|
time, so that the court would have at that
time both the plan that had been adopted
by the General Assembly and the plan
which had been presented by the commis-
sion.
In presenting the amendment I am fully
aware, of course, that under the hypothesis
that I suggested, the second plan could
eventually find its way to the Court of Ap-
peals, but this would require a second ap-
peal and a delay of time and I would
imagine that time would be critical in a
situation of this sort. This amendment
merely permits both plans to be before the
court at the same time so that the matter
could be disposed of at one time expedi-
tiously and with dispatch.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the sponsor of the amendment?
Delegate Case, do you yield to a ques-
tion from Delegate Gleason?
DELEGATE CASE: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I guess the
point of confusion in my mind is when the
two plans are presented to the Court of
Appeals, is the court ruling on the Consti-
tutionality of both plans in the same pro-
ceeding?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Delegate Gleason,
it would be my thought that as section
3.03a is now written it would be ruling on
the plan of the General Assembly first.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: If that were
the interpretation, I certainly would have
no objection and would urge the Chairman
to accept the amendment. However, I think
it has to be very clear that the primary
jurisdiction, or the first look should be at
the plan presented to it by the General
Assembly.
DELEGATE CASE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Yes. That is my
interpretation of it, Delegate Gleason.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case, would
it be desirable to make that clear, if it
would make it clear, in line 35, after the
word "becomes", to add some phrase such
as, "or would become", so it would read,
"plan for redistricting which becomes, or
would become law"?
|
DELEGATE CASE: If the Chairman
feels that that would make the proposition
clearer, quite obviously I would have no
objection and I assume that Delegates Han-
son and James would have none either.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the sponsor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I had in
mind asking Delegate Case whether if this
amendment is accepted, it would not be ap-
propriate to amend in lines 39 and 40 the
provision with respect to the effect, if the
Court of Appeals finds both the commis-
sion plan and the Assembly plan to be un-
lawful. However, that probably may not be
necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I do not think it
is, Delegate Weidemeyer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions to the sponsor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I believe that Delegate Case's amend-
ment has the virtue of saving time and
that is a factor which is important. I think
Delegate Marvin Smith was addressing
himself to that problem in his earlier
amendment, so to the extent that it does
save time and because of that reason, I
would favor this amendment. I am trying
to decide whether or not the suggestion
that the Chair made, that on line 35, after
the word, "becomes", we add, "or would
become".
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you take a
few moments to consider it with a staff ad-
visor and we will know what we can do.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes. I
would certainly concur in Delegate Case's
recommendation, and I understand the
Committee concurs as well, so long as it is
understood, as Delegate Gleason has empha-
sized, that the first view and first observa-
tion by the Court of Appeals would be on
the legislature's plan. If it should decide
that that plan were unconstitutional, then
and only then would it move to a considera-
tion of the commission plan.
Mr. Chairman, I am advised by the staff,
and I believe that it would be appropriate
to include in line 35 at the end thereof,
after "becomes", the words, "or would be-
|
