|
largest and smallest districts in the State
shall not exceed 15 percent of the mean
population of all districts.
Ladies and gentlemen, if that is what
we mean then why don't we mean what we
say, and in section 3.02 why not put it in
there and be done with it?
I submit that it is desirable that this
State should settle its own problems and
not wait around for the Supreme Court or
for anyone else in Washington to tell us
what the proper way to do these things is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: Mr. Chairman, and
ladies and gentlemen of the Convention, I
am probably one of the very few people
from a small county and particularly from
the Eastern Shore that has always recog-
nized and acknowledged the fairness of the
one man-one vote decision, and I hate to
disagree with such an eminent authority
as Dr. Winslow, but I submit that when
you adopt a numerical, arbitrary figure,
like this, you are carrying one man-one
vote even further than the Supreme Court
has said that it should be carried.
Suppose you have situations where a
county may still have a representative, if
you allow a 16 and a half percent, or a 15
and a half percent deviation? Isn't it better
to stretch that half a percent, or fractional
percent and let that county keep its repre-
sentative for a little while longer? Sooner
or later it is going to lose it, then it is
going to arbitrarily say no; if it exceeds
15 percent it has to lose its representative.
I have supported the one man-one vote
Supreme Court decision in my vote here in
this Convention, but I think when you set
this numerical determination on it you are
going too far, and you really are grinding
the small county under your heel.
I suggest you support the majority opin-
ion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, I have a question for the Chairman
of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: You should have
asked it when he had the floor and could
yield it.
|
Does anyone desire to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment? I am sorry, speak
in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Grumbacher. I will recognize
you in a few moments, Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: Mr.
Chairman, I fell quite strongly that if
there is a 15 percent variation and it is
in favor of my county, I would probably
be happier than if it were against it, so
each county would feel the same way, I
think, as we move along.
My feeling on this is that we cannot, for
the long term future of this State, beat
that. The Supreme Court of the United
States is going to keep on keeping us in
line.
We have gone through this over the past
years, and it has been a grueling game and
it has been darned tough on the State. I
think we should tie it down now to a firm
percentage, so that we cannot make the
errors in the future that we have made in
the past.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Gallagher. Will you yield
to a question from Delegate Wheatley?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, on section 3.02, the question that
perplexes me at this point is that in
building in times, 1970, 1982, is it the
understanding of the Committee that this
in itself would insure against suits by
those who would still allege malapportion-
ment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No. There
is no guarantee under this provision that
a suit will not be brought. That is im-
possible. All we want to attempt to do
here in requiring redistricting as early as
1970 is to guarantee to the extent possible
that whatever a redistricting plan is put
in we will have a better chance to survive
than to allow the General Assembly to go
undistricted.
1970, in other words, is put in there as a
protection and a defense against losing a
lawsuit but not against someone bringing
it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: One further
brief question: it was the feeling then of
|
