More important, however, is the unfortunate fact that such changes
must be made in order to continue a particular program or to re-
main eligible for federal assistance. In some cases, particularly where
the change is required by court decision, the State has no alterna-
tive but to make it.
These considerations leave me no choice but to veto House Bill
1457. However, because I am in sympathy with its basic purpose,
I am referring the bill to the Legislative Council in the hope that,
through additional study, some method can be found to accomplish
the goals of the bill without unduly interfering with the required
flexibility in State programs.
/s/ Marvin Mandel,
House Bill No. 1465—Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund
AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 7-
606(a) of Article 66½ of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1970
Replacement Volume), title "Vehicle Laws," subtitle "Financial Re-
sponsibility and Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund," subhead-
ing "Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Law," to provide that
upon a notice of no-coverage by an insurance company, a person
has thirty days to file a claim with the Board, and to generally
May 31, 1972.
Honorable Thomas Hunter Lowe
Speaker of the House of Delegates
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Dear Mr. Speaker:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have today vetoed House Bill 1465.
This bill amends the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund law
to add a procedural requirement for bringing an action against the
Unsatified Claim and Judgment Fund Board in the case of a notice
of non-coverage by an insurer.
House Bill 444, which was enacted by the General Assembly
and signed by me April 26, 1972, repealed the entire Unsatisfied
Claim and Judgment Fund law. Because of the inconsistency be-
tween the two bills, and because the enactment of House Bill 444
renders House Bill 1465 unnecessary, I have decided to veto House
/s/ Marvin Mandel,