Gen. 17] 17 CHARTER HOME RULE COUNTIES

P UBLIC O FFI CER S AND E MPLOYEES

) C ONSTI TUTIO NAL L AW

) R ECALL P ROVISI O N IN C OUNTY C HARTER W OULD B E U NCONSTITUTI ONAL

October 18, 1995
The Honorable Marvin H. Smith, Chai rman Caroline County

Governmental StudyComm issi on
You have reques ted our op inion conc erning the validity of a recall provi sion i n a county char ter. In our

opinion, such a provi sion wo uld b e unc onstitu tional.

I Na ture of Re call The Co unt y C om miss ion ers o f Ca rolin e C oun ty h ave appointe d a com mission to st udy the county gove rnment. The commissi on, known as the Carol ine County Gover nmental Study Commission, has been ask ed to consi der whetherit would be be tter forthe county to adopt c harter gove rnment under

Arti cle XI- A of

the Constit utionin li eu of the pr esent code cou nty gov ernment under Article XI-F. A mon g the argum ents advanced by t he proponents of charte r gove rnmentis that the charte r could pr ovide for the recal l of the county’s elected offi cials. Rec all genera lly r efers to the t ermination of an elect ed official’s tenure be fore t he end of the term as the res ult of a specia l elect ion call ed by a certa in percentage of voters. Poprosky v. Shea , 573 A.2d 756, 758 (Co nn. A pp. 1 990 ); Co llins v. M orris , 438 S.E.2d18 [80 O p. Att’y

1 Rec all is to be dist inguished fro m remo val for cau se a s t he res ul t of l egal procee di ngs . See, e.g., Art icle XV, §2 o f the Co nst itu t ion.

2 Of t he related

vot er par t icipat ion d evices o f legislative init iative a nd r efe r en du m, the

Cou rt of Appea ls has held t hat , o n t he o ne hand , t he initiat iveviolates t he Ch ar t er Co un t y Ho me Rule Articl e, Articl e XI-A, §3. Maryland State Administr

ative Boar

d of Election Law

s v. Talbot C

ounty , 316 Md. 332, 349, 558 A.2d 724 (1 988 ). On t he o t her hand, t he Court he ld that t he re f

eren dum i s prope

r charter m

aterial

. Ritchmount Partn ersh ip , 28 3 M d. at 64

. T he dis t inc t io n is t ha t t he init ia t ive co mple t ely

depri ve s th e c oun ty cou nc i l of i ts l eg i sl ati ve pow er i n v i ol ati on of Ar t icle XI- A, §3, whi l e the ref eren dum does n ot. Talbot County , 316 Md. at 347-49. 896, 897 (Ga . 199 4); Wallace v. Tri pp , 101 N.W .2d 312, 314 (Mich. 1960). 1 In ad vocat ing arecal l prov isi on in a county charte r, the prop onen ts are evidently referring to the recall of th e elect ed officials whose positi ons would be est ablis hed by a charter

) that is, the council and the executi ve, if the executive is elected. See Article XI-A, §3.

II

Constitut ion al Conf

lict In inter preti ng the Chart er Count y Home Ru le Article, A rticle XI-A, the Cou rt of A ppeals has said t hat a count

y charte r is t

he equiv alent

of a const itution, concer ned with the distribut ion of power among the a gencies of govern men t and between the go vernment

and pe ople. Board of Supervi sors of Electi ons v. Sm allwo od , 327 M d. 220, 236-37, 608 A.2d 1222 (1992). The power to adopt a

charte r is de riv ed direc tly f rom the Const itution and does not require imp lementing legislation. Ritchmount Partne rship v. Board of Supervisors of Elections , 283 Md. 48, 58, 388 A.2 d 523 (1 978). A recal l prov isi on can reasona bly be reg arded as proper charte r materia l, not requi ringstat utory aut horization. 2 N e vertheles s, all charte r prov isi ons are subj ect t o the federaland Stat e consti tuti ons and pub lic g eneral law s of the State. See Maryland Constit ution, Article XI-A, § 1; Ritchmount , 283 Md. at 59. As you suggested inGen. 17] 19

3 A rticl e X VII , §3 doe s n

ot ap ply t o mu nicipalities. We exp re ss no opi ni on about the constitutionality of recal l provisions i

n a m unici pal charter. Seegenerally Tow n of Glenarden v. Bromery , 257 Md. 19, 262 A.2 d 60 (1 970) (i

ssue raised

but n ot decided). your letter, there is a substantial question o f w h ether a recall provi sion wo uld b e con trary to the Fewer Electi ons Amendment of the State Cons titution. In rel evant part, the Fe wer Electi ons Amendment ( or Qua drennialElecti ons Amendment, as it is sometimes cal led ) provi des that elec tions fo r State an d cou nty o fficia ls s hall be held every four year s. Art icle XVII, §2. Exc ept fo r judg es, al l ele cted State and county off

icia ls “ shallhold off

ice for terms of four years, and un til their successors shall qualify.” A rticle XVII, §3. The evi dent pur

p ose u nder lying the man datory term “sha ll hold” is to promote stab ility in government through fixed term s. Of course, the g eneral rule of a four- year te rm is s ubject to quali fication in the case of rem oval for c au se as the result of legalproceedings. S ee Arti cle X V, §2. A term can also be s hortened due to the adoptionof charter hom e rule unde r Art ic le XI-A. Co unty Com missioners v. S uperviso rs of Electi ons , 192 Md. 196, 213, 63 A.2d 735 (194 9). H ow ever, the recall co ncep t

) allow ing a popular vote to ter

minate an elect ed offi cial ’s te nure pri or to t he end of

the four-ye ar ter

m ) is flatly inconsi stent with the g eneral principle that once offi cial s have bee n elect ed, they ar e to ser ve a fi xed term of four years. 3 As the Geo rgi a Supr eme C ourt put it, “Recall is a proce dure whereby it i s the v oters themsel ves who m ake the u ltimate determi nationas to whethe r an offi cial should re tain hi s offi ce for the durati on of

the te rm to which he was el ected.” Collins v. Morris , 438 S.E.2d at

897. I n M arylan d, ho we ver, that “ultim ate determi nation” is made by Arti cle XVII , §3 of the Constit ution, not the voters.20 [80 O p. Att’y III Con clusion In summary, i t is our opinionthat a doption of a recal l prov isi on in a cou nty ch arter w ould viol ate the Fewer Electi ons Amendment of the M aryland C onstitution. J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral Richard E. I srael Assist ant Attorney General Jack Sch wa rtz Chief Counsel Opinions & Advic eGen. 17] 21