Can a Maryland bill that amends 113 old bond laws the same way just print the new text once instead of 113 times?

Plain-English summary

Baltimore City wanted to refund (refinance) bonds issued under 113 separate prior authorization laws, so the legislature drafted a single bill amending all 113 enactments by adding the identical new refunding provision to each one. The Director of the Department of Legislative Reference asked whether the 140-page draft really needed to spell out that same provision 113 separate times, or whether it could state the text once and simply reference all 113 enactments it applied to.

The opinion concluded the bill could set out the new text just once. It reasoned that the constitutional requirement to enact public general laws in Code format, and the rule against amending a law "by reference to its title, or section only," are aimed at making sure a reader can fully understand what the amended law will say. Since the added language was identical for every one of the 113 acts, printing it a single time with a clear list of which enactments it amended would satisfy that purpose just as well as repeating it 113 times, and the opinion also noted these particular bond authorizations were not codified sections of the Maryland Code in the first place, so the stricter codification-format rule did not even apply to them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991 and interpreted Article XI, §7 and Article III, §29 of the Maryland Constitution as they then existed. Subsequent constitutional amendments, statutory changes, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current Maryland constitutional and drafting requirements for municipal bond legislation before relying on any specific rule described here.

Common questions

Does a Maryland bill amending many old laws the same way have to repeat the same text for each one?
According to this 1991 opinion, no. The Attorney General concluded that if the amendment is identical across all the enactments, the bill can set the text out just once and reference the affected enactments, rather than repeating the same language for each one.

Does Maryland's Constitution require bond authorization laws to be written in Code format?
The opinion concluded that Article III, §29's Code-format requirement applies only to public general laws, and it was doubtful that a bond authorization for a single city was a public general law at all, so the 113 bond acts at issue were not codified and that stricter format rule did not govern them.

What is the point of the rule against amending a law "by reference to its title, or section only"?
The opinion explained this rule exists to make sure the amended law can be fully and readily understood by anyone reading the amendment, a purpose satisfied equally whether the identical new text is printed once or 113 times.

Background and statutory framework

Article XI, §7 of the Maryland Constitution requires the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to obtain General Assembly (or City legislative delegation) authorization, plus city voter approval, before creating municipal debt, and the General Assembly has enacted many separate bond authorization laws for the City under this provision over the years. The proposed 140-page bill added an identical refunding provision to 113 of these prior authorizations, letting the City refinance previously issued bonds, and also allowed the City to seek voter approval for all 113 refunding provisions through a single combined ballot question.

The opinion turned to Article III, §29 of the Constitution, which requires public general laws to be enacted "in articles and sections, in the same manner, as the Code [of Laws] is arranged" and separately bars amending "any Law, nor section of Law...by reference to its title, or section only." Citing County Commissioners v. Meekins for the point that §29's codification-format language is merely directory, and noting doubt that a single city's bond authorization even qualifies as a public general law, the opinion found the 113 enactments were not codified and were not subject to the stricter Code-arrangement requirement. On the separate "by reference only" rule, the opinion relied on Home for Incurables v. Bruff for the principle that the purpose of that rule is to let a reader fully and readily understand the law as amended, a goal met just as well by setting the identical refunding text out a single time, since the only thing that differed enactment to enactment was the new section number, which could be identified enactment by enactment in the bill's own cross-references.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article XI, §7 of the Maryland Constitution, requiring General Assembly or City delegation authorization (plus city voter approval) for Baltimore City to create municipal debt
• Article III, §29 of the Constitution, requiring Code-format arrangement of public general laws and barring amendment of a law "by reference to its title, or section only"

Cases:

• County Commissioners v. Meekins, 50 Md. 28, 44-45 (1878), Maryland Court of Appeals decision holding Article III, §29's Code-arrangement requirement is merely directory
• Home for Incurables v. Bruff, 160 Md. 156, 167, 153 A. 403 (1931), Maryland Court of Appeals decision on the purpose of the rule against amending a law by reference to its title or section only

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/1991/Volume76_1991.pdf (this opinion appears at printed pages 377-379 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

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

STATUTES

Bonds - Bill to Amend Numerous Prior Bond Authorizations
Identically Need Set Out Pertinent Text Only Once

January 17, 1991

F. Carvel Payne, Director
Department of Legislative Reference

   You have requested our opinion concerning legislation to amend

113 previously enacted bond authorizations for Baltimore City. Because
each of the 113 enactments would be amended by adding the same new
section, you ask whether the amendatory bill may simply set out the text
of the new section once.

   For the reasons stated below, we conclude that, so long as the

bill makes clear that each of the 113 enactments is being amended in the
same manner, there is no legal objection to setting out the text of the
new section only once.

                               I

                          Discussion

   Article XI, §7 of the Maryland Constitution provides that the

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore may not create municipal debt
without the authorization of either the General Assembly or the City's
legislative delegation.1 Pursuant to §7, the General Assembly has on
numerous occasions enacted legislation authorizing the City to issue
bonds.

   As the result of a study of the City's finances, the City wishes to

issue bonds for the purpose of refunding previously issued bonds. To
carry out this proposal, legislation has been drafted that amends 113
prior enactments authorizing the City to issue bonds. The 140 page
draft identifies each of the 113 bond authorizations and then amends
each of these acts to add the same refunding provision.2 The bill also
provides that the City may seek the approval of the City's voters for the
refunding provisions by submitting a single question to the voters.
Additionally, the bill declares that the bill does not alter or release any
obligations previously incurred by the City.

   The only question you have raised concerns the form of the bill

amending the 113 enactments. Because the proposed bill amends these
various enactments in exactly the same way, you have asked if the text
of the new provision could be set out once rather than 113 times.

   Article XI, §7 merely requires legislative authorization for the

creation of the City's debt. It does not prescribe the format of these
authorizations. As to the form of enactments generally, Article III, §29
of the Constitution provides that in enacting a public general law, "it
shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact the same, in articles
and sections, in the same manner, as the Code [of Laws] is arranged."
Moreover, amendments to sections of the Code are to be set out as
they will read when enacted.

   However, these provisions of §29 are regarded as merely

directory. County Commissioners v. Meekins, 50 Md. 28, 44-45 (1878).
Also, it is doubtful whether legislation authorizing a subdivision to issue
bonds is a public general law. Accordingly, the longstanding view is
that §29 does not require the codification of legislative bond
authorizations for the City, and none of the 113 enactments you have
referred to are codified. Correspondingly, there is no requirement that
amendments to these uncodified enactments be set out exactly as they
will read when enacted. Nonetheless, because the text for each
amendment is the same, setting it out but once will clearly accomplish
the objective of advising the reader fully of what the law will be when
it is amended.

   Article III, §29 also provides, in relevant part, that "no Law, nor

section of Law, shall be revived or amended by reference to its title, or
section only." The purpose is to make the law, as it would be revived
or amended, fully and readily understood. Home for Incurables v.
Bruff, 160 Md. 156, 167, 153 A. 403 (1931).

   Although setting out the text of the refunding provision for each

of the 113 enactments would certainly gratify this requirement, the same
is true if the pertinent provision is set out but once. This is so because
the text of the amendment is the same. Thus, the law, as it would be
amended, could be fully and readily understood. Of course, the new
section number would not be the same for each of the enactments.
However, the proper section number can be identified in the reference
to each of the enactments to be amended.

                               II

                          Conclusion

   In summary, it is our opinion that legislation to add a refunding

provision to 113 bond authorizations for Baltimore City need not set out
the text of the amendment separately for each authorization. Because
the text is the same, it can be set out once with proper reference to the
113 enactments that would be amended.

                                        J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                        Attorney General

                                        Richard E. Israel
                                        Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice

1
In addition, the approval of the City's voters is required.

2
In each case, the City would be authorized "to issue its bonds for the
purpose of refunding any bonds authorized to be issued under this act by payment
at maturity or the purchase or redemption of bonds in advance of maturity."