ANNAPOLIS — Maryland’s highest court said yesterday it will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed to overturn the results of the special General Assembly session in which lawmakers approved $1.4 billion in new taxes.
“This is a case that represents very significant constitutional questions that go to the very core of legislative power,” said Irwin Kramer, who in December filed the lower-court case on behalf of state Republican lawmakers and filed the appeal earlier this month.
The Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments March 11.
The suit by the five Republican leaders and a computer-services businessman states the Democrat-controlled Assembly violated the Maryland Constitution by passing the package of tax increases and a bill that allows residents to vote in November on whether to legalize slot machines.
Carroll County Judge Thomas F. Stansfield ruled that Democrats had not violated the constitution by adjourning for more than three days and putting the slots issue to voters. However, he called the leaders’ secretive actions “reprehensible” and said the “citizens of Maryland deserve far better.”
Attorneys representing the state are not likely to change the arguments they used to win in circuit court, said Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler.
“The constitution was not violated and consent was granted,” she said.
The appeals court generally hears only high-level cases. In September, the court ruled that a law defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman is constitutional. And in December 2006, the court barred further executions until the state drafts new lethal-injection procedures, resulting in a de facto moratorium on capital punishment.
The lawsuit, filed weeks after the special session concluded, hinged on whether the Senate received proper consent from the House to adjourn for more than three days during the session.
A House clerk backdated a document from the Senate requesting the consent of the House. And the chief clerk of the House, Mary Monahan, ordered that document not be read to lawmakers.
Mr. Kramer battled with lawyers from the state through the Christmas holidays to obtain Mrs. Monahan’s testimony.
The state petitioned all the way to Court of Appeals to block Mrs. Monahan’s testimony, but the court denied to hear the state’s appeal, and Mrs. Monahan was obliged to testify.
Mr. Kramer also argued that an amendment to the state constitution legalizing as many as 15,000 slot machines at five locations throughout Maryland violates a provision in the constitution that bars residents from voting on budget decisions. The constitutional amendment would automatically trigger new spending in a separate bill passed by lawmakers during the session.
“It was an effort to make an end-run around the constitution by shifting that responsibility to the public at large,” Mr. Kramer said.
Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, introduced his slots proposal as two bills — one a constitutional amendment, the other a bill detailing how slots revenue would be used — to garner enough political support in the House to pass the measure.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.