Annapolis (Map, News) - When all the parties had their say Tuesday in the Republican lawsuit to overturn the work of the special session because of procedural flaws, Chief Judge Robert Bell of the Court of Appeals put it bluntly.

“So what?” he asked. “What’s the remedy? That’s the bottom line. Why is the remedy to void the legislation?”

Those are the key questions that the seven judges on Maryland’s highest court must consider as part of the GOP suit. Republican leaders argue that the tax increases and slots legislation passed during November’s special session should be nullified because the House failed to give proper consent when the Senate adjourned for five days.

A Carroll County judge ruled in January that although the actions of the Assembly leaders were “reprehensible” and “egregious,” there was no justification to void the measures they ultimately passed. The assistant attorneys general representing state officials are asking the judges to uphold that decision.

Both parties asked the judges to rule before the regular session of the General Assembly ends April 7.

The judges spent half of the one-hour hearing examining a less-publicized aspect of the case. Attorney Irwin Kramer argued that the constitutional amendment on slot machines was an unlawful delegation of the revenue-raising authority of the legislature to the public. He also called the proposed slots measure deceptive because it’s called the Maryland Education Trust Fund.

“I think I’m voting for education, but I’m voting for something very different,” Kramer told the court, including aid to horse racing and minority contractors.

Assistant Attorney General Austin Schlick acknowledged that the legislature could have passed a slots measure, but said it needed to be a constitutional amendment to establish a cap of 15,000 machines.

During the session, the constitutional amendment was viewed as a compromise, opposed by the Republicans, to kick the political hot potato to the electorate.

Schlick also said that “any violation [of procedure] that might have occurred is cured and muted” by the enactment of the laws and their signing by the governor. “There is nothing for the court to do,” Schlick said. He noted that the Court of Appeals has a three-month deadline for issued opinions, but long ago ruled that a late opinion was better than throwing it out for missing the deadline.

“My sense is that they agree with our position,” Schlick said after the hearing.

“The questions suggest that the court does understand the case,” Kramer said. He hopes the judges will tell the General Assembly to “go back and do it right.”

llazarick@baltimoreexaminer.com