Reporters' Notebook

ANNAPOLIS — The full House of Delegates is expected to consider a flurry of amendments Friday when it takes up final debate on a contentious bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

It’s unclear how many amendments will be debated, but one proposed by Delegate John Olszewski, Jr., D-Baltimore County, seeks to broaden exemptions for religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriages.

Delegate Kathleen Dumais, a Montgomery Democrat and the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, presented the amendment to committee members Thursday evening. She characterized it as a friendly amendment.

“I’m OK with it,” Dumais, a same-sex marriage supporter, told Capital News Service.  “I think it is probably good for the bill.”

The House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on whether to support the amendment just minutes before the full House meets at 11 a.m.

The same-sex marriage bill passed the Senate two weeks ago by a vote of 25-21, but has faced a much bumpier ride since House members started debating the proposal. (Click here and here to read more about the controversy in the House Judiciary Committee).

By proposing the amendment late Thursday, Dumais drew ire from committee members angry about the way the Senate bill has moved through the House.

The situation highlights an internal struggle among delegates that played out in the House on Wednesday, when four amendments to the bill failed. Some delegates are frustrated with what they’ve described as a mandate from Senate leadership not to amend the bill.

Delegate Susan McComas, R-Harford, complained about the process Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee, saying “we were told there were going to be no amendments, that we were going on the Senate bill and what the Senate did, we had to do.”

“Now it’s all changing,” McComas said. “You can’t make these iron clad rules and then make an exception. It doesn’t look good, it doesn’t feel good. We all went into this knowing what the rules were, and now they’ve changed.”

In an interview later, Dumais defended the Senate position of telling the House not to amend the bill.

“It is appropriate,” she said. “The Senate said ‘we’re handling it early. We don’t want to see it come back and can’t guarantee that if you send it back to us that we’re going to go through the process again.’”

Dumais said the Senate’s so-called mandate is not unreasonable because both chambers are soon to be consumed with budget negotiations.

“This is real democracy in action despite the sense of some committee members and delegates that this is being railroaded through,” Dumais said.

Dumais, however, acknowledged that any amendment the House passes could derail the bill because it would send it back to the Senate, where lawmakers would have to vote on the changes made in the House.

“It’s really a question of can the Senate live with this, and if so, fine, we’re done,” Dumais said.

She added: “Really I don’t think anybody knows the end of the story.”

Whether the bill moves forward or dies on the floor could come down to a single vote. Neither opponents nor supporters have said if they have enough  votes to pass the bill.

Delegate Michael Smigiel, R-Cecil, said Thursday during the committee hearing that Dumais bringing the amendment to the committee appears to be an attempt by supporters to trade an amendment for a vote.

– By Capital News Service’s Maggie Clark and David Saleh Rauf.

ANNAPOLIS — Few subjects are as emotionally charged or politically volatile as the debate over guns.

The House Judiciary Committee is weighing in on the topic  as part of its so-called gun day. A dozen gun bills will be debated today, but don’t expect many of them to pass. Read this Capital News Service story for more on that.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the gun issues that will come up in today’s hearings.

O’Malley and Guns

A pair of gun bills backed by Gov. Martin O’Malley are on today’s schedule.

One of O’Malley’s bills – House Bill 161 — seeks to close a “loophole” and requires people convicted of committing a violent crime with a long gun, such as a rifle, to face a mandatory sentence of five years without parole, the same penalty for those who commit a violent crime with a handgun.

The other — House Bill 172 — would increase the time convicted gun offenders spend in prison by reducing “good-time credits.”

Neither bill is formally opposed by Second Amendment groups, including the National Rifle Association and Maryland Shall Issue (click here and here to see which gun bills the groups are opposing).  In most cases, that would almost secure smooth passage for a gun bill backed with the governor’s muscle.

But O’Malley’s “good-time” credit diminution bill could run into trouble if it makes its way to the Senate committee that decides whether guns bills live or die. Sen. Brian Frosh, D-Montgomery, said Tuesday he hasn’t decided whether he’ll support the measure, which is crossfiled in his committee as Senate Bill 173.

“Everyone has their pet diminution bill,” he said. “I’d like to see a more comprehensive approach.”

On a side note: Frosh says the makeup of his committee, which includes four new members, could help swing the tide in favor of several pieces of gun-control legislation.  A vote on some of those gun bills is scheduled for Wednesday, Frosh said, but will likely be delayed until next week.

Simmons and Mental Health Exclusions

Delegate Luiz Simmons, D-Montgomery, has a gun bill that’s being heard today that Second Amendment advocates are ready to fight tooth and nail.

Simmons’ House Bill 730 would prohibit a person who has been treated for a mental disorder in the past five years from buying, renting or owning a regulated firearm, which includes this list of 45 guns deemed “assault weapons” by state police. Simmons’ bill also would apply to firearms dealers.

“This just might be the most offensive bill of the year,” Maryland Shall Issue told its members in a blog post.

Simmons says his bill is needed because current laws that determine who gets to buy and own a gun are “antiquated.”

But in an apparent nod to opposition to the bill, Simmons told Capital News Service last week he’s planning to pull back on the bill.

“I’m going to request that it’s turned into a task force, so that we don’t attempt to legislate without really looking and seriously studying it,” he said.

One last Simmons tidbit: Although he’s a supporter of gun control measures, Simmons also is in favor of changing a key clause in the state’s concealed carry law that Second Amendment advocates have long complained infringes on their rights. Simmons believes the “good and substantial” language in the concealed carry law needs to be updated, so that the term is not “so ambiguous that it means whatever the state police says it means.”

The Vallario Factor

Delegate Joseph Vallario, a Democrat from Prince George’s and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the  one lawmaker on the committee with the power to decide whether a gun bill comes up for a vote or whether it never sees the light of day again after its initial hearing.

Committee members say the chairman is conservative when it comes to gun laws and don’t expect him to help firearm legislation advance.

“In this committee the chairman is sensible when it comes to gun rights and realizes that the majority of law abiding citizens believe they should have the ability to protect themselves and their family so long as they don’t have a criminal record,” Delegate Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel, told Capital News Service last week.

Simmons added: “Our chairman has been a master of preserving the status quo.”

For some members of his committee, this can be frustrating. Take Delegate Michael Smigiel, R-Cecil.

Smigiel has a bill before the committee that would give concealed handgun permit holders in four neighboring states — Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia — the right to legally tote their weapons in Maryland.

After a Jan. 25 hearing, the bill has languished.

“He knows I have the votes in committee to get it out,” Smigiel said of Vallario, adding that the chairman is hesitant to bring the bill to a vote.

As a result, Smigiel is working to get enough signatures on a petition to lift the bill out of committee without a formal vote and bring it to the full House.

The bill, however, is all but dead after Smigiel approached Frosh on Tuesday outside of the Senate to see what its chances are if the bill gets to his committee.

“I asked if I petition it off the floor, and I get it out, is it going to die in your committee. Are you going to kill it?” Smigiel asked. “He said ‘yeah.’”

–By Capital News Service’s David Saleh Rauf

ANNAPOLIS — Gov. Martin O’Malley reinforced his support Thursday for a same-sex marriage proposal that has been stalled this week in a House committee.

O’Malley, speaking to reporters outside of a committee hearing where he testified in support of an offshore wind farm proposal, sent a clear message to the House: Get over the infighting and send the same-sex marriage bill to my desk.

“I hope the House comes together. I hope they pass the bill that passed the Senate,” O’Malley said. “And I hope they send it to my desk.”

The bill, which sailed out of the Senate last week, has been held up in the House Judiciary Committee because two delegates failed to show up for a vote Tuesday. Delegate Jill Carter, D-Baltimore, and Delegate Tiffany Alston, D-Prince George’s, have said they are now ready to vote. It’s unclear when that vote could happen, though House Judiciary Chairman Joseph Vallario said the committee will vote on the bill either Thursday evening or Friday.

One thing is clear: The bill is losing momentum daily. Delegate Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel, a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage, reiterated this to reporters Tuesday.

The longer the committee takes to vote on the bill, “the more time we have to influence the public,” Dwyer said.

During his chat with reporters, O’Malley touched on the same-sex marriage proposal for roughly one minute before addressing other questions. His comments didn’t reflect anything new (O’Malley has said he would sign the bill if it gets to his desk).

But maybe the most telling exchange came when O’Malley was asked if he’s lobbied House members to move the bill beyond its current impasse.

“I think I just did,” O’Malley responded.

Click below to listen to O’Malley:

By Capital News Service’s David Saleh Rauf.

ANNAPOLIS — House Republicans Tuesday shot back at Gov. Martin O’Malley’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal, outlining $621 million in additional spending cuts that GOP leaders say will put the state on a path to fiscal stability without raising taxes.

GOP leaders in the lower chamber rolled out the party’s alternative budget proposal that includes cuts to stem cell research, legislative scholarship programs and aid for community colleges. The plan also proposes reducing $39.4 million in spending by eliminating $750 bonuses for state employees that are part of a recently negotiated three-year contract agreement.

The biggest cuts, roughly $295 million, come from not funding programs that compensate school districts based on daily attendance and geographic cost.

The spending reductions are part of the Republicans’ long-term fiscal plan for the state, said Delegate Gail Bates, R-Howard. Under the plan, state budget growth would be capped at 2 percent in fiscal years 2013 to 2015. It allows for 4 percent growth in fiscal 2016.

O’Malley’s budget proposal, which he rolled out in January, calls for nearly $1 billion in spending cuts, and reduces the state’s structural deficit by $730 million. That’s not enough, Republicans say, and the GOP proposal presented Tuesday could eliminate the remaining $1.2 billion structural deficit by fiscal 2013.

“We are trying to lay out a four- to five-year plan to get us in sound fiscal shape and to resolve our structural deficit and begin to accumulate a fund balance,” Bates said.

The GOP’s plan also proposes that the General Assembly replenish the Transportation Trust Fund by $500 million between fiscal 2012 and 2016.

In addition to the spending cuts and calls to replenish the transportation fund, Republicans want to roll back the state’s sales and corporate income taxes, which were both raised during the 2007 special session.

“That’s essential for creating a more business friendly climate,” Bates said.

Last year, Republicans called for hundreds of millions in additional cuts to the state budget. The Democratic-controlled House rejected the proposal.

By Capital News Service’s David Saleh Rauf.

ANNAPOLIS — House Republicans are expected to propose a 1 percent across-the-board reduction for state agencies as part of a series of budget cuts the minority party will roll out later today.

Republican delegates have been tight lipped about releasing details of their proposal, which will be presented to the House Appropriations Committee at a briefing following a 1:30 p.m. hearing. But GOP leadership is set to outline up to $1 billion in additional budget cuts, according to MarylandReporter.com.

“We’re going to present a budget proposal today that would fix our immediate problem and put Maryland on a long term trajectory to make us business friendly and reduce the tax burden on Maryland citizens,” said House Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell.

Outside of the 1 percent reduction for state agencies, O’Donnell declined to comment on the GOP budget proposal.

Delegate Gail Bates, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, offered one extra tidbit. She said this year’s alternative budget proposal will call for a repeal of the increase to the sales and corporate income taxes passed during the 2007 special session.

“That’s essential for creating a more business-friendly climate,” she said.

The 1 percent reductions to state agencies is “a small part” of a wide range of ideas House Republicans will propose, Bates said, declining to release details of the plan.

“We’re looking at the drivers of the budget and looking for efficiencies,” Bates said.

Last year, Republicans called for hundreds of millions in additional cuts to the state budget. The Democratic-controlled House rejected the proposal.

By Capital News Service’s David Saleh Rauf.

ANNAPOLIS — Senate President Mike Miller on Friday declined to give Sen. Joanne Benson, D-Prince George’s, the only member of the upper chamber who missed Thursday’s final vote on same-sex marriage, the opportunity to cast what would have amounted to a symbolic vote on the issue.

Benson, one of 11 Senate Democrats who voted against the bill Wednesday when the chamber gave it preliminary approval, asked the Senate to grant her the opportunity to vote a day late because the issue carried personal meaning for her (Benson opposes the bill because of her religious beliefs).

Benson explained she missed Thursday’s final vote because she was in Prince George’s County giving a speech to 400 high school students. She returned to Annapolis after the Senate passed the same-sex marriage bill 25-21.

Miller was OK with letting Benson cast a symbolic vote, one that would be recorded in the Senate record. But the idea ran into trouble when Sen. David Brinkley, R-Frederick, asked if the Senate would extend the same courtesy to Sen. J.B. Jennings, R-Harford, who is expected to miss parts of the session after being called to active duty in the Air National Guard.

Miller didn’t appear interested and quickly quashed the issue.

“If it’s not unanimous we’ll leave it at 25-21,” he said.

– By Capital New Service’s David Saleh Rauf