Maryland Constitution Article XI-A - Local Legislation

16 Jun 2025 --
0 Comments

Article XI-F – Home Rule for Code Counties (Maryland Constitution)

Overview

Article XI-F, added in 1966, grants “code home rule” to certain Maryland counties. This allows eligible counties to enact local laws on matters of local concern without needing approval from the Maryland General Assembly. It is a middle form of home rule—less autonomy than charter counties (Art. XI-A) but more autonomy than commissioner counties.

Only counties with the board-of-county-commissioners form may adopt code home rule.

Key Features of Article XI-F

1. Adoption of Code Home Rule

A county becomes a Code County by:

The county commissioners drafting a code home rule resolution.

Publishing and submitting it to county voters.

Approval through a referendum.

Once approved, the county gains law-making authority on local matters.

2. Power to Enact Public Local Laws

A Code County may enact public local laws on subjects concerning:

Local governance

Local health & safety

County infrastructure

Local economic matters

County-level licensing and regulation

These laws apply only within that county.

Limitations:

Code Counties cannot pass public local laws that conflict with public general laws enacted by the State.

Matters classified as “statewide concerns” remain under the General Assembly’s control.

3. Legislative Procedure

Code County laws are passed:

By the county commissioners

Through bill introduction, notice/publication, and adoption

With possible referendum provisions for specific local laws

4. Preservation of General Assembly Authority

Even after adopting code home rule, the General Assembly may still:

Enact public general laws that statewide interests require

Enact public local laws for code counties if the county requests them (called “local courtesy”)

Change or expand the scope of county powers through general legislation

5. Prohibition on Certain Topics

Code Counties cannot legislate on:

Alcoholic beverages (unless state law grants them authority)

Courts and judicial administration

Elections (other than purely local administration)

Crimes defined at the state level

Education (school boards remain state-regulated)

Matters specifically reserved to charter counties only

6. Distinction From Charter Counties (Art. XI-A)

Feature	Code County (XI-F)	Charter County (XI-A)
Legislative Body	County Commissioners	County Council
Local Constitution	NO charter	YES charter
Autonomy Level	Moderate	Greater
Law-making Scope	Limited to enumerated local matters	Broader, including government structure
Created By	Local referendum only	Charter board + referendum

Six Important Case Laws Related to Code Home Rule (Article XI-F)

Below are six Maryland appellate decisions that interpret Article XI-F or the limits of code-county home rule.

1. Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc. (1971)

Principle: State preemption overrides local gun control ordinances.
Although Montgomery County is a charter county, the court clarified general limits on local legislative authority—rules applied by analogy to Code Counties.
The decision established that where the state occupies a field, local laws (including Code County laws) cannot conflict.

2. County Commissioners of Garrett County v. Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc. (1997)

Principle: Distinguishes “public general” vs. “public local” laws.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that Code Counties cannot enact laws inconsistent with statewide regulatory schemes, particularly in telecommunications.
This case is often cited in defining the boundary of Article XI-F.

3. State v. Stewart (1980)

Principle: Criminal law is a state matter, not a county matter.
The court held that counties—including Code Counties—cannot create criminal offenses unless expressly authorized.
Supports the XI-F limitation that matters of statewide penal policy remain with the General Assembly.

4. Black v. State (1977)

Principle: Elections and electoral regulation are statewide concerns.
This case reaffirmed that local governments may not enact laws altering state-regulated election procedures.
Article XI-F counties therefore cannot legislate on elections outside purely local administration.

5. Kensington Volunteer Fire Dept. v. Montgomery County (1979)

Principle: Local authority exists only when not preempted by State law.
The court articulated a “two-part test” for local authority:

Does the county have express or implied power?

Has the State preempted the field?
This reasoning is applied in Article XI-F contexts—Code Counties must yield to statewide statutory schemes.

6. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County v. Holtz (1984)

Principle: Code Counties can enact local laws affecting county administration.
The court upheld a Washington County local law regulating aspects of county service and administration, affirming the validity of county legislative power under XI-F as long as the subject is:

local

administrative

not preempted
This is one of the clearest decisions recognizing the proper scope of Code County home rule.

Conclusion

Article XI-F establishes a form of limited home rule that grants certain counties in Maryland the ability to pass local laws without requiring each act to be approved by the General Assembly. However, their powers are confined to local matters, and they remain subordinate to public general laws and any areas of explicit state preemption. The Maryland appellate courts consistently enforce these boundaries through case law.