clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 160   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
160 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Sept. 28]
receiving its recommendation before making
their nomination." Delegate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: I would like to
speak to this, both as one of the authors of
the amendment and also as a single mem-
ber delegate. First of all we face the plain
statutory consideration that there is no
authority in this convention to impose
duties on any other agency in the state.
Secondly, we have to consider the fact
that the governing body of the county was
elected for purposes other than writing a
Constitutional Convention. This is some-
thing, of course, that has been particularly
brought home in a hearing so far on the
Local Government Committee. Generally
speaking, they were not selected on broad
constitutional issues; they were selected on
more local issues.
Another consideration is that the rule
right now is very long and complicated and
to try and put something else into it would
make it almost unworkable. You can as-
sume, as Delegate Scanlan does, that any-
thing is open to a certain amount of criti-
cism. However, we have to depend on the
selection committee to exercise a certain
amount of political acumen in making their
selections. I think certainly in taking two
people, such as the First Vice-President and
the Second Vice-President, who have been
elected to these positions within the Con-
vention, we are picking people already de-
termined to be the most qualified delegates
to do this very difficult task for us. I think
it is certainly reasonable to expect that in
carrying out their duties they would con-
sult with the governing body of the county,
without our getting embroiled in imposing
this duty upon them in a motion that we
may not really have the authority to do.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Freed-
lander?
DELEGATE FREEDLANDER: Mr.
President, I would like to speak against
both motions. The Enabling Act states that
the filling of vacancies would be done by
the Convention. Since we were all selected
on a non-partisan ballot, it seems to me
that we should fill vacancies from the per-
son next in line who lost in each district,
except in those instances where there were
no other candidates running. Then and only
then should such a selection committee be
brought into action.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further discus-
sion? Delegate Bamberger?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Presi-
dent, I have two concerns with the form of
the amendment suggested by Delegate
Linton. One is that in some districts there
are more than one county, or in some dis-
tricts there are parts of several counties, so
that in the present form the amendment
would have to be changed to enable the two
Vice-Presidents to consult with the govern-
ing bodies of all of the counties, which
might be included in that particular district.
Secondly, I am concerned that, as it is
worded, the amendment would require the
Vice-Presidents to accept the recommenda-
tion of the political subdivision. I do not
think that was the intent. What the com-
mittee was wrestling with here was the
concern of Vice President dark that the
selection committee seek an expression of
the will of the people in that particular dis-
trict, and that our prior consideration con-
cerning the composition of the selection
committee of people from neighboring dis-
tricts would not automatically accomplish
that.
I think we have struck a workable com-
promise in that as Delegate Grant says, we
have suggested that the selection committee
be made up of two men in whom this Con-
vention has already expressed its confidence,
in two men who hold political office, and
therefore not insensitive to local politics,
and the validity of the local political
process. It might well be that they would
want to bring to this Convention the name
of someone who was not in particular favor
with the governing body of that district,
but who might be the person, as Delegate
Freedlander suggests, who ran next in the
election.
Our hope was that this Convention could
put that confidence in the two Vice-Presi-
dents. The report of the Committee, I think,
makes it clear that it is the will of the com-
mittee, and if adopted by this Convention,
the will of the Convention that the two
Vice-Presidents in making their choice will
not sit in isolation, but will talk to the
County Commissioners, the Mayor of the
town, or anyone else who enjoys political
office or political favor in that particular
district. I would, therefore, urge that we
adopt the report as it is without the amend-
ment suggested by Delegate Linton.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Bam-
berger, the Chair is not clear as to your
first comment. Since there is only one dele-
gate from each county, that is, one delegate
to the Constitution—
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I am
wrong. I do have it reversed.


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 160   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives