Court Opinion

ID: 9713719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:20:45.667428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.066784
License: Public Domain

Levine, J.,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority holding that the General Assembly has preempted the field of campaign finance regulation to the exclusion of otherwise-valid legislation by chartered counties.
The holding of the majority has the effect of overruling sub silentio a long line of cases decided by this Court, by virtually abrogating the doctrine of concurrent powers first enunciated in Rossberg v. State, 111 Md. 394, 74 A. 581 (1909), and consistently reaffirmed by its progeny. The General Assembly has occupied the field of election law legislation with no greater force than it did in the area of minimum wage legislation, which we dealt with in City of *66Baltimore v. Sitnick & Firey, 254 Md. 303, 255 A. 2d 376 (1969).
Since I am also of the view that the ordinances were enacted upon properly delegated authority, and are neither in conflict with state law nor in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions, I would reverse the circuit court decree. Judge Singley authorizes me to state that he concurs in this opinion.