Could Maryland's Racing Commission let a harness track move its race dates to a track in a different county?

Plain-English summary

In 1989, the owner of Freestate Racing Association asked the Maryland Racing Commission whether Freestate could move its harness racing dates from Freestate Raceway in Howard County to Rosecroft Raceway in Prince George's County. Freestate's lease on its own track was expiring, and the land itself had been sold to a developer who was likely to redevelop it, so Freestate would soon have nowhere to race. The Attorney General concluded that the Commission's transfer authority under Article 78B, §18 let it approve moving a licensed harness association's race meet to the track of another licensed association, even though a separate provision, §17(a), barred issuing a brand-new license in a county that already had one. The opinion reasoned that reading §17(a) to block transfers as well as new licenses would make the legislature's transfer statute meaningless. But the opinion drew a firm line: any approval had to cover only a single racing year. Maryland's racing statute built in annual review of every licensee, and an open-ended or permanent transfer would have let a track's date award effectively become a permanent right, something the statute expressly said racing dates were not.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

In 1989, could Maryland's Racing Commission let a harness track move its race dates to a track in a different county?
Yes, according to this opinion. It concluded that Article 78B, §18 gave the Commission discretion to approve a transfer of a licensed harness association's race meet to the track of another licensed association, if the Commission found circumstances that justified the move.

Did moving a race meet to a county that already had a licensed harness track violate the one-license-per-county rule?
No, per the opinion's analysis. It read §17(a)'s limit of one harness racing license per county as applying only to the initial issuance of new licenses, not to a transfer under §18, reasoning that the opposite reading would strip the transfer statute of any real effect, since a receiving track by definition already held its own license in its county.

Could the Commission approve a permanent or multi-year transfer of a race meet?
No. The opinion concluded that the statute's annual licensing structure, including the requirement that racing dates be awarded fresh each year, meant a transfer could be authorized only for the single year in which the transferring association actually held its license. It pointed to the Commission's own past practice of approving one-year transfers for Laurel Raceway to Rosecroft in 1975 and again in 1976 as two separate actions, not one ongoing arrangement.

What prompted this particular opinion?
The Maryland Racing Commission's Executive Director asked after Freestate Racing Association's owner indicated Freestate would seek to move its 1990 and later race meets from Freestate Raceway, which was being sold to a real estate developer and whose lease was expiring, to Rosecroft Raceway. The opinion noted that without a new location or new legislation, the Commission would not be able to license Freestate for any year after 1991.

Background and statutory framework

Freestate Racing Association held a Maryland license to conduct 115 days of trotting and pacing races at Freestate Raceway in Howard County, under a lease that was set to expire at the end of October 1990. The real property under the track had recently been sold to a developer, and under the terms of that sale, the new owner had agreed to try to get the Racing Commission to approve moving Freestate's future race meets to Rosecroft Raceway in southern Prince George's County. The Commission's Executive Director asked the Attorney General two questions: whether the Commission could authorize that kind of transfer to a county where another association already held a racing license, and if so, whether the Commission could authorize the transfer indefinitely.

Article 78B, §17(a) let the Commission issue harness racing licenses to no more than three racing associations, with no more than one license per county or in Baltimore City, and barred any license at all in five named counties. Article 78B, §17(b)(5) capped any single licensee at 115 racing days a year. Article 78B, §18 separately gave the Commission discretion to let a licensed harness association "transfer its race meet or meetings" to the track of another association licensed under the article, provided the receiving track's owner consented. The opinion traced the history of §18: as first enacted in 1950 it allowed transfers "at any time or times," a 1951 amendment narrowed that to emergencies or bad weather, and a 1970 amendment (Chapter 664, Laws of Maryland 1970) removed that restriction again, leaving transfers to the Commission's discretion.

Applying the statutory-construction principles from Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, the opinion reasoned that §17(a)'s per-county cap addressed the issuance of new licenses, not the separate, later-enacted transfer mechanism in §18, and that reading §17(a) to block a transfer to another county's already-licensed track would nullify §18 entirely, since a transfer can by definition only go to a track that already holds its own license. The opinion also noted the practical point that harness tracks cannot readily transfer to thoroughbred tracks, so the legislature must have intended transfers to go to existing harness tracks, which would necessarily already be licensed somewhere.

On the second question, the opinion concluded the Commission's authority was still bounded by the statute's annual structure. Racing dates are awarded fresh each year under §7(a) and §7(b), and §17(b)(5) itself says an award "does not provide any right of ownership in the days to any track or any other person" and that "the award of all dates shall constitute a license and not a franchise." The opinion found that an indefinite grant of transfer rights would functionally create the kind of permanent entitlement the statute explicitly disclaimed, and pointed to the Commission's own history of approving the Laurel-to-Rosecroft transfer separately for 1975 and for 1976 as evidence that the Commission itself had understood its authority the same way.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article 78B, §17(a), limiting harness racing licenses to three statewide and one per county or Baltimore City
• Article 78B, §17(b)(5), capping racing days per licensee and describing awarded dates as a license, not a franchise
• Article 78B, §18, the Commission's authority to approve transfer of a race meet to another licensed track
• Article 78B, §§7(a)-(e), governing the annual application and award process for racing dates
• Article 78B, §10, governing issuance of the license itself after dates are awarded
• Article 78B, §§11 and 13, the Commission's enforcement and supervisory powers, applicable to harness racing through §7(c)
• Article 78B, §15(a), the parallel "not a franchise" language for thoroughbred racing dates
• Article 78B, §16 (as originally enacted) and former §17A, earlier versions of the licensing and transfer provisions
• Chapter 502, Laws of Maryland 1947, first enacting harness racing licensing and the one-license-per-county limit
• Chapter 44, Laws of Maryland 1950, first enacting the transfer authority
• Chapter 696, Laws of Maryland 1951, narrowing transfers to emergencies or bad weather
• Chapter 664, Laws of Maryland 1970, removing the emergency/weather restriction on transfers
• Chapter 623, Laws of Maryland 1974, and a related 1980 amendment, updating the list of licensed associations under §17
• Chapter 144, Laws of Maryland 1983, enacted from Senate Bill 595, addressing racing date allocation among licensees

Cases:

• Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513, 525 A.2d 628 (1987), on construing related statutory provisions together to harmonize their purpose and avoid illogical results

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1989/Volume74_1989.pdf (this opinion appears at printed pages 243-253 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

RACING

Racing Commission - Harness Racing - Transfer of Meetings

                       October 6, 1989

Mr. Kenneth A. Schertle
Executive Director
Maryland Racing Commission

 In response to an inquiry from the owner of Freestate Racing

Association, Inc. ("Freestate"), you have requested our opinion
concerning the authority of the Maryland Racing Commission
("Commission") to permit Freestate to conduct its future race meets at
Rosecroft Raceway rather than at Freestate Raceway. Specifically, you
ask:

 1. May the Commission authorize the transfer of a licensed

racing association's harness racing meet or meetings to a county where
another racing association is licensed to hold harness racing?

2. If the Commission may authorize that transfer, may it

authorize the transfer for an indefinite number of years?

For the reasons given below, we conclude as follows:

 1. The Commission may authorize the transfer of a licensed

racing association's harness racing meet or meetings from the county
in which the racing association is licensed to a county in which another
racing association is licensed, if in the Commission's judgment
circumstances exist that justify the transfer.

2. A transfer may be authorized only for the year for which the

racing association requesting the transfer holds a license to conduct
harness racing.

                                I

                          Background

 Freestate, a Maryland corporation, currently is licensed by the

Commission to conduct 115 days of trotting and pacing races at
Freestate Raceway, located in Howard County, Maryland, through
October 3, 1989. Freestate does not own this racetrack, but leases it
from Freestate Racing Association Limited Partnership.1 The lease
agreement expires at the end of October, 1990, with no provision for
extension or renewal. You have advised us that the real property on
which Freestate Raceway is situated has recently been sold to a real
estate developer; as a result, the real property in all likelihood will no
longer exist as a race track in the near future.

Pursuant to section 6.1 of the "Share Purchase Agreement" for the

purchase of Freestate, the new owner is to make a good faith effort "to
cause the [Maryland Racing Commission] to take favorable action on
a request by the corporation to transfer the place for the conduct of
Racing Days for the year 1990 or 1991, as buyer determines in his sole
discretion, from Freestate Raceway to Rosecroft Raceway." Freestate
is expected to request that the Commission authorize the transfer of
Freestate's 1990 race meet, and all subsequent race meetings, from
Freestate Raceway to Rosecroft Raceway, located in southern Prince
George's County. Rosecroft Raceway is the location where Rosecroft
Trotting and Pacing Association, Inc., a Maryland corporation, has
been licensed by the Commission to conduct its trotting and pacing race
meets.2

  1 Pursuant to a "Share Purchase Agreement," dated May 24, 1988, Mark R.

Vogel purchased 100 percent of the shares of stock of Freestate Racing Association,
Inc., then the general partner of Freestate Racing Association Limited Partnership.
The Limited Partnership retained ownership of the real property on which Freestate
Raceway is located.
2 Mark R. Vogel, the owner of Freestate, also is the owner of Rosecroft Trotting
and Pacing Association, Inc., and Ocean Downs Racing Association, Inc. - the other
two entities licensed by the Commission to conduct harness races in Maryland.

                                     II

                     Awarding of Racing Dates

 Article 78B, § 17(a) authorizes the Commission to "issue licenses

for the holding of trotting and pacing meetings at which there may be
offered stakes, purses or awards, and at which there may be exercised
pari-mutuel betting privileges ...." However, those licenses may be
issued to no more than three racing associations, and no more than one
trotting and pacing license may be issued in any county or Baltimore
City. Id. Article 78B, § 17(b)(5) provides that no more than 115 days
of racing (67 days plus 48 "additional" days) may be awarded to any
single licensee.4

An entity desirous of conducting racing during any calendar year

must apply to the Commission for a license to do so, specifying in the
application "the days on which such racing is desired to be conducted
or held ...." Article 78B, §7(a). Upon review of the applications, the
Commission awards all dates for races in Maryland, including harness
races, on or before December 1 of each calendar year for racing to be
conducted in the ensuing calendar year. Article 78B, §§ 7(b) and
17(b)(5).5

 3 This statutory provision first was enacted in 1947 to provide for the licensure

of harness racing, although harness races have been conducted in Maryland at least
since 1919. See 72 Opinions of the Attorney General 313, 317 n.8 (1987).
4 For a further discussion of Article 78B, § 17(b)(5), see note 10 below and
accompanying text.
5 In a 1974 opinion, the Attorney General concluded that all dates for trotting
and pacing races, like all dates for thoroughbred racing, must be awarded by the
Commission on or before December 1:
While Section 17, which governs the award of racing dates for harness tracks,
does not contain the provision that the Commission shall award the racing dates on
or before December 1 for the ensuing year, it does provide that the Commission
"shall have supervisory powers over such meetings and those licensed in the same
manner and to the same extent, where not inappropriate, as it has by virtue of the
provisions of Sections 7 and 15 of this article." It is our opinion that this reference
to Section 7 was intended to incorporate the pertinent provisions of Section 7 and
therefore the requirement in Section 7(b) that racing dates be awarded on or before
December 1 for the ensuing year applies to the award of racing dates made by the
Commission to the harness tracks pursuant to the authority of Section 17. 59 Opinions
of the Attorney General 591, 592-93 (1974). By the same token, the provisions of
§7(a) concerning the application for a license are applicable to harness racing.

 Upon the award of dates to an applicant, and payment of the

prescribed license fee, the Commission issues a license for the holding
of a meet or meetings during the days awarded to the applicant.
Article 78B, §10. The Commission historically has not issued the
license itself until several days before the commencement of the days
of racing (race meet) previously awarded by the Commission, and a
separate license is issued for each race meet awarded to a licensee.

                                    III

                Transfer of Race Meet or Meetings

The General Assembly has vested in the Commission the discretion

to permit a trotting and pacing race licensee "to transfer its race meet
or meetings from its own track, or place for holding [races, to the
track or place for holding] races of any other person, corporation or
association licensed under this article to conduct racing ...." Article
78B, §18.6

 When §18 was first enacted by Chapter 44 of the Laws of

Maryland 1950, it gave the Commission broad authority to grant a
request for the transfer of harness race meetings "at any time or times
...."7 The following year, the provision was amended to allow
transfers only at "any time or times of emergency or unfavorable
weather conditions ...." Chapter 696, Laws of Maryland 1951
(amending former Article 78B, §17A).8 That restriction was repealed,

6 The bracketed material was included in §18 as originally enacted; however,

when the statute was amended in 1970, a drafting error omitted this material.
Compare Chapter 44, Laws of Maryland 1950, with Chapter 664, Laws of Maryland
1970. Therefore, these words appear in brackets in the current edition of the
Maryland Code.
7 A similar statutory provision dealing with the transfer of thoroughbred race
meets is found in Article 78B, §7(d).
8 Concomitantly, §17 was amended to specify four named racing associations to
which trotting and pacing race days could be awarded. See Chapter 696, Laws of
Maryland 1951. Previously, there was no statutory restriction on the number of
racing associations to which trotting and pacing race days could be awarded.
In 1979, one of the four named racing associations (Baltimore Trotting Races,
Inc.) was deleted from §17 (Chapter 623, Laws of Maryland 1974), and in 1980, §17
was again amended by the replacement of the specific reference to the three remaining
named racing associations with a generic reference to "not more than three racing
associations."

however, nineteen years later, by Chapter 664 of the Laws of
Maryland 1970, leaving the authorization of a transfer to the discretion
of the Commission, so long as the owner or lessee of the "receiving"
track consents to the transfer.

The deletion of the restriction permitting transfers of racing dates

only in times of emergency or due to unfavorable weather conditions
was, in our view, a legislative recognition that circumstances not
involving the weather nor amounting to an emergency also may justify
a transfer of the location of harness races. The determination of
whether circumstances have arisen to justify a transfer of dates is
accordingly left to the discretion of the Commission, which has the
expertise to judge the matter (provided that the actions of the
Commission are not arbitrary or capricious).

A perceived restriction on transfers, however, is found in the

provision of § 17(a) that "not more than one license [to conduct trotting
and pacing races] with pari-mutuel betting privileges shall be issued in
any county or in Baltimore City ...,"9 However, we do not think that
permitting a transfer of a race meet of one licensee to a county in
which another licensee is conducting harness racing would violate
§17(a)'s prohibition against the issuance of two licenses in the same
county.

 Section 17(a), like any other statute, must be construed to

effectuate its legislative objective, goal, or purpose. Kaczorowski v.
City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513, 525 A.2d 628 (1987). To that
end, statutes that relate to the same subject matter are to be considered
together so that they will harmonize with each other and be consistent
with their general object and scope. 309 Md. at 516. Further, statutes
should be construed to avoid illogical or absurd results. 309 Md. at
517.

The prohibition against the issuance of more than one license to

conduct harness racing in the same county (as well as a prohibition
against any such license being issued in certain named counties) set
forth in § 17(a) was included when legislation for the licensing and
regulation of harness racing was first enacted in 1947 and has remained
unchanged and in effect to date. See Chapter 502, Laws of Maryland
1947, sec. 4 (enacting former Article 78B, §16). Thus, by retaining
this provision, the General Assembly consistently has discouraged a
proliferation of harness racing in any one county.

9 Section 17(a) also prohibits the issuance of any license in Carroll, Dorchester,

Frederick, Montgomery, and Wicomico counties.

 Yet neither § 17(a) nor any other provision restricts the number of

days of racing that may be conducted in any one county. To be sure,
Article 78B, § 17(b)(5) provides for a limit of 115 days for any
licensee.10 This section also provides, however, for Commission
approval of agreements between licensees to conduct up to 30 of the
"additional" days assigned to one licensee to be run at the track of
another licensee. Further it provides that if two licensees wish to run
the "additional" days of a licensee having an average daily wager of
less than $166,666.67 (referring to Ocean Downs Racing Association,
Inc.), then these "additional" days must be awarded equally between
the other two licensees. Thus, by agreements approved by the
Commission, more days may be raced in a particular county than the
115 originally awarded.

In short, if the General Assembly had intended to restrict the

number of days to be raced in a particular county, it easily could have
done so. It did not, suggesting that such a restriction was not its
objective, goal, or purpose.

 Moreover, if §17's prohibition against the issuance of more than

one harness racing license in any one county (or Baltimore City) were
construed to prohibit the transfer of a race meet of one harness licensee
to the race track of another harness licensee, the transfer provisions of
§18 would be rendered meaningless. Because the statute permits
transfers only to the track of another licensee, the General Assembly
must have intended that the transfer be either to another operating
harness track or to an operating thoroughbred track. But the transfer
of a harness race meet to a thoroughbred track would require the

10 Each of the three racing associations that may be licensed is awarded 67

racing days. In addition, the Commission is authorized to award a total of 144
"additional" days; however, not more than 48 days (144 days divided by three) may
be awarded to any one licensee.

extraordinary step of resurfacing the track or constructing an inner
oval.11

Thus, as a practical matter, if a harness licensee cannot use its

track during its current license year, unless its race meet can be
transferred to an existing harness track, its racing days will be lost not
only to it but also to the racing industry and the public. We cannot
suppose this to have been the legislative objective.

Consequently, when the General Assembly provided for the

transfer of harness race meets, it must have contemplated a transfer to
an existing harness race track, although the result is that two licensed
racing associations necessarily will conduct harness racing in the same
county.

 Therefore, in our opinion, while § 17(a) establishes a prohibition

that applies to the initial issuance of licenses, it does not prevent the
Commission from exercising its transfer authority if the Commission
finds that circumstances exist to justify a transfer.12 In effect, the
General Assembly has left to the discretion of the Commission the
authority to permit two licensees to operate in the same county in a
given licensing year when circumstances arise that justify doing so.

 11 At the Meadowlands race track in New Jersey, such a resurfacing is done

when a thoroughbred meet concludes and a harness meet is about to commence and
vice versa. This arrangement, however, is conducted on a permanent annual basis,
as opposed to a temporary basis to accommodate a transfer of racing days.
12 The only statutory restriction on any transfer of racing dates, in addition to
requiring the approval of the "receiving track," is a requirement that the Commission
hold a public hearing at a location not more than ten miles from the "receiving track"
to permit any person to testify for or against the transfer of the days. Article 78B,
§7(e).

                                     IV

                          Prospective Transfer

 From the time when transfers of trotting and pacing race meets

were first authorized, a prerequisite to such a transfer has been the
licensure of both the transferring and the "receiving" entities under
§17: Section 18 authorizes a transfer from the track of an entity
"licensed under §17" to the track of another entity "licensed under this
article." Indeed, without a license, the applicant would simply have
nothing to transfer under §18, for no applicant has any rights in racing
dates until the dates have been awarded to it. §17(b)(5).

Considering the prohibition against issuing multiple licenses in one

county, the Commission must know where an applicant intends to
conduct racing at the time that the Commission issues a license.
Therefore, in order to receive a license to conduct a harness racing
meet, the applicant must necessarily have a place at which it will
conduct the races.

 Moreover, because the number of racing dates that may be awarded

is limited, these dates are not awarded on speculation. The
maintenance of Maryland's attractiveness to horsemen requires that the
full number of racing dates authorized be actually used each year if at
all possible. See Committee Report on Senate Bill 595 (1983) (enacted
as Chapter 144, Laws of Maryland 1983). Accordingly, if an applicant
does not in any sense have "its own track or place for holding races"
at the time it applies for racing dates, it will not be awarded dates.

 Further, the requirement of §7(b) and § 17(b)(5) that racing dates

be awarded "on or before December 1 of each year for racing for the
ensuing year" means that the process for the award of dates and the
resultant issuance of licenses must be accomplished annually. The
Commission is meant to exercise continuing supervision over the
conduct of harness racing. §7(a). See also §7(c) (all enforcement
powers granted to Commission by §§11 and 13 applicable to harness
racing).13 The annual licensure requirement was designed to further
that supervision, by allowing the Commission to conduct an annual
review of each licensee's performance and, if appropriate, reapportion
racing dates among the applicants or deny a license to a previous
licensee altogether.14

13 Those powers include the power to compel the production of licensees'

records; to require the removal of any official or employee of a licensee; and to
conduct on-site investigations, hearings, and audits.
14 This power is severely diminished, if not in practical terms eliminated, under
the current single ownership of the three racing associations licensed by the
Commission.

Any grant of a license for more than one year would to that extent

contravene the legislative intent that the Commission review the
conduct of harness racing annually. An indefinite grant of a license
would wholly nullify the annual review system. Hence, a license may
be granted only for the year following that in which the grant occurs.
Because only race meetings awarded to a licensee may be transferred
under §18, a transfer of a race meet likewise may be authorized only
for a single year.

 We do not think that these statutory provisions can be satisfied by

the Commission's simply declaring, at a time when an entity does have
its own track or place for holding races, that all future meetings that
would have been run at the place where the entity currently is
conducting racing may be run at a different track where harness race
meetings are also to be run under a different license. Section 18's
reference to the transfer of a "race meet or meetings" must be read as
referring to the meet or meetings previously awarded to a licensee for
a particular year, rather than to the meetings that might be awarded to
the licensee in future years. The contrary interpretation would
effectively nullify §17(a)'s prohibition against issuing more than one
license in the same county. Statutes should not be construed to nullify
their provisions. Kaczorowski, 309 Md. at 519.

 Moreover, an indefinite grant of permission to transfer all future

race meetings would effectively recognize that a particular entity has
a vested right to conduct harness racing. Patently, the General
Assembly never intended that the right to racing days should be vested
in any person, association, or corporation. Article 78B, §17(b)(5)
expressly states that the award of additional racing dates to the tracks
"do[es] not provide any right of ownership in the days to any track or
any other person" and that "the award of all dates shall constitute a
license and not a franchise."15 See also 44 Opinions of the Attorney
General 309, 314 (1959).

15 Similar language is found in Article 78B, §7(b) and §15(a), applicable to the

awarding of racing dates for the conduct of thoroughbred racing.

The Commission itself has interpreted the provisions of §§17 and

18 as prohibiting it from authorizing a transfer for any year after that
for which the requester has been licensed to conduct racing. In 1974,
the Commission licensed racing at Laurel Raceway for 1975 on the
understanding that the then owner would make certain needed capital
improvements to the raceway. Maryland Racing Commission Minutes
(November 22, 1974). Before that meet began, however, it became
clear that the owner would need more time to complete the
improvements. For that reason the Commission approved a transfer of
the Laurel Raceway 1975 meet to Rosecroft; however, the chairman of
the Commission expressly stated that the transfer was approved for
1975 only. Maryland Racing Commission Minutes (May 5, 1975).
Later that year, the Commission awarded a license for racing at Laurel
Raceway in 1976. Maryland Racing Commission Minutes (October 1,
1975). In 1976, the Commission granted approval for the transfer of
the Laurel Raceway 1976 meet to Rosecroft because the improvements
could not be completed in time to conduct the meet at Laurel Raceway.
Maryland Racing Commission Minutes (May 20, 1976).

Thus, even when the Commission has permitted the transfer of two

consecutive years of racing, it has done so by two separate actions,
each applicable to only one year. We believe that the Commission
correctly interpreted the provisions regarding licensure and transfer of
race meetings as authorizing it to permit a transfer of only the meet or
meetings that a licensee has been awarded for a single year.

 Viewing the practicalities of Freestate's current situation - the

expiration of Freestate's lease at Freestate Raceway together with the
likelihood that Freestate Raceway will no longer exist as such in the
near future - it appears that after 1991, Freestate will no longer have
a track or place for holding races. Hence, the Commission may not
grant Freestate a license for any year after 1991 unless Freestate
secures a new location at which to conduct harness races in a county
in which no other license to conduct such racing during that year has
been issued or unless the General Assembly acts on the matter.
Legislative action might entail an amendment to § 17(a) to allow the
issuance of more than one license for holding harness race meetings in
a county; an amendment to § 17(b)(5) to allow more than 115 days of
racing to be conducted by one licensee in a given year; or new
legislation expressly providing for the consolidation of harness racing
in Maryland.16

16 In the Report of the Legislative Council Committee on Racing, (December

1960), consolidation of Rosecroft and Freestate Raceways was encouraged:
The harness tracks operating south of Baltimore testified that a
study of automobile license plates in their parking lots during
meetings indicates that nearly two thirds of their patronage is
from Washington and Virginia. In view of this source of
patronage of two of the harness tracks, it is the thought of this
Committee that the two tracks south of Baltimore be encouraged
to combine their operations to lighten the overhead of each in
order to provide for the expansion and improvement of facilities
for the public and the horsemen.
To accomplish this end, a bill was proposed for introduction in the 1961 General
Assembly that would have permitted consolidation and an assignment of all racing
days to one licensee "notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article." This bill,
however, was not passed by the General Assembly.
Consolidation also was considered nine years later in the Report of the Legislative
Council Committee on Racing (November 26, 1969). Although dealing primarily with
incentives for the reduction of the number of mile (thoroughbred racing) tracks to
enhance the cost feasibility of capital improvements to those tracks, the Special
Committee on Racing proposed a bill that would have removed the statutory
requirements, existing at that time, of legislative approval for the transfer of racing
dates regarding one mile tracks. The Committee noted that "with some modifications
harness racing can be conducted on thoroughbred tracks and the Committee feels this
should be a matter within the province of the Racing Commission." The only
legislation resulting from the Report that related to harness racing was the 1970
amendment to §18 deleting the "emergency and unfavorable weather conditions"
prerequisites to transfer of dates from one track to another. See Chapter 664, Laws
of Maryland 1970.

                                      V

                                Conclusion

 In summary, we conclude that the Commission may authorize the

transfer of the trotting and pacing race meet or meetings of a licensed
racing association from the county in which the racing association is
licensed to a county in which another racing association is licensed, if
in the Commission's judgment circumstances exist that justify such a
transfer. However, a transfer may be authorized only for the year for
which the racing association requesting the transfer holds a license to
conduct trotting and pacing races.

                                          J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                          Attorney General

                                          Bruce C. Spizler
                                          Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions & Advice