Could Maryland require Montgomery County school board members to live in specific residence districts through a state law?

Plain-English summary

A member of the Maryland House of Delegates asked the Attorney General to review a proposed bill, MC 514A-85, that would have required five of the seven elected members of the Montgomery County Board of Education to live in specific residence districts, even though all seven members would still be elected countywide. The prior legislative session had passed a similar bill, House Bill 840, but the AG's office had advised that it was unconstitutional because it created the residence districts by a joint resolution of the General Assembly rather than by an actual statute, and the Governor vetoed it on that advice. The new proposal fixed that defect by specifying that the districts would be established "by a law enacted by the General Assembly," meaning an ordinary bill subject to the Governor's veto. The opinion found no constitutional problem with the revised approach and also advised that describing the districts as being established by "a law enacted by the General Assembly," rather than by a "public local law" or "public general law," was legally accurate and, if anything, the clearer choice of language.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984. 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.

Common questions

Could Maryland require Montgomery County school board members to live in specific residence districts through a state law?
According to this 1984 opinion, yes. The Attorney General found no constitutional or other legal objection to a bill requiring five of the seven Montgomery County school board members to reside in districts established by a law enacted by the General Assembly, since all seven members would still be elected by voters countywide.

Why had the earlier version of this bill been vetoed?
The opinion explained that the prior bill, House Bill 840, tried to create the residence districts through a joint resolution of the General Assembly instead of an actual statute. The AG's office had advised that establishing districts was an exercise of lawmaking power that, under the Maryland Constitution, could only be done by a bill subject to the Governor's veto, and the Governor vetoed House Bill 840 on that basis.

Did it matter whether the bill called this a "public local law" instead of "a law enacted by the General Assembly"?
The opinion concluded that describing the districts as established by "a law enacted by the General Assembly" was accurate and, in the AG's view, preferable, because the term "public local law" standing alone could be misread, at least for a charter county, to refer to a county ordinance rather than a state statute.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion analyzed the proposal against the Maryland Constitution's requirement that lawmaking, including the creation of legally binding residence districts, be accomplished through an actual bill presented to the Governor for signature or veto, not through a joint resolution of the legislature. It also drew on Court of Appeals case law distinguishing "public local laws" (which the General Assembly may pass for a particular subdivision and, in some circumstances, submit to a local referendum) from "public general laws" and from county ordinances. The opinion noted that education and elections, other than municipal elections, are subjects the General Assembly has preempted from local charter authority, meaning the legislature could validly enact a residence-district law for Montgomery County even though the county operates under a charter form of government.

Citations

Cases:

• Steimel v. Board of Election Supervisors of Prince George's County, 278 Md. 1 (1976) (a General Assembly law regulating Sunday closings in a charter county was a public local law that could be submitted to a local referendum)
• McCarthy v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel Co., 280 Md. 634, 651 (1977) (education has been preempted by the General Assembly from local charter authority)
• County Council v. Montgomery Association, 274 Md. 52, 60, 62 (1975) (elections, other than municipal elections, have been preempted by the General Assembly)
• Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 350 (1981) (the unqualified term "public local law" might be read, for a charter county, to refer to a county ordinance)

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/1984/Volume69_1984.pdf

Original opinion text

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

EDUCATION

General Assembly-School Boards-Resident Districts-Establishment Of Districts By "Law Enacted By General Assembly" Is Constitutional.

December 19, 1984

The Honorable Mary Boergers
Maryland House of Delegates

You have requested our opinion on the constitutionality and legal sufficiency of MC 514A-85 (Montgomery County Board of Education-Residence Districts). When fully implemented, this proposed bill would require five of the seven elected members of the Montgomery County Board of Education to reside in districts established by the General Assembly. All seven elected members of the board would continue, however, to be elected by the voters of the entire county.

For the reasons given below, we have concluded that there is no constitutional or other legal objection to the proposed bill.

I

During its last session, the General Assembly considered and passed House Bill 840 (Montgomery County Board of Education-Residence Districts), which would have established a district residence requirement for five members of the Montgomery County Board of Education.

In our subsequent review of House Bill 840, we advised that the bill was constitutionally defective because, under the bill, the districts were to have been established by a joint resolution of the General Assembly rather than by law. We explained that the establishment of such districts is an exercise of the lawmaking power and, under the Maryland Constitution, this power could only be exercised by the enactment of a statute that is subject to the veto of the Governor. Bill Review Letter (H.B. 840) from Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, to Harry Hughes, Governor (May 24, 1984), published in Laws of Maryland 1984 at 4047-48. Relying on this advice, the Governor vetoed the bill. Veto Message (H.B. 840) from Harry Hughes, Governor, to Benjamin L. Cardin, Speaker of the House of Delegates (May 29, 1984), published in Laws of Maryland 1984 at 4046.

Your current proposal, however, unlike House Bill 840, specifically provides for establishment of the resident districts "by a law enacted by the General Assembly". Consequently, MC 514A-85 avoids the constitutional problems raised by House Bill 840.

II

You also have asked whether it is legally correct to refer in MC 514A-85 to the proposed establishment of school board resident districts by a "law enacted by the General Assembly" rather than, for example, a "public local law" or a "public general law". We think that it is both correct and, perhaps, even preferable to do so.

In your letter, you mention the case of Steimel v. Board of Election Supervisors of Prince George's County, 278 Md. 1 (1976). In Steimel, the Court of Appeals held that a law enacted by the General Assembly to regulate Sunday closings in Prince George's County was a public local law that, unlike a public general law, could be submitted by the General Assembly to a referendum of county voters. 278 Md. at 4-6. The Court also held that, even though Prince George's County was a charter county, the General Assembly had preempted the regulation of Sunday closings and could, therefore, enact a public local law on the matter for the county. 278 Md. at 8-11.

It is quite likely that, based on the decision and analysis in Steimel, a law establishing school board resident districts for Montgomery County would similarly be considered to be a "public local law". And, although Montgomery County is a charter county, there would be no question that the General Assembly could enact such a law for the County: education and elections, except for municipal elections, are subjects that have been preempted by the General Assembly. See McCarthy v. Board of Education of Anne Arundel Co., 280 Md. 634, 651 (1977); County Council v. Montgomery Association, 274 Md. 52, 60, 62 (1975).

Nonetheless, there is no case directly on point and, therefore, we cannot predict with certainty how a court might characterize a school board resident district law. In any event, for purposes of Md. 514A-85, the more general reference to "a law enacted by the General Assembly" is neither inaccurate nor inadequate. We therefore recommend its use. Indeed, use of the simple term "public local law", without reference to the General Assembly, could well be misleading; this is so because, with reference to a charter county at least, the unqualified term "public local law" might be read to refer to a county ordinance. See Forest Heights v. Frank, 291 Md. 331, 350 (1981).

III

In summary, we conclude that there is no constitutional or other legal objection to your proposed bill, MC 514A-85, requiring five Montgomery County School Board members to reside in districts to be subsequently established "by a law enacted by the General Assembly".

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General

Richard E. Israel,
Assistant Attorney General

Avery Aisenstark
Chief Counsel,
Opinions and Advice

Editor's Note: The bill discussed in this Opinion was enacted as Chapter 660, Laws of Maryland 1985.