How does the legislature communicate with the judiciary?

That’s not a theoretical question.

I’m working on two bills where it’s very important to express legislative intent.

What does “reasonable accommodation” mean? That’s the key phrase in my bill that would require an apartment owner or condominium association to make a “reasonable accommodation” for the religious practices of tenants or unit owners.

I didn’t make up this term. For 40 years, the courts have used it in deciding whether an employer has made a reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of its employees.

I want my bill to express the legislature’s intent that the courts are to apply the legal analysis that decided “reasonable accommodation” cases in the workplace to a residential setting.

A group of women wrestlers alleged that they had been treated differently than their male counterparts. Their lawsuit was thrown out because, like Lilly Ledbetter, they had not brought their suit within 180 days of the initial discriminatory act.

I’ve drafted language that expresses the legislature’s intent that we don’t want the same thing to happen in cases brought under Maryland’s civil rights laws.

As we were discussing this language today, one lawyer wrote me, “State judges, like federal judges, don’t like to be told what to do.”

“Legislators are initial audience for this language” I responded. “So we need to provide some reassurances to them (We can’t provide guarantees), that if they pass the bill, this is how we want it to be implemented.”