|
DELEGATE CLAGETT: And trans-
lating that, it means that if we have the
120-40 set-up, the requirement would only
be that there be 37 members of the House
to suspend the requirement, as against 72
under the present constitutional provision,
and in the Senate, it would only require
13 as against 24, using the three-fifths, a
quorum being in one instance 61, that is,
in the first instance, and in the second
instance, 21?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: You are
correct, and as I said there is a minority
report which goes into this, that opposes it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, I will wait for my question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Delegate Freedlander?
DELEGATE FREEDLANDER: No,
I am sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Delegate Dulany.
DELEGATE DULANY: Mr. Chairman,
I have a question for Mr. Gallagher.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE DULANY: Chairman Gal-
lagher, is there anything in section 3.02 to
prevent a county that would be entitled to
say three-fourths of a senator being di-
vided into two, three or four, senatorial
districts?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dulany.
DELEGATE DULANY: Is there any-
thing to restrict that in your opinion? You
said there is nothing to prevent it. Is there
anything to restrict such division?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: To the ex-
tent of following the natural political
boundaries and the geographical outline,
that would point you in the direction, but
it would not be an overriding reason to
have you maintain at least one unit vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dulany.
DELEGATE DULANY: What is the in-
tention of the Committee in this regard?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
|
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
think the Committee has an intention, be-
cause the Committee does not feel that in
the Constitution you can arrive at what
each county would consider to be substan-
tial equity, and that this would be the ulti-
mate responsibility of the commission and
the General Assembly itself.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dulany.
DELEGATE DULANY: That is all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the Committee Chairman?
(There was no response.)
The Chair is fearful that his earlier re-
quests to the Committee Chairman with
respect to section 3.17 may perhaps have
been too general and thereby have been
confusing. I would like to go back over
that, if I may.
You indicated, Chairman Gallagher, that
taking the last sentence in the section, the
sentence beginning on line 17, which is
almost the same as the corresponding pro-
visions of the present Constitution, that
failure to observe the requirements of that
section would invalidate a bill. Is that cor-
rect?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, sir, on
the basis that you inform me that the
Court of Appeals had so held in substan-
tially equal language.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is true. The
Court of Appeals so held and then follow-
ing that the rules of the Senate and the
House were amended to require that the
vote be actually entered on the journal.
On that assumption, I would like to go to
each sentence of the section, and not ask
you for a legal opinion but rather the in-
tent of the Committee at this point.
In the event either house of the General
Assembly failed to keep a daily journal
on any particular day, would you take it
from this sentence that any bill discussed
on a day as to which there was no journal
would be invalid, assuming that you could
ever prove that it was discussed on that
day?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to read the opinion of
the Court of Appeals in that case before I
try to answer that.
THE CHAIRMAN : Let me just suggest
that we pass those questions then until
tomorrow, but if you would give considera-
tion to that section.
|
