|
ments of the Supreme Court which indi-
cate that numerical representation is more
important in congressional redistricting
than as applicable to state reapportion-
ment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I am fa-
miliar with the constant changes that are
taking place insofar as the tests required
for setting up congressional districts, and
the power of the Congress to preempt the
field. And because of that, I cannot say that
the Constitution of Maryland, nor the
General Assembly, can fly in the face of
whatever determination may be made at a
given time, either by statute or court in-
terpretation.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: What I am
getting at, Mr. Chairman, and the ques-
tion is, that the percentage leeway appar-
ently is greater in reapportionment than it
is in congressional redistricting.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct. It appears the percentage leeway
for congressional districts is in the fifteen
percent area or less, whereas as far as the
states are concerned, in the districting
within the state, the deviations are much
greater.
Some of the present Maryland General
Assembly has a 65 percent deviation be-
tween the high and low, from the mean.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: So, Mr.
Chairman, the record of this Convention
should show that the standards with re-
gard to congressional redistricting and
pronouncements of the Supreme Court with
regard to congressional redistricting, and
acts of Congress with regard to congres-
sional redistricting are not necessarily ap-
plicable to the standards which will exist
with regard to reapportionment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That cer-
tainly is my understanding.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: The sec-
ond point I wanted to raise for clarifica-
tion purposes is this: I recall language in
one of the Supreme Court cases with re-
gard to projections to the effect that pro-
jections cannot be used as a basis for re-
apportionment.
|
Am I correct in that recollection, or did
you consider any such cases?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I have
read a fair number of redistricting and re-
apportionment cases, but I really do not
think that that is a problem here at the
moment, because we are told by the State
Planning Commission that we will have
not projections but actual figures in 1970.
Of course, there is another possibility
that I mentioned before, which is that the
State can engage the federal government
to actually make a head count, if it desires
to do it that way, but that is at the rate of
25 cents a head, and a million dollars.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: May I refresh
your recollection, Delegate Gallagher, in
response to Delegate Hardwicke's last ques-
tion and ask you the question again: Do
you not recall in the Maryland reapportion-
ment case the appellants citing projections
of population and those projections being
referred to in the opinion of the court it-
self, whereas in the Maryland Congres-
sional districting case, the district court,
prior to carving up Anne Arundel County
announced that it would not take into ac-
count projections of population. Is it possi-
ble, therefore, that Delegate Hardwicke
was thinking of the district court opinion
and not referring to any statement of the
Supreme Court on the subject, where its
only action in that regard seems to indi-
cate that projections are relevant?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Delegate
Gallagher, I was wondering under section
3.17 (b) whether you considered the fact
that the General Assembly's term has been
extended, or could be extended rather easily
until about the end of June, and that even
today we do not get the laws published. I
also wonder whether you considered ex-
tending the date to later on in the year?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: We did,
but there were a number of reasons why
|
