, an approach the opinion noted it had also applied earlier the same year in a different context, allowing the General Assembly to withdraw a prior petition asking Congress to call a constitutional convention (68 Opinions of the Attorney General 157 (1983)). Because the revised Article XI, §7 gave the Delegation a full 30 days to act and because no debt or credit could take effect before a referendum in any event, the opinion found no obstacle to letting the Delegation rescind its approval within that 30-day window.

On recording the Delegation's approval, the opinion looked to Article III, §22 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires each House to "keep a Journal of its proceedings, and cause the same to be published," and to Ridgely v. Baltimore City, which held that beyond matters the Constitution specifically requires to be journalized, each House may decide for itself what else to enter in its Journal. The opinion found no constitutional bar to entering the Delegation's certified approval in the Journals by motion, or to each House amending its own procedural rules to require such an entry. Because the Delegation's approval did not itself constitute a "law," it was not subject to Article III, §30's requirement that laws be published, but the opinion suggested that the General Assembly could still choose to amend Article 41, §82 of the Maryland Code to require that the Delegation's approval be published in the Session Laws.

Citations

Statutes:

• Md. Const. art. XI, §7 (Baltimore City creation of debt or extension of credit; City Delegation approval alternative)
• Md. Const. art. III, §22 (each House must keep and publish a Journal of its proceedings)
• Md. Const. art. III, §30 (publication requirement for laws)
• Md. Code Art. 41, §82 (referenced as a possible vehicle for requiring publication of the Delegation's approval)

Cases:

• State v. Fisher, 204 Md. 307, 315 (1954)
• Ridgely v. Baltimore City, 119 Md. 567, 587 (1913)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1983/Volume68_1983.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Baltimore City—Creation of Debt or Extension of Credit—Approval by City Delegation—Rescinding Approval—Recording Approval.

July 5, 1983

Mr. F. Carvel Payne
Director
Department of Legislative Reference

This is in response to your request for our opinion concerning approval by the Baltimore City Delegation to the General Assembly of a proposed creation of debt or extension of credit by the City. Specifically, you have asked how the Delegation's approval might be properly recorded and whether the Delegation could rescind its approval, once given.

For the reasons given below, it is our opinion that the Delegation may rescind its approval at any time before the full period of time for giving its approval has expired. As to recording the Delegation's approval, we think that this could be done by making an appropriate entry in the Journal of either or both Houses or, given enabling legislation, by publishing the approval of the proposed creation of debt or extension of credit in the Session Laws.

I
Background

At the General Election of 1982, the voters ratified an amendment to Article XI, §7 of the Maryland Constitution, which regulates the creation of debt and extension of credit by Baltimore City. As amended, §7 continues to require that ordinances authorizing the creation of debt or extension of credit be approved in a municipal referendum. However, as an alternative to the additional requirement that, prior to the referendum, the General Assembly authorize the City's creation of debt or extension of credit, the revised §7 permits the creation of debt or extension of credit to be approved by "a majority of the members of the General Assembly representing Baltimore City no later than the 30th day of the regular session of the General Assembly immediately preceding its submission to the voters".

II
Rescinding Approval

With respect to rescinding approval given by the City Delegation, it is a well established principle that a prior act of the General Assembly does not preclude its rescission by a subsequent act. See State v. Fisher, 204 Md. 307, 315 (1954). Cf. 68 Opinions of the Attorney General 157 (1983) (General Assembly may withdraw prior petition asking Congress to call a constitutional convention).

Because the revised §7 contemplates that the Delegation will have 30 days in which to give its approval, and because no debt could be created or credit extended until the referendum, we find no objection to applying this general principle to allow the Delegation to rescind its approval, if, of course, it does this within the 30 days allotted for its decision.

III
Recording Approval

With respect to the proper recording of the Delegation's approval of the City's creation of debt or extension of credit, Article III, §22 of the Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[e]ach House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and cause the same to be published". Aside from matters that the Constitution requires to be entered on the Journals, the respective Houses may themselves decide what is to be entered on their Journals. Ridgely v. Baltimore City, 119 Md. 567, 587 (1913).

There is, of course, no constitutional requirement that the City Delegation's approval of a proposed creation of debt or extension of credit be recorded in the Journal of either House. However, pursuant to an appropriate motion, the fact of such approval, as certified by the respective chairmen of the House and Senate delegations, could be entered on the Journals of the respective Houses. See Mason's Manual §§694.5 and 696.1. While it seems unlikely that there would be objection to such a motion, the respective Houses could amend their rules to require that such entries be made. See Rule 73 of the Rules of the Senate and House of Delegates.

Because the Delegation's approval would clearly not constitute a "law", it would not be subject to the constitutional requirement for the publication of laws. Article III, §30. However, to further record the Delegation's approval, the General Assembly may wish to amend Article 41, §82 of the Maryland Code to require publication in the Session Laws of the approval by the City Delegation.

IV
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that approval by the City Delegation of the creation of debt or extension of credit by Baltimore City may be rescinded by the Delegation within the 30 days allowed for approval. When approval is given, this fact may properly be entered on the Journals of the respective Houses. Additionally, the General Assembly may, by legislation, require publication of the approval by the City Delegation in the Session Laws.

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General
Richard E. Israel, Assistant Attorney General
Avery Aisenstark, Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice