|
guesses of the General Assembly with re-
spect to what the districts ought to be is a
situation which I think we ought to cor-
rect, and if we can correct it by setting
forth some guideline for their action, that
is what we are attempting here, and I hope
to support the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President, and delegates of the Convention;
I consider this amendment unnecessary.
In the first place, as pointed out by the
Chairman, this is purely a statutory mat-
ter. In the second place, after the next
census and assuming our State keeps in-
creasing in population much more rapidly
than other states, then there will be al-
lotted, probably, one or two additional con-
gressmen after the 1970 census and Con-
gress will require that we then redistrict;
on the other hand, should our population
remain static and we keep the same num-
ber of congressmen, there would be no need
for redistricting.
In the third place, while the theory of
the districts being composed of adjoining
territory and being compact is a fine prin-
ciple, it should not be frozen into our con-
stitution where, under certain circum-
stances, we could not vary it.
I know at the time in the House I ob-
jected to being joined across the Bay in
Southern Anne Arundel County with the
Eastern Shore, but I find that is not so
bad at all, and that Chesapeake Bay is a
nice little area to cross and we have had
some very congenial congressional fellows
and a fine Congressman. So to freeze that
in would be terribly bad.
Now, also the Supreme Court has not
ruled on the percentages and if we are to
do as good a job under the Supreme Court
decision, that is, as nearly equal as prac-
tical, I would say if we froze in 15 percent
and we had a very good district that might
run 16 and a half percent, we could not
carry through. It would seem that while
some of the thoughts on this are very good,
it is absolutely unnecessary. This is purely
statutory and should be left up to the legis-
lature. I think under the new census the
act of Congress and the duty of the legis-
lature to act, they will act without this
amendment being in the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
|
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
I think that all of these comments about
the failure of the Supreme Court or of the
United States Congress to set down abso-
lute limits up to now and the suggestion
that until they have set down absolute
limits we should not set any minimum
standards all boils down to this. We want
to have districts as bad as we can possibly
get away with under the federal judiciary
or under what Congress allows us to do,
and that is why we do not want anything
in our Constitution.
I suggest that those who do not want to
have the worst possible districting that
they can get away with, would vote for
this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will ring
the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 9 to Committee Recom-
mendation LB-2. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of Amendment No. 9. A vote No is
a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 35 votes in the affirmative
and 71 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
Delegate Adkins, I now have your amend-
ment Y. Do you desire to offer it?
DELEGATE ADKINS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN : The pages will please
distribute amendment Y.
While that is being distributed, the Chair
would like to announce if at all possible
it would like to conclude consideration of
this amendment this evening.
Amendment Y. This will be Amendment
No. 10.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 10
to Committee Recommendation LB-2, by
Delegate Adkins:
|
