1 5 4 [93 O p . A tt’ y CI VI L RI GHT S AN D D I S CR I M I NA T I ON
C ODE R E VI SI ON

– W HE T HE R 1964 S TATUT E P ROHI B I T I NG R E C E I P T OF R EMUNE RA T I ON F OR P AR T I CI PAT I ON I N A “R ACI AL D E MONS T RA T I ON ” I S C ONSTI TUTI ONAL

N ovember 14, 2008

M s. B o n n ie A . K irk la n d

, C h a ir H um an R el at i ons C om m is s i on Law A r t i cl e Revi ew C om m i t t ee O n behal f of the A r t i c l e Re v i ew C om m i t t ee r evi ew i ng t he code r evi s i on dr aftof A r t i cl e 49B of t he A nnot at ed C ode of M ary l and, y ou have r eques t ed our opi ni on conce r ni ng §6 of t hat ar t i cl e, w hi ch m akes i ta cr i m e foran i ndi vi dual t o r ece i ve “a n y r emuner at i on of a n yk in d w h a ts o e v e r” f

o r p a rt ic ip a tin g in a “ ra c ia l d e m o n s tr a tio n .” T he C o m m i t t ee a s ks w het hert hatpr ovi s i on i s cons t i tut i onal and
w h e th e r its re p e a l w o u ld h a v e a n ysu b sta n tiv e e f f e c t.
In our op i nion, a cou rt w ou l d l i kely ho l d that an at t e m p t to enfor ce the s t atut e w oul d vi ol at e the Fi r s tA m endment of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tuti o n , as w el l as A r t i cl e 40 of the M ary l and D ecl ar at i on of R i ght s
. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ecomm end thatt he G ene r al As s e mb l yr e p e a l § 6 wh e n i tr e v i s e s Ar t i c l e 4 9 B.
I
A rt i cl e 49B , §6
A
. Statutor

y Lan guage
T he st at ute r eads, i n it s ent i rety , as fol l ow s:

(a ) I t is u n law f

u l f o r a n yp e rso n to r ece i ve any r emuner at i on of any k i nd
w h at s oeverforpar t i ci pat i on i n anyr aci al demonst r at i on i n t he St at e. ( b ) V io la ti o n o f

th is s e c ti o n is p u n is h a b le upon convi ct i on by fi ne not t o exce ed $1, 000 orbyi m pr i s onm entnot t o exce ed one y earor b yb o th f in e a n d im p riso n m e n t.G en. 154] 155

Th is st atute w as o ri ginal ly enact ed as §1 1A of Art icl e 49 B. 1 Chapter 29, F i rs t Special Session, L aws of Ma ryland 1964. Some year s late r, it w a s r e c odif

ie d in its c ur rent lo cat ion

wi thout a

ny c ha ng e in languag e. Chapter

684, §2, L aws of Ma

ryland 1978.
A search of Westlaw yielded no simil ar statutes in other states or 2 any case s construinga similar statute.
B ra nc h de sc ribe s thedramatic c irc ums tanc e s o f o nede c isi on to 3 financ e such de monstrations in 1961 after thefirst group of f ree dom riders had been beate n in South C arolina a nd Alabama :

.. . T hat e ve nin g wi th t

hediv ide d N a shvil lea du lts agree ing to donate $900 from the sit-in treasury withou texpli citly

endorsingthe student plan, Di aneNa sh[of

the Na shvil le stu de nt m ov e me nt] pushed ahe ad with a c all of final noticeto [ Rev. (continued...) A n n o tat ed C o d e o f M a ry land , A rt icl e 4 9 B , § 6

. W e a re n o t aw are 1 of any cas es pr os ecut ed under t hi s s t atut e or any cour t dec isi o ns co n stru ing it

. N o r i s the re a n yex tant legislat ive history

. H o w ev er,

2 t he hi s t or i cal r ecor d pr ovi des s om e i ns i ght i nt o t he s t atut e’ s m eani ng and purpos e.
B
. H is tor i cal C ontext
1. Publ i c A c c omm oda t i ons and Dem ons t r at i ons C i vi l r i ght s demonst r at i ons and pr ot es t s pr ece ded the enac t m en t of

m aj orfede r al and St at e ci vi l r i ght s l egi s l at i on, in c lu d in g A rticle 4 9 B , d u rin g th e 1 9 6 0 s. M a n yo f th e e a rly p ro tes ter s w e re in sp ire d b y re lig io u s v a lu e s a n d w e re c o m m itt e d to non- v iolen ce
. S o m e e n g ag ed in n o n -vio lent civil disob ed ienc e, s uch a s s it- in s , to p ro te s t s e g re g a tio n la w s
. See T a y lo r B ra n c h , P ar t i ng the W at ers : A m er i ca i n the K i ng Y ears 1954- 63 (19 8 8 ) (“ P ar t i ng the W aters ” ) a t 2 0 4 -5 , 2 7 2 -7 6

. P ro tes ts in th e e a r ly 1 9 6 0 s ta rg e ted ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n in publ i c t r ans por t at i on and publ i c ac comm odat i ons , s u ch as hot el s and r es t aur ant s
. T hos e engagi ng i n t he prot es t s oft en r ece i ved fi nanci al s u p p o rt f ro m o th e rs. F o r e x a m p le, th e e x p e n se s o f p a rticip a n ts in t he “f r eedom r i des ” pr ot es t i ng s egr egat ed i n terst at e bus es and bus st at i on s in several souther n st at es w ere fi nan ced in partbydo nati on s. P art i ng the W

aters at489- 90. 31 5 6 [93 O p . A tt’ y

(...continued) 3 Fred] Shuttlesworth [of the Southern Christi an L e a de rs hip Con ferenc e ]. “ Th e stu de nts ,”sh e tol d him, “have de cided that we can’t let violence ove rc ome . Weareg oin gto c omeint o Birmingham to continue the F ree dom Ride.”

“ Yo un gla dy ,”Shuttl e swor th repli e d in

his most authoritative voice, “ do you know that the F r e e d o mR i d e r s w e r e a l m o s tk i l l e d h e r e ?”

“ Ye s, ” Na shsa id t e rs e ly

.. .. “ Th at’ s e xac tly why the ride must not be stopped....”
Pa rting theW ate rs at 430. D e m o n stra tio n s in su p p o rt o f th e m o v e m e n t to d e se g re g a te publ i c ac comm odat i ons al s o occurr ed i n M ary l and. A ft ers ever al i nci dent s i n w h ich r es t aur ant s i n M ary l and r efus ed t o s er ve d ip lo m a ts f

ro m n e w lyin d e p e n d e n t A f ric a n n a tio n s in th e e a rly 1 9 6 0 s, v ariou s n ati o n al civil ri g h ts g rou p s, inclu d ing the o rga n izers of t he fr eedom r i des , p ressu r ed t he M ary l and G over norand L e g isla tu re to e n a c t a sta tew id e law b a n n in g ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n in p u b lic a c c o m m o d a tio n s . P e te r B . L e v y , C ivil W a r o n R a c e S tre e t: The C i vi lR ight

s Movem ent

i n C am br i dge, Mar

yl and (20 0 3 ) (“ C ivil W aron R ace Str eet ”) at 36. V et er ans of t he or i gi nal fr eedom r i des came t o M a r y l a n d a n d f o c u s e d o n f

a c i l i t i e s a l o n g Rou t e 50, p a rt i c u l a rl yin th e c ity o f C a m b ri d g e
. C i vi lW

aron R ace Str eet

at 38- 40. I n 1962, demonst r at i ons began i n C ambri dge; among t he lea d e rs o f

th o se p ro tes ts w e re stu d e n ts a n d o th e r in d iv id u a ls d esc ri b ed as “o u tsi d e ag it ators” b y loca l o ff ici als. C iv i lW

aron R ace Str eet

at40- 41. A tl east o n e t heat eri n t he t ow n r eac t ed by enf o r c i n g a mor e r e s t r i c t i v e s e g r e g a t i o n p o l i c y
. I n M a r c h 1963, s tudent s and ot her s l ed a s er i es of demonst rati o n s fr om l ocal c h u rc h e s
. C i vi lW

aron R ace Str eet

a t 7 6 . C ro w d s o p p o se d to d e se g re g a tio n c o n f

ro n ted th e d e m o n stra to r s a n d m a n ya rre sts f o llo w e d

. B y J u n e 1 9 6 3 , s o me d e mon s t r a t i o n s wer e a c c o mpa n i ed by vi ol ence
. T he G over nordecl ar ed mar t i al l aw i n the tow n and s ent in th e N a tio n a l G u a r d

. C i vi lW aron R ace Str eet

a t 8 3 . In a Ju ly 1963 agr eementbr oker ed byU ni t ed Stat es A t t or neyG ener al K enn edy , t ow n o ffi ci al s pl edg ed to und ert ake v ari o u s reform s, inclu d ing d ese g reg ati o n o f p u b lic ac co m m o d ati o n s, in return fo r a h a lt to d e m o n s tr a tio n s
. C i vi lW aron R ace Str eet

at86- 88.G en. 154] 157

An ex ce p tion for bar s and tave rns in the orig inal law wa s 4
remove d a fe w year s later. Chapte r 484, L aws of Ma ryland 1968.
Th e fe de ral law p ro hib itingra c ia l di sc ri min atio n in pu bli c 5 a c c omm od atio ns wa s p a sse d thefo llo wi ngye ar a s T itl e I Iof theCiv il Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000a et seq.
The name was chang ed in 1968. Chapter 83, L aws of Ma ryland 6 1968.
In add i t i o n , a proviso wa s added to the bill that allowed

7 proprietor s to deny

serviceto a p erson ba sed on “theusual and re gular require ments, standards a nd regulations for the e stablishment” so long a s the denial wa s not based upon prohibited discrimination. That provision is curre ntly

codified a s Article 49B , §5(c)

. H ow ever , a r efe r endum at a s peci al t ow n el ect i on l at ert haty ear re p e a led th e lo c a l d e s e g r e g a ti o n m e a s u re f o r p u b lic a c c o m m o d a tio n s
. C i vi lW aron R ace Str eet

at102.
2. M aryl and P ubl i c A ccom m odat i ons Law
A gai ns tt hi s backgr ound, t he G ener al A s s embl ydeal tw i t h t he i s s ue of de s egr egat i on of publ i c acc om m odat i ons
. I t pas s ed, dur i ng i t s 1963 s es s i on, a publ i c ac comm odat i ons l aw barr i ng d isc rim in a tio n o n th e b a sis o f ra c e , c re e d , c o lo r, o r n a tio n a l o rig in in hot el s , r es t aur ant s , and ot herpl ace s of publ i c ac comm odat i on. 4 C h a p te rs 2 2 7 , 2 2 8 , L a w s o f M a ryla n d 1 9 6 3 , c o d ifi e d a t A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cl e 49B , §11 et s eq. T he new l aw al s o gave 5
cer t ai n enfor cementpow er s t o t he C om m i s s i on on I nt err aci al Pr o b l e ms a n d Re l a t i o n s , t h e p r e d e c e s s o ro f t h e M a r y l and C om m i ssi on on H um an R el at i on s. I d. H ow ever, el even cou nti es, 6 i ncl udi ng t he ent i r e E as t ern Shor e, w er e exce pt ed fr om t he pur vi ew o f th e 1 9 6 3 la w a n d th e C o m m is s io n ’s e n f o rc e m e n t a u th o ri ty.
T h e n ex t y ea r, d u ri n g a sp e cial session , the L eg isl ature amended t he new ant i

- di scrimi nat i on l aw t o el i m i nat e t he geo graphical excep t i on s and extend i t st at ew i de. C hap t er 29, F i rs t Speci al Ses s i on, L aw s of M ary l and 1964. H ow ever , as t he bi l l w ent thr ough t he l egi s l at i ve pr oces s , a pr ovi s i on conce r ni ng “r aci al d e mo n s t r a t i o n s ” wa s a d d e d t o t h e b i l l

. I n p a r t i c u l a r , a n e w § 1 1 A, t he pr edec es s orof curr ent§6, w as added t o pr ohi bi tt he re ce ipt of re m u n e ra tio n f

o r p a rt ic ip a tio n in “ a n yra c ia l d e m o n s tr a tio n .” A 7 cont empora r ypr es s acc ount of t he l egi s l at i ve negot i at i ons r epor t ed that this pro v isi o n w as a d d e d a t th e re q u est o f E astern S h o re1 5 8 [93 O p . A tt’ y

Contemporary press acc ounts a re sometimes relied upon by the 8 courts to provide useful context for laws ena cted prior to the compilation and pre servation of leg islative files in the mid-1970s

. In re J ason W , 378 Md. 596, 602 & n. 3, 607- 11, 837 A.2d 168 (2003).
Th e his tor

y of Mary land ’s publ ic a c c omm od atio ns law i s 9 discussed in Bell v. Mary land, 3 78 U. S. 2 26, 22 8- 29 &n. 1 ( 19 64 ), in which the Supre me Court held that the passag e of that law put in question c ri min a l tre sp a ssi ngc onvic tio ns of stu de nts wh o ha d e ng a g e d in a sit -i n to pro te s t r a c ial d is c rim in ati o n p rio r to p a s s a g e o f th e la w
. T he lea d d ef endant in that ca se later

beca me the cur

rent Chief Judgeof the Court of Appe als of Mar

yland. opponent s of t he s t at ew i de publ i c ac comm odat i ons m eas ur e as t he G over nor and l egi s l at i ve l eade r s s oughtt o as s embl e t he vot es n e c e s s a ry f

o r i ts p a s s a g e
. See C

. W hi t efor d, Taw es cal l s act i on ‘greatst ep forw ard in raci al r el ati on s, ’ B al t i m or e S u n, p. 1, 14 ( M a r c h 1 5 , 1 9 6 4 )

. Th e s t a t e wi d e l a w wa s p e t i t i o n e d t o r e f e r e n d u m, 8 and w as narr ow l yr at ifi ed byt he vot er s att he 1964 el ect i on. See 9 M a ryla n d M a n u a l 1 9 6 5 -1 9 6 6 a t 4 8 4

.

II
A n a ly sis
A
. W h a t th e S ta tu te P ro h ib its
T he fi r s ts ubs ect i on o f

t he s t atut e r egul at es conduct ; t he s econd e sta b lish e s a c rim in a l p e n a ltyf o r a v io latio n . T h e sta tu te p ro h ib its r ece i pt of “r emuner at i on” for par t i ci pat i on i n an eve ntchar act er i zed as a “r aci al demonst r ati on. ” A n under s t andi ng of t he meani ng of t hos e t er m s i s nece s s ar y t o m eas ur e t he s t atut e aga i ns tcons t i tut i onal l i m i t at i on s. 1. “Rem une r at i on”
T h e L e g isla tu re h a s u se d th e w o rd “ re m u n e ra tio n ” f re q u e n tly in th e A n n o tate d C o d e , g e n e ra llyin c o n tex ts in w h ich it i n te n d s to encompas s notonl ym onet arycom p en s at i on, butal s o anyt ype of re w a rd o r c o n s id e r a t i o n p a id to th e p a rt yin q u e s tio n
. S e e , e .g ., A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, H eal t h- G ener al A r t i cl e, §7- 1104( a) ( St at e empl oy ee maynotr ece i ve ors ol i ci t“anyr emuner at i on” ot her t han St at e com pens at i on forpr ovi di ng cer t ai n s er vi ces ) ; I ns ur ance A r t i cl e, §10- 503( b) ( i ns ur ance adj us t er m ay not acc ept any “form ofG en. 154] 159

r emuner at i on” fr om a r epai rs er vi ce f orr ecomm endi ng t hats er vi ce t o an i ns ur ed) ; N atural R es our ces A r t i cl e, §4- 701( i ) ( 3) ( i i ) ( fi s hi ng li ce n se m ayn o t be tran sfe rred “f o r an ytyp e o f re m u n era ti o n ”); A rt icl e 2 B , § 1 5 -11 2 (d)(6 ) (m em b ers a n d em p lo y e es o f B alt im o re C i t yl i qu o r b o ar d m aynotr ece i ve “a nycomm i s s i on, r emuner at i on o r g if t w h a tso e v e r” f

ro m lice n se e s o r m a n u f a c tu re rs o f

a lco h o lic b e v e ra g e s ).
I n A r t i cl e 49B , §6, t he G ener al A s s embl yel i m i nat ed anydoubt t hati tw as us i ng t he t er m i n i t s br o ad est pos s i bl e meani ng by s ur r oundi ng i tw i t h expans i ve adj ect i ves – i

. e. , “ any r emuner at i on of any ki nd w hat

s oeve r .” F o r e x a m p le, th e ter m w o u ld c lea rly a p p lyto l i vi ng ex pens es ora s t i pend pai d t o a s tudentorot her“out s i de agi t at or ” w ho vi s i t ed the St at e t o par t i ci pat e i n a “r aci al d e m o n s tr a tio n .”
2. “Raci al D e m ons t r at i on”
T he phra s e “r aci al demonst r at i on” has fal l en out of us e i n t he 21 century
. A n on- l i ne s ear ch of the N ew Y or k T i m es ar chi ve st fo u n d n o u se o f t h e ph rase in tha t new sp ap er a fter 1 9 7 1

. H o w ev er, in th e e a rly1 9 6 0 s it w a s o f ten u se d a s a sy n o n y m f o r “ c iv il righ ts pr ot es t ” or“ci vi l r i ght s dem o n st r at i on” w hen t he foc us of t he demonst r at i on or pr ot es t w as r aci al s egr egat i o n o r r aci al d isc rim in a tio n . C o u r t d e c isio n s f ro m th a t p e rio d c o n c e rn in g c iv il r i ght s pr ot es t s , par t i cul ar l yi n t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for th e F o u rt h C ir c u it, o f

te n u s e th e p h ra s e
. See, e. g. , B ai nes v. C i t y of D an vi l le , 3 3 7 F. 2d 579, 582, 586 ( 4 C i r
. 1964) ( i n cas es “ar i s i ng th outof r aci al demonst r at i ons i n D anvi l l e, V ir g ini a, ” di s cus s i ng w h ethe r de m o n str ators h ad ex ce ed ed their F ir st A m en d m en t r igh ts) ; see al so Knightv. St at e Board of E ducat i on , 200 F. Supp. 174, 181 ( M

. D

. T enn. 1961) ( di s cus s i ng w het herpl ai n t i ff c ol l ege s tudent s had been di s ci pli n ed forengagi ng i n “r aci al demonst r at i ons ” – i.e ., fre ed o m ri d es – in M issi ssipp i)

. T he phr as e “r aci al demonst r at i on” r el at es t o t he mess age that th e d e m o n stra to rs in ten d e d to c o n v e y , a s o p p o se d to th e m a n n e r in
w hi ch t he d em o ns t r at i on w as conduct ed ort he i dent i t yof t he d em o n str ators. A s b est w e c an d eter m in e fro m the c o n tem p o rary s our ces , t he phr as e does notconnot e a vi ol en t dem ons t r at i on as o p p o se d to a p e a c e f

u l o n e , o r a d e m o n s tr a ti o n a t w h ich c iv il di s obedi ence w as p r act i ced a s oppos ed t o one i n w hi ch the demonst r at or s act ed ent i r el yw i t hi n t he rest r i ct i ons of t he t hencur r entl aw
. N ordoes it nece s s ar i l yr efe rt o t he r ace of t he1 6 0 [93 O p . A tt’ y

Pa rting theW ate rs at 390 (de scribingthe org anizatio n o f the 10 f r e e d o m ri d e r s a s “ an i nt e r r a c i a l c a dr e o f p e o p l e w e l l tr a i ne d in nonviolence” ).
The Of ficeof the Attorney Gene ral ha s long ha d a g eneral policy 11 of dec lin i n g t o provide for mal opinions when thereis pendingor imminent li tigation concer ning theissue in question. d em o n str ato rs – m an yo f th e f ree d o m ri d ers w ere w h it e. R athe r, 10 it r e f e rs to th e s u b

je c t m a tte r o f

th e p ro te s t.
T hus , i ti s a fai r i nfer ence t hat t he G ener al A s s embl yus ed t he p h r a s e i n r efe r ence t o demonst r at i ons pr ot es t i ng r aci al d is c ri m in a tio n
. 3. Sum m ary
I n ourvi ew , t he l anguage of t he s t atut e pr ohi bi t s any one w ho p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a d e mon s t r a t i o n o rp r o t e s ta g a i n s tr a ci al d i s c r i mi n a t i o n f

r o m r e c e i v i n g a n y t h i n g o f v a l u e f o r t hat par t i ci pat i on. I ti s evi dentt hati t s purpos e w as t o l i m i tpar t i ci pat i on i n c i v i l r i g h t s d e mo n s t r a t i o n s b yi n d i v i d u a l s wh o mi g h tr e q u i r e s o me fi nanci al su p p o r ti n or dert o par t i ci pat e – e .g ., s tudent s and ot her

“ o u t s i d e a g i t a t o r s ” b l a me d b ys o me f o ru n r e s t a c c o mp a n y i n g s o me dem on st rat i on s.
B
. W hetherthe Statute is C onsti tuti onal
1. A s s es s m ent o f C onst i t ut i onal i t y i n an A t t orney G eneral O pi ni on
T h e C o m m it tee h as a sk ed w h ethe r §6 is co n sti tu tion al. In under t aki ng t hi s analy s i s , w e ar e mi ndful of t he obl i gat i on of t he A t t or neyG ener al t o defe nd, i n l i t i gat i on, t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof statu tes en ac ted b ythe L eg isl ature

. St at e v. B ur ni ng Tre e C l ub, I nc. , 301 M d. 9, 36- 37, 481 A

. 2d 785 ( 1984)

. H ow ever , w e al s o have a n o b lig a tio n u n d e r A rticle V , § 3 (a )(4 ) o f th e S tate C o n stitu tio n to re sp o n d to in q u iries f

ro m th e L e g isla tu re w ith o u r b e st le g a l an a ly sis

– an obl i gat i on r ecogni zed i n t he B ur ni ng Tre e deci s i on i t s el f. 301 M d. at34. I n t he cur r ent s et t i ng w her e t her e i s nei t herpendi ng nor im m in e n t li tig a tio n c o n c e rn in g § 6 , w e d o n o t ac t as th e a d v o c a te 11 fo r t h e p rov isi o n b ef

o re a tr ibu n al. R athe r, w e are ask ed b y an arm o f t h e L e g i s l a tu r e t o a s s e s s t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t yo f i t s o wn enac t m ent s , i ndul ging al l of t he pr es um pt i ons i n favorof, and ag ains t, the s tatu te t h at a c o u rtw o u ld co n side r.G en. 154] 161

Simi lar ly , this Of

fi c e a pp lie s a “ no t c le arly

un c on sti tution a l” 12 sta nd ard in re viewi ngbil ls p a sse d b y theGe ne ral A sse mbly

prior to t he ir approval or veto by

the Gover

nor. 71 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 266, 272 n.12 (1986). This standa rd of revie w reflects the presumption of constitutionality

to which statutes are entit led and the Attorney Gene ral’s constitutional responsibility to defe nd enac tments of the L egi s l ature , while also satisfying theduty to provide the Gove rnor with our best leg al advice

. SeeMaryland Constitut ion, Article I , §9.

13 In th at reg ard , § 6 is t o b e g iven the b en ef it o f the d o u b t. T h ere i s a pr es um pt i on i n favor o f the const i tut i onal i t yof a s t atut e, and 12
s ta tu te s s h o u ld b e c o n s tr u e d to a v o id c o n s titu tio n a l d e f e c ts

. In re R o b e r to d .B ., 3 9 9 M d

. 2 6 7 , 2 8 3 -84 , 9 2 3 A

. 2 d 1 1 5 (20 0 7 ). H o w ev er, t he ca no n s of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on do notaut hor i ze a cour t , oran o p in io n o f

th e A tt o rn e yG e n e ra l, t o re w rite a sta tu te to m a k e it cons t i tut i onal

. A ccor di ngl y , anycons t ruct i on of t he s t atut e mustbe re a s o n a b le in lig h t o f

its la n g u a g e a n d u n d e rl y in g p u rp o s e
. D avis v. S ta te , 2 9 4 M d

. 3 7 0 , 3 7 7 -78 , 4 5 1 A

. 2 d 1 0 7 (19 8 2 ).
O f cou rs e, even i f w e con cl ud e that t he st at ute is c o n stitu tio n a llyd e f

icie n t, a n A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o p in io n c a n n o t it se lf in v a lid a te a n a c t o f

th e G e n e ra l A s s e m b ly. B ur ni ng Tre e , 301 M d. at36. H o w ev er , as t he l egal couns el fort he St at e, w e advi s e our cl i ent s , par t i cul ar l yt hos e w ho have s w or n t o uphol d t he fe der al and S tate c o n stitu ti o n s , to a d m in iste r sta tu tes in c o m p lian c e w ith 13
c o n s ti t u tio n a l p ro v is io n s
. S e e , e .g ., 71 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G eneral 266 ( 1986) ( debarm ents t atut e uncons t i tut i onal and unenfor cea bl e i n l i ghtof Supr e me C our tdeci s i on conce r ni ng s i m i l ar s t atut e) ; 62 O

p in io n s o f th e A tto rn e

y G e n e ra l 227 ( 1977) ( pr ovi s i on of budgetbi l l r es t r i ct i ng St at e empl oy ee s peec h w as uncon s t i tut i onal and s houl d notbe i m p lem en te d) ; 56 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G e n e ra l 25 (1971 ) ( recom m end i ng t hat the G eneral A ss e m b ly amend t he M ar y l and C ons t i tut i on t o del et e a pr ovi s i on pr ohi bi t i ng m i ni s t er s orprea cher s fr om s er vi ng i n L egi s l atur e as t he pr ovi s i on w as i nval i d under Fi r s t and F our t eenth A m endment s of t he fe der al cons t i tut ion ); 46 O

pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al51 ( 1961) (sta tu tes re q u irin g se g re g a tio n o f th re e ju v e n ile re f

o rm sc h o o ls s houl d notbe i m pl ement ed i n l i ghtof C ourt o f A ppeal s deci s i on h o ld in g th a t s e g r e g a tio n p u rsu a n t to a d if f e re n t sta tu te a t a f

o u rth insti tuti o n w as u n co n sti tuti o n al).1 6 2 [93 O p . A tt’ y

Th e Mary

land prov isi on

state s: 14
Th at th e lib e rt

y of the pr e ss ou ght to b e inv iol a bly pr e se rv e d; t

hat e ve ry c iti zen of the State ou ght t o be a llo we d to sp e ak, writeand pu bli shhis sentiments on all subje ct s, beingresponsible for the abuseof that privileg e. Maryland Dec laration of Rights, Article 4 0. The Court of Appe als has state d th at Artic le40 is “in parimateria”with the First Amendme nt and th at , while the two provisions will not necessa rily always be construe d identi c a lly , in

many c onte xts, theanalysis un de r Artic le40 and theF ir st Amendment will be the same. The Pack Shack, Inc. v. Howard County, 377 Md. 55, 64, 832 A.2d 170 (2003).
The vagueness doc trine is derive d from the c onstitut ional right 15 to due proc ess – i .e., a la w fails to provide a per son of ordinar y int e l l i g e n c e f

a i r n o t i c e o f wh at i s p r o h ib i t e d o r i s s o s t an d ar d l e s s that it permits discriminatory

enforceme nt. W

illiam s, 128 S.Ct . At 1845. 2. F ree dom s of

Speech and A s s oci at i on
A s out l i ned above , A r t i cl e 49B , §6, es s ent i al l ycr i m i nal i zes t he r ece i ptof funds – orot herr emuner at i on – byan i ndi vi dual fort hat i ndi vi dual ’ s par t i ci pat i on i n a ci vi l r i ght s demonst r at i on. W hi l e t he act i on r egul ated b yt he s t atut e i s t he paym entof funds orot her re m u n e ra tio n , it s s tate d p u rp o se is to re stric t th a t ac tiv ityo n lyin connec t i on w i t h a par t i cul arfor m of exp ressi ve ac t i vi t y– a demonst r at i on agai ns tr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on or , i n t he par l ance of t he 1 9 6 0 s , a “ ra c ia l d e m o n s tr a tio n .”
T h e st atut e mustbe as s es s ed aga i ns tt he cons t i tut i onal pr o v i s i o n s t h a tp r o t e c tt h e f r e e d o ms o f

s p e e c h a n d a s s o c i a t i o n. T hos e r i ght s ar e bas ed on t he F i r s t A m endment of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, as w el l as A r t i cl e 40 of the M ary l and D ecl ar at i on of R i ght s
. O r gani zed expr es s i on of vi ew s on publ i c i s s ues i s on t he

14 “hi ghes t rung of

. . . Fi r s t A m endment val ues
. ” N A A C P v. C l ai bor ne Har dwar e C o. , 458 U

. S. 886, 913 ( 1982)

. N ever t hel es s , t he gover nm entm ayr egul at e t hatr i ghti f i t has “a s uffi ci ent l yi m por t ant interest an d em p lo y s m ea n s clo selyd raw n to av o id u n n ec essa ry abr i dgm entof as s oci at i onal fr eedoms. ” B uckl ey v. V al eo , 42 4 U. S. 1, 25 ( 1976)

. A s t atut e t hati s notnarr ow l y t ai l or ed and t hati ncl udes a su b sta n tial am o u n t o f c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted c o n d u c t w ith in its pr ohi bi t i on m ay be s t ruck dow n on t he bas i s of overbr eadth and vag uen ess. S e e U

n ite d S ta te s v . W

illia m s ,

_ _ _ U .S . _

_ _ , 1 2 8 S .C t. 15G en. 154] 163

See note 14 a

bove. 16 1 8 3 0 , 1 8 3 8 , 1 8 4 5 (2 0 0 8 ); C o x v . L o u is ia n a , 379 U

. S. 536, 551- 52 (1 9 6 5 ); N

A A C P v. B ut t on , 3 7 1 U .S . 4 1 5 , 4 3 2 -3 3 (1 9 6 3 ).
3. Bro ok ins
T he C our t of A ppeal s r ece nt l yas s es s ed t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof a St a t e s t a tu t e o f s i mi l a r v i n t a g e t h a t c r i mi n a l i z e d t h e p a y me nt of c o m p e n s a tio n f

o r p a rt ic ip a tio n in s p e e c h -r e la te d a c tiv itie s
. St at e v. B r ooki ns , 380 M d. 345, 844 A

. 2d 1162 ( 2004)

. T hat cas e conc erned a stat u te , m os tr ece nt l ycodi fi ed atA nnot at ed C ode of M ary l and, E l ect i on L aw A rt i cl e (“EL ”), §1 3-245 , t hat pr oh i bit ed can didates, pol i t i cal comm i t t ees , pol i t i cal par t i es , and ot her s fr om pay i ng “any s um of m oneyort hi ng of val ue” f or“w al k ar ound serv i ces ” on el ect i on day

. T he s t atut e defi ned “w al k ar ound s er vi ces ” t o i ncl ude s uch ac t i vi t i es as di s t r i but i ng campai gn m at er i al , el ect i oneer i ng or ca n v assin g , an d co m m u n icati n g a vot i ng pr efe r ence
. E L §1 3 -24 5 (a). C er t ai n t ypes of paym ent s w er e exc ept ed fr om t he pr ohi bi ti on, i ncl udi ng s al ar i es of ca m pai gn per s onnel , t he cos tof t r ans por t i ng vot er s t o pol l i ng pl aces, m eal s s er ved t o campai gn w or ker s , and sim il ar it em s. E L § 1 3 -24 5 (b).
B r ooki ns ar os e out of a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on o f sever al i nd i vidual s w ho had paid col l ege st ud ents and res i den t s o f ho m el ess s hel t er s t o pr ovi de “w al k ar ound s er vi ces ” on el ect i on dayi n 2002, i ncl udi ng t he di s t r i but i on of cam pai gn m at er i al s and el ect i oneer i ng w i t h v o ter s n ear pol l i ng places

. T he d efen dan t s m ov ed to di sm i ss t he i ndi ct m ent , chal l engi ng t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof t he s t atut e under bot h t he Fi r s t A m endment of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and A rt icl e 4 0 o f th e M ary land D ec larati o n o f R igh ts. T h e c ir cu itco u rt d ism iss e d th e in d ictm e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e sta tu te w a s f a c ially
u n c o n s titu tio n a l.
T he C our tof A ppeal s anal y zed the ar gum ent s undert he fede r al and St at e cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons as a si ngl e i s s ue. 380 M d. at 3 5 0 n
. 2

. T h e C o u rt first o b serv ed that, u n d er S u p re m e C o u rt

16 p re c e d e n ts, a law th a t b u rd e n s “ c o re p o lit ica l sp e e c h ” is s u b jec t to “exa ct i ng s crut i ny ” and maybe uphel d onl y i f i ti s narr ow l yt ai l or ed to se rve an im p o rt a n t S tate intere st. 3 8 0 M d

. at 35 5

. T h e C o u rt d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l s e v e r a l S u p r e me Co u r td e c i s i o n s s t r i k i n g d o wn res t ri ct i on s o n cam paign exp end i tures an d si m i l ar pa y m ents on F i rs t A m e n d m e n t g ro u n d s
. See, e. g. , Meye rv. G r ant , 486 U

. S. 414 ( 1988) ( hol di ng t hats t at e s t atut e thatpr ohi bi t ed compens at i on of1 6 4 [93 O p . A tt’ y

A s imi lar p ro hib iti onin M ary land law h a d b e e n h e ld 17 unconstitutional in Ficke r v. Montgome ry County Board of Elections , 670 F. Supp. 618 (D.Md. 1985)

. p eti ti o n circu lat o rs vio lat ed F ir st A m en d m en t) ; B uckl ey v. V al eo , 17 424 U

. S. 1 ( 1976) ( s t r i ki ng dow n fede r al r es t r i ct i ons on campai gn e x p e n d itu re s ).
I n defe ndi ng t he s t atut e, t he St at e ar gued t hatt he s t atut e w as di rec ted notatpol i t i cal s peec h i t s el f, butatt he pot ent i al l ycor rupt u se o f m on ey t o i nfluence an el ect i on and t hat, t o the exte n t it affected speech , t he st atute w as content -neut ral

. T he S t ate al so arg u ed that the s tatu te w as n arro w lyf o c u sed o n p ay m en ts fo r ve ry s p e c if ic e le c tio n e e ri n g a c tiv itie s o n a s in g le d a y– e le c tio n d a y
. Id

. at360- 61, 370- 71.
T he C our thel d t hatt he s t atut e r egul at ed sp ee ch and found none o f t h e St a t e ’ s a r g u me n t s s u f f i c i e n t l yc o mpe l l i n g t o s a v e t he sta tu te. I n r e

jec tin g th e a rg u m e n t th a t th e sta tu te d id n o t re g u late s peec h pe rse , the C our tobs er ved thatt he Supr eme C our thad appl i ed a s t r i ct er s t andar d t o r egul at i on of campai gn expendi tur es as oppos ed t o r egul at i on of ca m pai gn cont r i but i ons
. 380 M d. at361- 68. I tnot ed t hat , as i n B uckl ey , th e sta tu to ryre stric tio n o n p a y m e n ts f o r “ w a lk a ro u n d se rv ice s” d ire c tlya f f e c ted a c a n d id a te’ s a b ili tyto di s s emi nat e a pol i t i cal m es s age, as t hos e ac t ivit i es w er e par tof c o n v e y in g th a t m e s s a g e
. I d. at368- 69. T he C our tal s o r ej ect ed t he St at e’ s ar gum entt hatt he s t atut e w as cont ent

- neut r al , not i ng t hatt he S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t “th e F irst A m e n d m e n t’s h o stilityto cont ent

- bas ed r egul at i on ext ends notonl yt o a r es t r i ct i on on a par t i cul ar vi ew poi nt , but al s o t o a pr ohi bi t i on of publ i c di s cus s i on of an ent i r e t opi c. ” 380 M d. at369 ( quot i ng B urs on v. Fr eem an , 504 U

. S

. 1 9 1 , 1 9 7 (19 9 2 )).
T he C our ts t at ed t hatt her e w as no s how i ng t hatt he s t atut e w as nece s s ar yt o ac co m p l i s h t he goal of r educi ng cor rupt i on, and ci t ed others t atut es that direc tl yp roh ibitv o te-bu y ing , att em p ts t o i nfl uence vot ers thr ough t he us e of f or ce orot heri m pr operm eans , and i n te rf e re n c e w ith th e b a llo tin g p ro c e s s
. Id

. at 373- 74. T h e C o u rt concl uded t hat“[t ] he St at e’ s as s er t ed goal of pr event i ng cor rupt i on ort he appe ar ance of corrupt i on does notr i s e t o the leve l of a co m p ell ing stat e intere st i n li g h t o f th e f ac t th at t h e m ea su re
‘ r es t r i ct s access to t he mosteff ect i ve, fundament al , and perhaps economi cal avenue of pol i t i cal di s cour s e, dir ect one- on- one comm uni cat i on. ’ ” Id

. at375- 76 ( quot i ng Meye rv. G r ant ).G en. 154] 165
4. A ppl i cat i on t o §6
A s noted abo ve, w hil e §6 l i t eral l y prohibi t s cer t ai n p ay m ents , l i ke the statut e i n B rookins, it co n c e rn s p a y m e n ts o n lyf o r c e rta in t ypes of expr es s i ve act i vi t y – “r aci al demonst r at i ons
. ” T hus , l i ke t he sta tu te b a rrin g p a y m e n ts f o r “ w a lk a ro u n d se rv ice s,” it i n d ir e c tly r egul at es s peec h. B ut i ti s even mor e di ffi cul tt han i n B r ooki ns to a rg u e th a t th e re stric tio n o n sp e e c h in § 6 is c o n ten t-n e u tra l. W h ile th e re stric tio n s o n p a y m e n ts f o r “ w a lk a ro u n d se rv ice s” a p p li e d to a l l c a n d i d a t e s a n d p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i rp o i n to f

v i e w, § 6 tar g e ts d e m o n stra tio n s p ro tes tin g ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n . T h e re is n o sim ilar p ro h ib iti o n o n re c e iv in g re m u n e ra tio n f o r p a rticip a tio n in a demonstr at i on fororagai ns ta w ar , abor t i on, ot her fo r m s of d is c ri m in a tio n , o r o th e r i s s u e s o f p u b lic p o lic y
. I tm i ghtbe ar gued t hat§6 w as des i gned n o t to l i m i tt he p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f

t h o s e wh o wi s h t o e x p r e s s a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n to f v i e w, buts i m pl yt o el i m i nat e t hos e w ho par t i ci pat e i n a demonstr at i on for pr ofi t w i t hout any t rue i nt er es t i n t he i s s ue of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. A s s um i ng t hatt he st atut or y l anguage coul d be par s ed t o r eac h s uch a conc l us i on and t hata ca t egor yof m er cena r y p rot es t er s coul d be i den t i fi ed, enfo rcem ent of the st at ute w ou l d st i l l viol at e t he F i rs t A m endment

. I n Meye r , supra , t he Supr eme C our ts t ruck d ow n a s t atut e i n a ca s e i nvol vi ng t he hi r i ng of pet i t ion ci r cul at or s by pr oponent s of a pos s i bl e bal l otm eas ur e; i n B r ooki ns , t he s t atut e w as hel d uncons t i tut i onal w hen paym ent s w er e made t o r es i dent s of an o u t- o f -s ta te h o m e le s s s h e l t e r r e c ru ite d to e le c tio n e e r w ith v o te rs
. Itm igh t al so b e u rge d th a t § 6 w as a p rop h y lacti c m ea su re des i gned t o pr eventdemonst r at i ons t hatw oul d r es ul ti n vi ol ence or ot hervi ol at i ons of t he l aw
. H ow ever , t he l anguage of §6 m akes no di s t i nct i on as t o w het hert he forbi dden r emuner ati o n is for par t i ci pat i on i n an ent i r el yl aw ful demonstr at i on, a pr ot es ti nvol vi ng ci vi l di s obedi ence , or one acc om pani ed by vi ol ent act i vi t y
. N ordoes i tt ar getanypar t i cul art ype of p art i ci pat i on – i tcover s peac eful p re se n c e a s w e ll as in c item e n t to v io len c e . A s n o ted a b o v e , itw o u ld encom p ass fi nanci ng t he tr ans por t at i on expens es of s om eone w ho tr av els t o p arti cipa te pe ac ea b lyin a c ivil ri g h ts m arc h

. N o r i s the re anyappar entw ayt o l i m i tt he r eac h of t he st atut e byi t s hi s t or i cal cont ext

. I n t he par l ance of t he ear l y 1960s , a “r aci al demonst r at i on” coul d be, and gener al l yw as , an ent i r el yl aw ful act i vi t yi n w hi ch t he par t i ci pant s expr es s ed t hei r comm on pol i t i cal and mora l vi ew s
. T he b ro a d re a c h o f th e sta tu te n o t o n lyu n d e rm in e s a n ya rg u m e n t th a t it is n a rro w lytailo re d to se rv e a n im p o rta n t g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e st; it a ls o d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e s ta tu te is f a ta lly o v e rb ro a d

.1 6 6 [93 O p . A tt’ y

It is also notable th at th e federal civil rights law ba rringrac ial 18 discrimination in p ub l ic ac commodations, enac ted af ter the Ma

ryland statute, would cove r most, if not all, the facilities covered by the State law. T h e re is s im p ly n o w a yto p a rse th e b ro a d lan g u a g e o f th is s t atut e t o l i m i ti t s appl i cat i on t o s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch the compens at ed “par t i ci pat i on” i s not pr ot ect ed spee ch. A ccor di ngl y , i n ourvi ew , §6 cannotbe enf

or ced c ons i s tentlyw i t h t he Fi r s tA m endment of t he U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on or A r t i cl e 40 of t he M ary l and D ecl ar at i on o f R ig h ts

. 5
. S ev er a b il it y
I n l i g h t o f o u rc o n c l u s i o n t h a t§ 6 i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l , we di s cus s br i efl yw het hert he i nval i di t y of §6 w oul d cal l i nt o ques t i on th e v a lid ityo f th e re st o f th e 1 9 6 4 a c t, i n c lu d in g th e sta tew id e p u b lic a c c o m m o d a ti o n s law . In o th e r w o rd s, is th e c u rre n t § 6 se v e ra b le f r o m th e r e ma i n d e ro f

t h e p u b l i c a c c o mm o d a t i o n s l a w? I n o u rv i e w, t he pr ovi s i on i s s ever abl e.
A t th e tim e § 6 w a s o rig in a lly e n a c ted , a s n o w , th e c o u rts d id not gener al l y i nval i dat e an ent i r e act w hen a por t i on of t he ac tw as h e l d u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l o rp r e e mp t e d b yo t h e rl a w. See, e. g. , C i t y of B al t i m o re v. St uyve s antI ns ur ance Co. , 226 M d. 379, 390- 93, 174 A

. 2d 153 ( 1961)

. R at her , t he cour t s gener al l y l ooked t o w het hert he r emai ni ng val i d pr ovi s i ons al o n e w er e i ncompl et e ori ncapa bl e of bei ng exec ut ed i n acc or dance w i t h l egi s l at i ve i nt ent– an appr oach th a t w a s c o d if

ie d in s ta tu te in 1 9 7 3

. See A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cl e 1, §23.
I n t hi s i ns t ance , §6 does not r el at e di r ect l y t o t he enf or cement of the st at ew i de p ub l i c acco m m od at i o ns l aw , as i tregul at es a cat ego ryof p ub l i c even t s r at her t han a cat ego ry of ac com m od at i on s; t he publ i c ac comm odat i ons l aw funct i o n s i ndepende nt l yof §6. W hi l e t he i ncl us i on of §6 i n t he 1964 ac tm ayhave be en i m por t ant to th e p a ss a g e o f

th a t law , the p ro v isio n s h a v e n o t b e e n lin k e d in s ubs equent l egi s l at i on r eaf fi r m i ng t he ant i

- di s cr i m i nat i on m eas ur e. T h e L e g isla tu re h a s a m e n d e d a n d re e n a c ted th e p u b lic acc om m o d at i ons s t atut e on numer ous occa s i ons s i nce 1964. For exampl e, i thas r eena ct ed t he publ i c acc om m odat i ons l aw t o expand t he t ypes of pr ohi bi t ed di s cr i m i nat i on, w i t houtm aki ng s i m i l ar change s t o §6. I ti s evi dentt hat , w hat everpurpos e §6 s er ved i n t he or i gi nal pas s age of

t he publ i c ac comm odat i ons l aw , t he l egi s l at i ve in ten t u n d e rly in g th e su b se q u e n t re e n a c tm e n ts o f th e a n tidi s cr i m i nat i on l aw w oul d r equi r e t hat§6 be s ever ed. 18G en. 154] 167

See 42 U.S.C. §2000a.
Cha ng e s ma de by c od e re vis ion bil ls are g e ne rally pr e sume d to 19 clarify and not to make a

substantive chang e in the law. See, e .g., Chapter 15 , § 3, L aws of

Mary land 20 08 ; se eals o Alle n v . S tate , 402 Md. 59, 69- 76, 935 A.2d 421 (2007). We recommend that th e repea l either be ac co mp lished in a separate bill or be spe cially flag g ed for

the General Assembly in the code revision bill. See Maryland Division of Labor and Industry v. Triangle Gene ral Contractors, Inc ., 36 6 M d. 407, 784 A.2d 5 3 4 (2 0 0 1 ) ( co d e re v i s i o n b i l lm ay ef fe cts u b s t ant i v e c h an ge i f l an gu age is clear and unambiguous). III

C oncl usi on
In o u r o p in io n , a c o u rt w o u ld lik e lyh o ld th a t an a ttem p t to enfor ce A r t i cl e 49B , §6, w oul d vi ol at e t he Fi r s tA m endment of t he U ni t ed St at es C o n s t i tut i on, as w el l as A r t i cl e 40 of the M ary l and D ecl ar at i on of Ri ght s
. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ecomm end thatt he G ener al As s e mb l yr e p e a l § 6 wh e n i tr e v i s e s Ar t i c l e 4 9 B. 19

D ougl as F. G ans l er A t t or ney G ener al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce