|
argument, and perhaps Judge Henderson
remembers, too, the judge saying to one of
the counsel, "Well, a man could go to the
moon as long as he read the Baltimore Sun
paper and he had enough interest to run
for public office in the event he intended to
return."
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I think as to
the question that was asked by Delegate
Marion that if the governor moved out of
the State, and I interpreted that to mean
changed his domicile to some other state,
to my mind he would not be a qualified
voter simply by reason of having his name
on the registration books.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Suppose in that
situation he moved away for a two-year
period of time in the middle of the five
years preceding his election, but his name
remained on the books and once he was
back again in the State of Maryland he
duly exercised his franchise.
Would he be qualified then or eligible to
vote under the language of this section?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I think it would
depend to some extent on why he was away.
Did he go away just temporarily? Did he
move his domicile or what?
To be a qualified voter there has to be
something more than mere registration.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Marion, are you satisfied?
DELEGATE MARION: I think what I
am getting at is this. As difficult as the
concept of residency may be, are we not
opening up more doors and perhaps creat-
ing more problems by changing the eligi-
bility requirement to the concept of "quali-
fied voter"?
Perhaps this is not the time to debate it,
but I just tossed the question out to you
and to members of the Committee. Unless
you want to comment on that, I have an-
other question.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: It seems to the
Committee that you would have less prob-
lem by using the qualified voter concept
|
than you would if you used a resident or
domicile concept.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: On the election
of state's attorneys, is the language "shall
be elected by the eligible voters of the
State who are eligible to vote in the county
or district in which he serves," meant to
say anything more than that he shall be
elected by the qualified voters in the county
or district where he serves?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: No difference.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: One final ques-
tion. Is it the Committee's intention in
using the language "county or district",
that a district could be created which was
smaller than one county, or is it the inten-
tion that districts comprise one or more
county?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I suppose it
could operate both ways, but our attention
was focused on the problem of state's at-
torneys in counties that really did not have
enough business to keep a full-time state's
attorney. We wanted to have the legisla-
ture at least have the power to say that
the state's attorney shall serve perhaps
two counties and thus make him full-time.
In other words, we wanted to give the
greatest flexibility we could to the General
Assembly in setting up the provisions for
state's attorneys.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Would it be a
fair statement then to say that the Com-
mittee's intention when it used the word
"districts" was to think in terms of dis-
tricts which were larger than one county,
rather than districts which were less than
an entire county?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Well, I think
that is certainly what our attention was
focused on for the most part.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Storm.
|
