|
available in late 1970. If the Maryland
General Assembly is grossly malappor-
tioned as a result of what you do or you
do not do, you can expect a lawsuit
promptly, and you will find a court telling
you that you have to redistrict on the basis
of the 1970 Federal Census figures. It
seems to me, therefore, that if you make
an honest bona fide effort to redistrict in
1970 on the basis of all available popula-
tion data at hand, you have made a genu-
ine effort to redistrict the state in a legal
fashion, based upon population as you can
determine it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Singer.
DELEGATE SINGER: Chairman Galla-
gher, in regard to section 3.10, the conflict
of interest, why was it limited to only
elected officials of the State of Maryland
and not those holding appointed offices of
profit or trust?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The Com-
mittee felt that the area that it ought to
have addressed itself to was the legislative
area because it was the Committee on the
Legislative Branch. We made a study of
the number of conflict of interest bills that
had been introduced in the General Assem-
bly in the last three or four years and
found that twenty-seven were introduced,
and that twenty-four failed. The only three
that were passed applied to local subdivi-
sions, and under those circumstances, we
thought that we could best initiate proper
activity by calling for such legislation for
elected officials.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Singer.
DELEGATE SINGER: Were the three
pertaining to local subdivisions also only
for elected officials? My point is did any
go to the state officials who hold appointed
office?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Senate Bill
445, which is now Chapter 683, covers
Prince George's County public officials and
in actuality it was repealed.
Chapter 660, conflict of interest, per-
tained to the Park and Planning Commis-
sion and those members from Montgomery
and Prince George's County, so that they
are not elected officials as I understand it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further ques-
tions, Delegate Singer?
DELEGATE SINGER: No.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the Committee Chairman?
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Delegate Galla-
gher, you made a comment before that
single member districts were designed in
part in any event to encourage minority
interests being represented?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: When the deci-
sions are made by the reapportionment
group, will it not be true that there will
be a great deal of pleasant infighting over
which small districts will go to which
party?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes. I sus-
pect we will never take politics out of poli-
tics and there will always be a political
consideration and some people will be
pleased and some displeased. The alterna-
tive to that is to do nothing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I do not criticize
that. I raise this point. You are taking the
governor and, who is the deciding vote on
the commission?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: If you pre-
sume it is always going to split along party
lines, which we felt it would not, but if you
assume that for the purpose of argument,
then one may assume that everyone will
vote in accordance with what his political
party wants, and that the governor's ap-
pointee, of whatever party he may be, will
prevail.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: When the is-
sue is a partisan one, is that not a safe
assumption?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The issue
is a partisan one, but it is a bipartisan one
to the extent that you can set up effective
machinery.
If for example, we had attempted to pro-
vide for a commission, which reflected the
political party composition of the General
Assembly, then quite obviously the minority
party would have had a little voice, but
|
