There were lots of questions from my committee members for the bills heard before mine. They dealt with vehicular homicide and drag racing.

Ditto for the one afterwards, where the subject was traffic citations.

But very few for my two bills, where the issue was freedom of speech and the press.

Wealthy public figures are filing lawsuits in Great Britain because the burden of proof in libel actions favors the plaintiff. The cost of defending against these actions chills reporters and authors from writing about these people.

My legislation would prohibit Maryland courts from enforcing these judgments if the foreign jurisdiction does not provide at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as both the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution.

There were no questions from the chairman because he had been called out of the room. However, two media attorneys and I had discussed this legislation with him in his office before the bill hearings.

My second bill dealt with the Maryland law that protects journalists from revealing their confidential sources. It would extend this statute to include reporters for a college newspaper.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The District Attorney in Chicago issued a warrant for the notes of journalists at Northwestern University, where reporting by the Innocence Project has freed people from Death Row.

Before next week’s voting session, I’ll talk with my fellow committee members to see if they have any questions or concerns about these two bills.

It’s an unusual position for me to be in.

I’m a liberal. I think government is a force for good. I try to pass bills.

Not this time.

I want to kill any legislation that would make it easier for the state to execute someone.

Last year, when we wanted to pass a bill repealing the death penalty, we had to count to twelve. That’s a majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee.

This, year, the other side has to count to twelve.

We’re working to make sure they can’t.

—-

I was worried I would refer to the 4th Amendment.

The bill did not require a search warrant.

It required that employers allow their workers to use their leave time to observe the Sabbath.

So I began my testimony by saying: “The 4th Commandment says, ‘Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.’ Our civil rights laws say that an employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs.”

5:00 pm was the bewitching hour.

Get your bills to the Clerk’s Office by that deadline and you avoid the delay of having them referred to the Rules Committee. Most bills eventually emerge from Rules, but your public hearing date will be later rather than sooner.

With two days of hearing already lost to snow, bills are already being scheduled for March 23.

I thought I was going to be the lead sponsor of legislation that amended a law I passed several years ago. But the delegate who had requested the revisions to that law decided he would be listed first on the sponsor line and I would be second. (It won’t affect my effort on behalf of the bill.)

I put one bill in the hopper right after the morning floor session and another early this afternoon, after my staff had proofread the changes we had requested to the prior version.

I had to do the proofreading on two bills bill that became available at 4:50. They are bond bills for improvements to the Swann Ave. and Glen Ave. Firehouses.

Glen had an extra “n”.

With the correction made, Delegate Oaks and I were the last members to make it to the Clerk’s office.

They stayed open until 5:05 pm. We had told them we were coming.

It’s not unusual to be asked if I would support an amendment broadening the scope of my bill.

It happened at the hearing on my bill dealing with campaign committees for referendum and ballot issues campaigns. House Bill 247 would require these committees to disclose on the Internet within 24 hours any contribution received during the last two weeks before Election Day.

These midnight contributions are not a hypothetical problem. In 2008, the committee supporting the slots referendum listed $2.7 million in contributions in the report that was filed on November 25, three weeks after Election Day.

“Should we extend your bill to loans?” asked one member of the Ways and Means Committee.

“Should this apply to candidate committees as well?” questioned another.

“Both are consistent with my bill,” I responded. “If it’s the wisdom of the committee to add those circumstances, I would not object.”

What happened on my other election bill was a first.

Each of the last three years, my Voter’s Rights Protection Act passed the House of Delegates but never received a committee vote in the Senate.

“This bill is déjà vu all over again with a lineup change,” I began my testimony.

Last year’s bill has been pared down to one provision, I explained. If an individual or group violates – or there is reasonable grounds to believe is about to violate, the existing prohibitions on voter fraud or dirty tricks, the Attorney General or any registered voter can ask a judge for preventive relief, instead of waiting until the horse is out of the barn door on Election Day.

A delegate began reading from the statement of an interest group supporting legislation that was broader in scope than my bill.

“That was last year’s bill,” I replied.

There are some things you can’t find on Google.

But with a long memory and good staff, you can get what you want.

Republican legislators have been invited to discuss their proposed budget cuts at a joint meeting of the House and Senate fiscal committees.

“This is a first,” a budget staffer told the Sun in a front-page story today.

“Not true,” I said to myself.

I knew we had done this before because I was on the committee when it happened.

I spoke to a budget analyst who used to staff Appropriations. She found the 1997 letter from Chairman Rawlings inviting the House Republican Caucus to present its budget savings proposals.

I then shared it with the Sun reporter.

—-

It’s good to know somebody’s reading this diary.

I ran into an executive branch official at lunch. “What are you working on?” he asked.

“A bill that would restore money to the Cigarette Restitution Fund that’s been redirected to Medicaid to meet budget shortfalls,” I replied.

I was a lead sponsor of the bill creating that fund. It directs money received from the legal settlement with the tobacco companies to research and prevention programs related to cigarette smoking.

“That law passed ten years ago. It may be time to study how we allocate that money in the future,” the official said. “As you write in your diary, sometimes you can accomplish things without passing your bill.”

In addition to quoting Supreme Court Justice Stevens on the harmful effect of unlimited corporate money in political campaigns, I can now cite Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

They introduced legislation yesterday to restrict such spending at the federal level. So I asked our bill drafter if their proposals had any provisions that we could add to ours.

Another Supreme Court decision has made it far more difficult for the victims of an unlawful employment practice to be compensated. It interpreted the civil rights laws to require that discrimination be the only motivating factor.

I’ve introduced House Bill 504, which would allow recovery if discrimination was one of several factors that prompted the employer’s illegal act.

I met with the chairman of the subcommittee that will consider my legislation. When he asked me the facts of the Supreme Court case, I did not quote Justice Stevens’ dissent.

I hadn’t read it. But by the time of the public hearing, I’ll know it very well.

It was a very quiet walk to work this morning.

The main streets of Annapolis were plowed but with hardly any cars on them.

At a chance meeting in the committee offices, a lobbyist assured me that the votes were there for a favorable report on a bill we had heard.

“But first you have to get it on the voting list,” I replied.

That means convincing the chairman and the committee leadership that the bill is necessary (Why do we need this bill?) and can be amended to address concerns raised at the public hearing.

—-

In the fourth year of a term, it’s never too early to plan for the fall election – when all 188 seats in the General Assembly will be on the ballot.

There’s a new wrinkle this fall – early voting. For five days in the week before the primary and the general election, polls will be open in a handful of locations in Baltimore City and in each county.

Getting out the vote will no longer be a one-day operation. This uncertainty bred anxiety at a discussion among my colleagues.

My chairman always sleeps at home.

So he didn’t make it back through the snow to Annapolis for this morning’s floor session.

Our committee had two bills to be considered on the House floor.

As I was leaving my office to head to the State House, I remembered that and brought my laptop with me.

I had reviewed the folders for the two bills yesterday, but now they were locked in a staffer’s office. And committee counsel would not be on the phone to assist with any questions raised by my colleagues.

So my laptop, with the text of the amendments but no further explanation, would be my lifeline.

Both bills drew questions. One passed to third reader; the other was special ordered to Tuesday for further discussion.

“A stronger deterrent is needed for those homeowners who maliciously damage their own property during or after a foreclosure proceeding,” read the statement of the Maryland Association of Realtors in support of legislation that would make such conduct a criminal misdemeanor.

“Human trafficking is a form of modern day slavery,” declared the written testimony of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault in favor of bills that would increase the penalty for sexual solicitation or trafficking of a minor.

Favorable committee action a certainty. How could anyone oppose these measures?

Perhaps you’ve forgotten the question that every bill sponsor must answer:

Why do we need this bill?

On the Judiciary Committee, that means: Is this conduct already illegal? Why aren’t people being prosecuted and serving the maximum sentence under the existing law? Will increasing the penalty reduce the crime?

—-

One witness said that another bill before us would criminalize fraternity pranks.

“Is the penalty double secret probation?” I asked my seatmate.

When you have seven bill hearings scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, being snowbound for two days helps you get your testimony finished ahead of time.

Normally, I’m fine tuning my written statement the morning of the hearing. After perfecting my opening sentence (“Hit them in the forehead with a 2×4,” I tell my students.), I rewrite it for my oral testimony. (“Never read your written statement.”)

With snow again in the forecast, whether my witnesses will be able to make it on Wednesday is up in the air.

On my “tourist libel” bill, I’m counting on having three lawyers at my side who know the issue better than I do. So I may do some extra studying tomorrow night.

Tonight’s floor session was canceled, but I drove to Annapolis anyway. I had run out of chicken salad at home.

Hardly any members or staffers around today. “There was nobody there to get anything done with,” lamented one of the latter at the Rite Aid this evening.