|
nority. In fact, I do not think we should
have minority groups. We were satisfied.
The only thing we said was wait until you
are finished school, and I am glad we said
that. She may still marry him, I am not
sure, but I would say that love, if it comes,
I believe —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm,
your time has expired.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, that is a very difficult party to follow.
I would like to say a few words on be-
half of the Whigs, Roundheads and the
Royalists.
Amendment No. 5 has a lot of the Jack-
sonian philosophy in it, which principally
is to the victor belongs the spoils, and if
we really seek to give to the victor in re-
districting time the opportunity to freeze
into a commission status the power that
the majority party has in the House of
Delegates, I really believe this is more
political than we like to see in commis-
sions which are supposed to have some ele-
ment of objectivity.
I remember well when the distinguished
delegate from Frederick County was a
member of the Public Service Commission
and I was people's counsel and I had the
privilege to appear before him. I always
found that his objectivity and judicial de-
corum was such as to make him indistin-
guishable from a member of the minority
party, and I would assume that that same
objectivity which characterized his quasi-
judicial functions would carry over into
this commission.
In a word, ladies and gentlemen, shall we
lay this to rest?
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate E. J. Clarke.
DELEGATE E. CLARKE: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen, Delegate Storm
admitted that he was a Democrat, and I
will have to admit to being a Republican.
I think I express the views of all Republi-
cans in this body and in the House of Dele-
gates, of which I happen to be the minority
whip, that we are still ' second but we do
try harder, and I would rather fight than
switch.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
|
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 5 to Committee Recom-
mendation LB-2.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 5. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes. Have all delegates
voted? Does any delegate desire to change
his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 14 votes in the affirmative,
86 in the negative, the motion is lost. The
amendment is rejected.
Delegate Case, do you desire to offer
your Amendment O?
DELEGATE CASE: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: The pages will dis-
tribute Amendment O. This will be Amend-
ment No. 6. The Clerk will read the amend-
ment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 6
to Committee Recommendation LB-2 by
Delegates Case, Hanson and James: On
page 2 section 3.03a, Redistricting Proce-
dure, in line 36 after the word "law" in-
sert the following words: "and the plan of
the commission if it has not become law".
THE CHAIRMAN : The amendment hav-
ing been seconded the Chair recognizes
Delegate Case to speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee of
the Whole: This is a technical amendment
which perhaps I can best explain to you by
citing an example. Assume with me that
the redistricting commission has developed
a plan which is illegal. Further, assume
with me that the General Assembly, realiz-
ing this fact, adopts its own plan, which
becomes law, but that that plan, too, is
illegal. Under section 3.03a as it is now
written, the only plan that can come be-
fore the Court of Appeals is the plan which
was adopted by the General Assembly,
since it is the only plan which has become
law.
If the Court of Appeals strikes the plan
down, as it would under the assumption,
then the commission plan would under the
terms of section 3.03a become law, but as
I have already postulated, that plan, too,
is illegal.
This problem can be remedied by per-
mitting both the commission plan and the
plan adopted by the General Assembly to
go to the Court of Appeals at the same
|
