Veto in the home of the 7-0 vote
In Baltimore County, vetoes of County Council bills are rare.
Unanimous passage of most bills usually signals that the council — with two more votes than the five required for a veto override — can overturn any attempt to thwart its legislative will.
Bills that lack the four votes needed for passage are withdrawn before a vote. The vast majority that do pass get the thumbs up from all seven councilmen.
It’s this unanimity that has earned the council a nickname in some circles — the home of the 7-0 vote.
A county executive hasn’t vetoed a council bill in more than 20 years. Some observers say it might even be longer.
But sometime this week County Executive Jim Smith is expected to veto recently passed legislation aimed at giving residents the ability to stop businesses from leaving advertising circulars on their doorsteps and car windshields. The council unanimously approved the bill last Monday.
The reason is that an amendment, added right before the vote, appears to have inadvertently created a First Amendment issue by subjecting free community newspapers to the law.
Some councilmen said they are not bothered at the prospect of a veto. Even the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Councilman John Olszewski Sr., asked Smith to kill his bill.
“If there is a rational objection based upon valid first amendment issues, then the executive could appropriately exercise his veto authority,” Democratic Councilman Kevin Kamenetz wrote in a e-mail. ” The council would then consider the basis for the veto to assess whether the executive’s analysis was proper.”
Kamenetz added that such a veto “would appear part of the checks and balances process, and not merely a policy dispute between two branches of government. ”
Is the veto an appropriate check and balance? Is the council’s frequent unanimous agreement on issues the sign of a veteran council that works well together or symbolic of something else? What do you think?