|
I would call your attention to the fact
that the Legislative Branch Committee
commentary supports this 15 percent fig-
ure. I would also note that in the model
state constitution, they called for a per-
centage figure and in so doing, they say
the 15 percent is the maximum that should
be extended.
So again let us fix this into the consti-
tution, rather than risk the future sabo-
tage of this concept of one man-one vote.
Now, if any of you should have any ques-
tions as to the workability of this figure,
I simply point to you the State of Michigan,
where their spread from the mean totals
only 4.28 percent.
Frankly my own personal preference is
14 percent, but Professor Winslow and I
have adopted the 15 percent figure because
it is in line with the Legislative Branch
Committee commentary.
So in closing, I would say again, let us
not abdicate to the courts the fulfillment
of the goal that each man is equal, or each
man's vote is equal to that of every other
man, regardless of his place of residence.
I urge your support of this amendment,
and I yield the rest of the time allotted to
us for this amendment to Dr. Winslow.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is perhaps the
appropriate time to find out if there are
any questions of you, Delegate Wagandt,
before the Chair recognizes Delegate Wins-
low.
Are there any questions of the sponsor
of the amendment?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Delegate
Wagandt, in view of the fact that in many
of these provisions we are trying to allow
for some flexibility, and application of the
law laid down, the principles of the Consti-
tutions, do you not think that if we
amended your amendment here to say
"30 percent variation" instead of 15, that
that would give the commission a lot more
leeway in making adjustments where
necessary?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt.
DELEGATE WAGANDT: As I think I
pointed out earlier, my personal prefer-
ence is for 10 percent. I also noted that
Michigan manages to comply within a 14.28
percent figure, so that I feel that the 15
percent figure is more than ample, aiid I
could not accede to that amendment.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Would
you agree to 25 percent?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt.
DELEGATE WAGANDT: The answer
is no.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Will you
agree to 20 percent?
DELEGATE WAGANDT: Fifteen per-
cent is too generous as it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions of the sponsor of the amendment?
Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: Mr. Chairman,
I have a question of Delegate Wagandt.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may ask your
question.
DELEGATE BARRICK: I am a little
concerned with the 15 percent. What would
be the result if after the General Assem-
bly has been redistricted, a sudden influx
of people moved into one area and in that
area the 15 percent rule would not apply,
or there would be a variation of more than
15 percent.
Would that involve anything that the
General Assembly would be doing?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt.
DELEGATE WAGANDT: I am not
sure that I follow you, Delegate Barrick.
I assume you are talking about redistrict-
ing, and then shortly after the redistrict-
ing a sudden influx of people.
Well, if this is what you mean, that dis-
tricting plan would have to hold until the
next time the State was redistricted,
which would, I gather, be ten years.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Barrick.
DELEGATE BARRICK: My question is,
you are putting this amendment in sec-
tion 3.02 and I am wondering whether you
would accomplish the results that you wish
to accomplish, or should it be better placed
in section 3.03A where you are dealing
with redistricting?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt.
DELEGATE WAGANDT: I believe that
section 3.02 is the proper place for this. I
assume that the redistricting commission
|
