A Carroll County judge dismissed the lawsuit by Republican legislators seeking to overturn the tax increases of the General Assembly?s special session, but he added his own harsh judgments about the legislature?s administrative actions, which he called “reprehensible” and “egregious.”
“If the actions presented by way of deposition are business as usual for the General Assembly, the citizens of Maryland deserve far better,” Judge Thomas Stansfield said.
Senate President Thomas Mike Miller and House Speaker Michael Busch both rejected the judge?s comments, saying that they and their offices had done nothing wrong.
“They never heard our side of the story,” an angry Miller said. “This is about partisan politics,” noting that the Republican plaintiffs filed the suit in heavily Republican Carroll County, getting a Republican judge appointed by a Republican governor.
“The judge tried to split the baby in half, but you can?t cut the constitution in half,” Miller said. “I just feel that the taxpayers should not have to pay for the costs” of the lawsuit.
Miller?s office issued a statement citing nine errors of fact in the judge?s opinion reviewing the evidence presented to him.
Busch called the lawsuit, and its allegations against the House clerk, the “low point since I?ve been in office” since 1987. “I don?t think there?s anyone who can suggest that anything nefarious took place,” he said.
The suit had charged that the House did not give consent to the Senate?s adjournment for more than three days during the special session that passed a tax package and a slots referendum. After testimony was taken from the House clerk, attorney Irwin Kramer also charged that documents had been fabricated and backdated.
The judge agreed with Kramer that “there has clearly been an egregious lack of judgment on the part of the Office of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates regarding their conduct in failing to abide by constitutionally mandated procedures.” But “there is ultimately no merit to the plaintiffs? arguments,” Stansfield said.
Stansfield said he “can simply not agree that when a technicality in procedures is violated, the entire slate of lawfully enacted legislation should be invalidated.” He also rejected the arguments that the slots referendum on its own violated the constitution.
Del. Michael Smigiel and Sen. David Brinkley, two of the five plaintiffs in the case, said they would meet with Kramer today to decide whether they should appeal. Kramer said an appeal was “probable.”
“It?s a sad day for Maryland,” Kramer said. “The House and Senate leaders have confirmed their own power to violate the constitution at will.”
