|
must, would the Committee's feeling then
be that that guideline, if established, could
prevail over the Maryland Constitution if
it were more liberal than the Maryland
Constitution in that report?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I cannot
speak for that Committee. I personally
think I would like to see Maryland and
the national government using the same
formula, because it would seem unfair to
have a different congressional districting
deviation allowable from the state legisla-
ture. At least that is a personal reaction.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Would it be a
fair statement that it is the Committee's
position that if the Supreme Court at some
future time should adopt a minimum rule
with regard to maximum or minimum
variations that the Constitutional language
"substantially equal" would be interpreted
to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
think that is the Committee's feeling.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Would you as
Chairman of the Committee oppose an
amendment which set forth the concept I
just discussed with you?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I person-
ally would not, but I do not think at this
moment in time, taking the Supreme Court
decisions as they are, that you could do it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: I feel it incumbent
to address certain questions with regard to
congressional districting. That process is
as painful to the General Assembly as is
reapportionment.
While I am not aware of what is going
on in Washington now, as I am in An-
napolis, that long looked-for standard to
be enunciated by the Congress now says
that you shall have no at-large elections
except in Alaska and Hawaii.
Did the Committee give any thought,
granting that the Congress has the au-
thority to establish the standards to dele-
gate to this redistricting commission the
responsibility for drawing up a plan in the
same manner and submitting it in the same
manner again without in any way touching
on the standards?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The Com-
mittee did give some thought to that. One
|
of the difficulties in using a commission
approach is the possibility that the com-
mission plan and not that of the legislature
would become law. There is a serious prob-
lem with this because it can be argued un-
der one of the provisions of the federal
Constitution that only the legislature of
the state may accomplish redistricting, and
to the extent that any other body accom-
plishes redistricting it might be in con-
travention to the federal Constitution.
In other words, what I am saying is that
it looks like the legislature of the state
must always assume the final responsibility
in redistricting for congressional purposes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Well, Chairman
Gallagher, is it possible for us to get a
definitive statement on whether or not this
would be possible, because unless there is
some very strong language in here to pro-
tect this whole process, I think it opens
up a whole new field in terms of refer-
endum and several other things.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I am aware
of the fact that the League of Women
Voters regretted some of the compromises
made with the General Assembly in Mary-
land, and that it was the federal court,
sitting in Baltimore, that drew the con-
gressional districts which we have today,
which, interestingly enough, only deviate
1.4 percent; but which at the same time
must candidly be seen not as fair as they
could have been.
DELEGATE KOSS: I have several other
questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Under 3.16, I as-
sume that eliminates the now present pro-
cedure of three weeks?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
DELEGATE KOSS: Was it the inten-
tion that first sentence almost say that the
first house cannot alter, amend, pass or re-
ject a bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The first
sentence is word-for-word from the 1867
Constitution, and the practice under that
has been to alter and amend the bill within
the originating house.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: In 3.17a is there
a court definition of "special legislation"
at this point?
|
