|
We toyed with the idea of not having a
tie breaker, but we felt that that was gen-
erally unsatisfactory; that we would have
to have a mechanism for an ultimate deci-
sion, and consequently, that explains the
choice of a governor who will also, in pick-
ing that man, pick the Chairman of the
Commission as well.
Turning to 3. 03 (a), once this commission
has been selected, it shall submit a redis-
tricting plan to the governor, who in turn
shall transmit it to the General Assembly
by the first day of the regular session in
any year in which redistricting is to be
effected.
In other words, with the mandate of 1970
in the earlier section, it will be incumbent
upon the minority and majority leaders of
the General Assembly in both houses and
upon the governor, to select a commission
in 1969 which will have the duty of trans-
mitting to the governor by the third
Wednesday of January of 1968, the first
day of the session of the Assembly of that
year, a redistricting plan. If any other plan
has not been provided by law within fifty
days after the transmission of the commis-
sion plan to the General Assembly, then
the commission plan shall become law.
In other words, if the General Assembly
fails to act and come up with any new plan
within fifty days, then the commission plan
automatically becomes law. This has the
virtue of forcing the General Assembly
either to accept the commission plan or to
come up with a plan of its own.
We used fifty days quite intentionally,
and the term "by law" in here is signifi-
cant, because under the executive branch
section which you have adopted today it is
provided that when a bill is passed while
a legislature is in session, it shall be pre-
sented to the governor, and if the governor
does not veto it within twenty days, it
shall become law. This as a practical mat-
ter means that if the legislature adopts a
plan different from that which the commis-
sion submits that it ought to do so by the
29th day of the session to which it is sub-
mitted, because then it is presented to the
governor, and if he waits until the 20th
day to veto it, they have to keep one day
in the legislative back pocket to override
his veto.
If they do not override the governor's
veto by that 50th day, then the commission
plan becomes law. If, however, the General
Assembly should adopt the plan which does
become law within fifty days, then under
the terms of 3. 02 (a) that particular plan
|
and not that of the commission is the re-
districting plan for the State.
We have provided in 3.03 (a) to allow
any registered voter to challenge the plan
of the General Assembly, and the Court of
Appeals is given original jurisdiction so
that undoubtedly there will be a challenge.
If the Court of Appeals should find that the
plan adopted by the legislature is illegal,
then right behind it will come the commis-
sion plan, which will fall in its place in the
event that the first plan is considered to be
unconstitutional or illegal.
If both the plans devised by the legisla-
ture for redistricting and the plan sub-
mitted by the commission should be found
to be illegal and unconstitutional, the Court
of Appeals shall do the redistricting itself,
for the conduct of the impending election
only. In other words, we do not put the
Court of Appeals into the business of
permanently drawing redistricting plans,
and this would mean that once that elec-
tion had been disposed of, the same process
would be repeated again, gearing up with
the commission, and going through the
identical process to have either the com-
mission or the General Assembly prepare
a plan of redistricting which will ultimately
be found legal.
We realize that this is a somewhat in-
volved plan. It is probably different from
that which has been adopted anywhere in
the United States, but it has certain virtues.
It is bipartisan. It puts the initiating re-
sponsibility outside the legislature. It does
provide, however, that the legislature shall
have approximately a minimum of four
weeks to come up with a different plan. It
provides that the legislature's plan shall
have priority if it loses in the courts; then
the commission plan will take over, and if
that loses, then the Court of Appeals shall
draw redistricting for that election only,
so as to move the unwanted burden of hav-
ing the courts in the redistricting category.
Consequently the Committee feels that
this redistricting procedure ought to go a
long way in avoiding the stalemates that
have occurred in prior years.
I might point out just as a matter of
passing interest that the General Assembly
of Maryland passed three congressional re-
districting plans in 1961, 1963 and 1965,
and none of the three ever saw the light
of day. It was the federal district court
which ultimately ended up with the re-
sponsibility of redistricting the State of
Maryland for congressional redistricting
purposes.
|
