California Constitution Article XIV - Labor Relations [Sections 1 - 5]
Article XI-A – Local Legislation (Maryland Constitution)
Purpose and Background
Article XI-A, adopted in 1915, is Maryland’s constitutional foundation for county “home rule.” Its purpose is to allow certain counties to adopt charters and exercise significant local legislative authority, reducing dependence on the Maryland General Assembly for local matters.
It creates a structural division between:
Statewide law → Legislature retains authority
Local law → Counties with charters may act within local matters without General Assembly approval
Key Components of Article XI-A
1. Authority for Charter Counties
Allows any Maryland county to adopt a charter form of government.
Charter counties can enact local laws through their county councils.
2. Definition of “Local Laws” vs. “General Laws”
A core issue under Article XI-A is distinguishing:
Local Laws
Apply only to one county
Deal with matters strictly internal to the county
Must not conflict with state constitutional or general laws
Public General Laws
Apply to the entire state or a broad class of counties
The General Assembly retains exclusive authority over these
Public Local Laws
Local acts of the General Assembly relating to one county
Should be avoided for charter counties except for limited situations
3. Limitation on the General Assembly
Once a county adopts a charter:
The General Assembly may not pass public local laws relating to that county’s local matters.
It may enact only public general laws, even if they impact charter counties, so long as they do not violate home rule.
4. County Council Legislative Power
Charter counties may:
Pass local ordinances
Repeal or amend older public local laws previously enacted by the General Assembly
Establish the structure of county government
Regulate zoning, land use, and local affairs
However, counties may not legislate where:
It conflicts with state public general laws
The matter is traditionally state-level (e.g., criminal law, education)
5. Judicial Review
Courts regularly interpret whether an enactment is:
A public general law (valid statewide),
A public local law (invalid if passed by the General Assembly for a charter county), or
A valid county local law.
Six Leading Case Laws Interpreting Article XI-A
1. McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12 (1990)
Issue: Whether Montgomery County could enact a local minimum wage ordinance.
Holding:
County legislation valid under local police power unless preempted by a public general law.
Significance:
Affirmed that counties have broad local authority under Article XI-A unless the General Assembly explicitly or implicitly preempts the field.
2. Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc., 302 Md. 540 (1985)
Issue: County gun-control ordinance challenged as preempted by state law.
Holding:
County regulation invalid because the state had occupied the field of firearms regulation.
Significance:
Key precedent on state preemption limiting county powers.
Confirms Article XI-A does not allow counties to contradict or invade areas covered by public general laws.
3. County Council for Montgomery County v. Investors Funding Corp., 270 Md. 403 (1973)
Issue: Challenge to zoning authority of charter counties.
Holding:
Zoning is a local matter; county councils may legislate under charter authority.
Significance:
Strengthened county authority over local land-use and zoning matters.
4. Singewald v. County Commissioners of Worcester County, 195 Md. 285 (1950)
Issue: Distinguishing general laws vs. local laws.
Holding:
A law is “general” when it operates uniformly across a class of counties; not merely because it mentions multiple counties.
Significance:
Foundational test for identifying “public general laws.”
Preserves the General Assembly’s ability to categorize counties and pass laws uniformly across a class.
5. State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 419 (1927)
Issue: Whether the General Assembly could pass a local law affecting a charter county.
Holding:
Once a county adopts a charter, the General Assembly may not enact a public local law for that county.
Significance:
Among the earliest cases enforcing home-rule limitations.
Reinforces that charter counties control local legislation.
6. Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381 (1984)
Issue: Whether a county ordinance conflicted with state election laws.
Holding:
County ordinances cannot conflict with comprehensive state regulatory schemes.
Significance:
Shows how Article XI-A is limited when the state has enacted detailed general laws, particularly in areas where uniformity is vital.
Overall Significance of Article XI-A
Article XI-A:
Established Maryland’s dual system of state and county legislation
Gave counties significant autonomy, especially over land use, local administration, and county structure
Protected county authority while ensuring statewide uniformity in major state policies
Created an enduring framework that courts continue to refine through case law
RELATED Blog
comments