FIELD NOTES By Delegate Mike McDermott

Field Notes

Observations and Reflections on Legislative Activities

By Delegate Mike McDermott

March 7^th –March 11^th, 2011

• Monday evening the Republican Caucus met prior to the evening session to discuss the upcoming debate and votes on the Gay Marriage legislation. We reviewed the previous weeks work in the Judiciary Committee and debated the proper strategy to utilize. At this time, the matter remains a matter of great debate.


• On Tuesday morning, the House began the debate on Senate Bill 116 which seeks to legalize gay marriage. This was the Second Reading of this bill and this is the time when the House offers and debates amendments to a bill. Several amendments were offered by both sides of the aisle. They addressed the following areas of concern:

1. Amendment 1 (543121/1) would address certain religious exemptions for adoption services and social service programs. It was simple and would have recognized the need for these objections for deeply held convictions. It was defeated on a vote of 58/79;


2. Amendment 2 (483026/1) would have provided for exemptions for religious held convictions as pertaining to training by teachers and participation by students in K-12 public school programs. This would address homosexual sex education and make provision for teachers, parents, and students not to participate in this type of training. It was voted down 54/86;


3. Amendment 3 (873228/1) would simply change the title of the bill to the “Same Sex Marriage Act” as opposed to its present title (Civil Marriage Protection Act). It was argued that the name was very deceiving and would continue to misdirect people when the bill goes to referendum. This amendment was defeated 52/85; and


4. Amendment 4 (223923/1) was offered by a democrat member and would require a statewide referendum be conducted prior to the law taking effect. This reasonable attempt was also shot down on a tight vote with a couple of democrats speaking out on the floor. The vote was 63/72.

With these amendment defeats, the bill remains intact and will next appear for Third Reader and a final vote. I must say I was very disappointed, particularly with the failure of amendments 3 and 4. The House is clearly divided and I have never seen good legislation pass under these circumstances. Clearly the ruling party’s leadership had been whipping their caucus and twisting arms to secure these votes. On the amendment votes, many of the delegates chose not to even vote! That was more shocking that all the rest. What a colossal failure of courage and conviction. This same legislative body debated slots and agreed to let the people decide “this monumental issue”, and then fails to think the people of Maryland should weigh in on the definition of “marriage”? What an outrage!

At this time on Tuesday, the final outcome remained unknown and both sides continued working hard. As a result, I strongly encouraged citizens to participate in the process with a focus on the House Democrats.

• On Tuesday, there were three Third Reader votes cast on the following bills:

1. HB- 24 : Third Reading Passed (138-2)


2. HB- 101: Third Reading Passed (89-50)


3. HB -302: Motion vote previous question (Delegate Minnick) Adopted Third Reading Passed (74-66)

• Tuesday afternoon, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony concerning the following bills:

1. HB-161: This bill would enhance the penalties when someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence or a felony. Further, it would expand the definition of “firearm” used in these types of crimes to include long guns and shotguns. This bill is supported by both sides as a way to get tougher on thugs.


2. HB-172: This bill would eliminate diminutive credits for inmates who violate firearms laws or commit crimes of violence. These are those “good time” credits inmates receive just for being incarcerated. These often serve to shorten their sentences. This bill received no opposition testimony.


3. HB-241: This bill would expand the definition of a firearm to include long guns and antique firearms and would place mandatory minimum sentences for the unlawful possession of these firearms. This bill is also supported by both sides and received no opposition.


4. HB-252: This bill would enhance the penalties for possession of a firearm that was loaded under any circumstances. It carries with it mandatory minimums. This bill had some problems as it could cause problems for those who make honest mistakes in the possession or transportation of a firearm under otherwise lawful purposes. It received significant opposition and will need to be amended if it has a chance of making it out of committee.


5. HB-382: This bill would remove diminutive credits when a firearm is used in the commission of any crime. It is simple and straightforward and goes further than HB-172 (which only removed one-half of the time).


6. HB-343: This bill would change the right to carry a firearm in Maryland from a “may issue” position by the State to a “shall issue” position. It would provide for law abiding Marylanders to be issued a concealed carry permit upon request if there was no clear reason why the permit should not be issued. Several folks testified from around the state. At issue is the position by the Maryland State Police interpreting the need for citizens to have “good and substantial” reasons for being issued a handgun carry permit, and that definition not being clear.


7. HB-803: This bill would make it a crime to possess a firearm in a hospital or institute of higher learning if they did not have a permit to do so. Of course, it is already a crime, but this bill would serve to place an exclamation point on the issue. I do not see that it is necessary, and I, for one, would rather have a professor armed on a campus that may be able to take immediate action to protect life than one who is a victim in waiting. This bill received significant opposition.


8. HB-519: This bill would copy the Federal regulations dealing with the removal or attempted removal of a serial number on a firearm which is currently not addressed by the state. It would also provide for additional regulations on ammunition for unregulated firearms. It would also criminalize some of the statues relative to those less than 21 years of age. The bill simply goes too far in many aspects and replicates what the feds are already performing now.


9. HB-1043: This bill again seeks to replicate many of the standards already in place and required by the federal government. This bill would allow the Maryland State Police to further regulate the licensing requirements of firearms dealers. The state seeks to increase enforcement in this area due to problems with some firearms dealers in the past. It increases reporting requirements in Maryland, many of which are already required under law.

10. HB-330/HB-1043: This bill seeks to limit the magazine capacity of firearms in Maryland. The magazine capacity is currently set at 20 rounds, but this bill would reduce that limit to 10 rounds. Reflecting on the previous Assault Weapons Ban conducted federally, these limitations simply do not do as they are intended, and that is control crime. This is the type of bill that is introduced which makes the delegate’s who provide them feel good, but they do nothing to stop violence in Maryland. As you would expect, many spoke against this type of ban.

11. HB-730: This bill seeks the creation of a task force to examine the issue of mental illness when applied to the purchase or control (sales) of firearms in Maryland. The bill is being amended to this end and the task force will include a variety of professionals who can weigh in on this issue. I can say that I am concerned about the study of one particular industry or particular customer base as being genuine in application. We need to keep our eye on the results of any sanctioned study.

• On Wednesday morning, the House began the debate on Senate Bill 116 which seeks to legalize gay marriage. This was the Second Reading of this bill and this is the time when the House offers and debates amendments to a bill. Several amendments were offered by both sides of the aisle. The first three addressed the following areas of concern:

1. Amendment 1 (543121/1) would address certain religious exemptions for adoption services and social service programs. It was simple and would have recognized the need for these objections for deeply held convictions. It was defeated on a vote of 58/79;


2. Amendment 2 (483026/1) would have provided for exemptions for religious held convictions as pertaining to training by teachers and participation by students in K-12 public school programs. This would address homosexual sex education and make provision for teachers, parents, and students not to participate in this type of training. It was voted down 54/86;


3. Amendment 3 (873228/1) would simply change the title of the bill to the “Same Sex Marriage Act” as opposed to its present title (Civil Marriage Protection Act). It was argued that the name was very deceiving and would continue to misdirect people when the bill goes to referendum. This amendment was defeated 52/85; and


4. Amendment 4 (223923/1) was offered by a democrat member and would require a statewide referendum be conducted prior to the law taking effect. This reasonable attempt was also shot down on a tight vote with a couple of democrats speaking out on the floor. The vote was 63/72.

With these amendment defeats, the bill remains intact and will next appear for Third Reader and a final vote. I must say I was very disappointed, particularly with the failure of amendments 3 and 4. The House is clearly divided and I have never seen good legislation pass under these circumstances. Clearly the ruling party’s leadership had been whipping their caucus and twisting arms to secure these votes. On the amendment votes, many of the delegates chose not to even vote! That was more shocking that all the rest. What a colossal failure of courage and conviction.

The final outcome remains unknown and both sides are working hard. As a result, I strongly encourage citizens to participate in the process with a focus on the House Democrats.

• On Wednesday, the following bills were heard in the Judiciary Committee:

1. HB-806: This bill would consolidate several existing charges concerning suspended or revoked driver’s license and would reduce the number of points assigned by the MVA to a person’s license. State’s Attorney’s spoke out against making the change as a lesser charge already exists in the law.


2. HB-657: This bill would allow the MVA to create a special registration plate for persons convicted 3 or more times with DUI convictions. This was an interesting proposal that has come to the committee for several years in a row now. It is a Scarlet Letter for drunk drivers and I like it.


3. HB-698: This bill would allow the MVA to accept valid US Military Identification as one of their valid IDs when securing a driver’s license. This one seems like a no brainer and I cannot imagine why the MVA would not accept a military ID as opposed that are of a more questionable nature.


4. HB-1069: This bill would allow the MVA to place a special notation on a person’s driver’s license once they have been convicted of DUI three times. It was testified that this bill would help those who sell alcohol act with greater caution when someone seeks to purchase alcohol.


5. HB-957: This bill would make it a separate offense for anyone previously convicted of DUI to refuse to take a breath or blood test for alcohol on a subsequent arrest. I like the idea of this bill as it would provide a greater penalty when someone refuses a test.


6. HB-318/360/1012/1276: All of these bills address additional requirements for the mandatory use of ignition interlock devices for those convicted of drunk driving. These are devices which require the driver submit a breath sample which is alcohol free before the vehicle can be operated. All of these bills propose variances with the same goal. Most of the bills focus on action being taken by the MVA, while one of the bills (360) requires the judge in the case mandate the interlock device. It appears clear that the committee is going to embrace a modified bill which takes all of these issues into account.

• On Thursday morning, the following bills were passed on Third Reader in the House:


• On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the following bills:

1. SB- 454: Third Reading Passed (138-0)

2. SB -455: Third Reading Passed (138-0)

1. HB-878: This bill would require a defendant in a court proceeding to receive notification of their right to having their records expunged under certain conditions. It would simply clarify for defendants the rights they are assured under law but with which they may not be familiar.


2. HB-1072: This bill would require further regulations on the sale of Salvia requiring those who sell the product to verify the age of the purchaser and to post various regulations in their store addressing Salvia sales. This is just one of several bills addressing certain aspects of Salvia sales and distribution.


3. HB-919: This bill would institute a pilot program in Maryland similar to one already in existence in Texas. It is aimed at reducing the prison population by developing enhanced standards of parole and probation supervision. It provides various programs and incentives for inmates and reduces the technical violations often the reason for probationers being violated. The goal of the program is to reduce the number of inmates and create an incentivized program for success for probationers. If it is as successful as it has been in Texas, it would reduce the cost of corrections in Maryland.


4. HB-862: This bill would create a separate theft statute for the theft of mail. It is already covered under the current theft article, but the sponsor wanted to make provision for mail theft as a separate offense.


5. HB-964: This bill would create a pilot program called Recidivism Reduction Program and is designed to reduce the recidivism rate in Maryland prisons. It is a foundation program for HB-919 working in concert to achieve the same end results.


6. HB-971: This bill seeks to change the charge for abandoning a refrigerator from a criminal charge to a civil offense. It was testified that the modern refrigerators do not latch as the former models for which the law was established in the 1950’s and it would be more appropriate to charge as a civil infraction as opposed to a misdemeanor crime.


7. HB-967: This bill would increase the penalties for Malicious Destruction of Property. This bill would essentially double the current penalty for a violation.


8. HB-794: This bill would mandate a date certain by which the Division of Parole and Probation would have to conduct hearings for inmates incarcerated in local jails. The timeliness of these hearings has been brought into question in recent months. This bill seeks to rectify this issue.


9. HB-874: This bill would create a Truth in Sentencing Task Force. The task force would report on the use of diminution credits, early parole, and other aspects used in controlling inmate behavior.

10. HB-875: This bill would allow for prosecution of drug dealers who are laundering money less than $10,000.00 by creating a misdemeanor charge for transactions of less than $10,000.00. There is already a felony charge for transactions exceeding this amount.

11. HB-1024: This bill seeks to expand the protection of a pregnant woman and her fetus by expanding the time period whereby a person could be charged with Murder or Manslaughter of a Fetus. Currently, the law only applies to acts committed against a fetus who is “viable” outside of the womb of the mother. The law is constructed so as not to inhibit abortion. It is supported by Maryland Right to Life and the Maryland Catholic Conference. It was opposed by NARAL (pro abortion) and the ACLU. Needless to say, they turned it into an “abortion bill” even though the Attorney General has ruled that this bill would not violate the current abortion standards in Maryland.

12. HB-879: This bill would expand the venue of counterfeiting laws so charges could be filed in other jurisdictions.

• On Friday, we voted on a number of bills which lacked any controversy as follows:

· HB-354 : Third Reading Passed (137-0)

· HB -357:Third Reading Passed (139-0)

· HB- 378:Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB- 460: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -503: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -529: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -709: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -37: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -61: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -68: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -204: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -281: Third Reading Passed (138-0)

· HB -306 : Third Reading Passed (139-1)

· HB -329: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

• The final vote of the day was to be on SB-116, the Gay Marriage Bill. The debate was civil and primarily taken on by democrats opposing and democrats in favor. Only a couple of Republicans spoke. It became quite clear that the votes to pass it were not on the floor. They stalled the vote as long as they could and then Chairman Vallario (Judiciary Committee) requested the bill be remanded back to the committee. Essentially, that ends the bill as it is highly unlikely it will be brought back out during the session and this can be interpreted as modest victory of the process.

I must say, there was an awful lot of political capital spent in the past two weeks on this issue. The broken and twisted arms are clearly apparent. The process also showed that a dynamic minority working together can build bridges with other members across the aisle. We will need to keep this matter before us while it remains in committee until the end of the session. The other interesting thing to watch is the long term impact the actions of the past week will have on many members and their relationship with House leadership. So much pressure was brought on freshmen members and those in various junior leadership positions, the failure to move the bill on the floor looks like a wasted fight. The matter is not going away, but for today in Maryland, the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman remains the law of the land.

• The following bills were voted on in the Judiciary Committee Friday afternoon:

Unfavorable: HB-137, HB-256, HB-423, HB-501, HB-797, HB-892, HB-1019, HB-1126, HB-1136

Favorable: HB-507, HB-667, HB-729, HB-749, HB-837, HB-1018