|
amendment. The problem that exists with
requiring a constitutional majority for the
passage of a bill is, as Chairman Galla-
gher explained, that an absence is counted
as a no vote.
One of the most recent studies that has
been done of legislatures throughout the
country, both the federal legislature and
the legislatures of fifty states, called the
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, by Profes-
sors Keefe and Ogol, reports on the studies
that have been done of voting requirements
in legislatures. They point out that the
number of votes needed for passage of bills
varies from state to state, with about two-
thirds requiring a majority of the mem-
bers elected while the rest call for a simple
majority of those present and voting.
They say, and I quote, "the require-
ment of constitutional majority, majority
of the members elected, has come to pre-
sent a convenient and evasive way of
killing a bill without going on record
against it. An absent or non-voting mem-
ber becomes in effect an opponent of the
bill. If enough members decline to vote,
the bill is certain to fail. The individual
legislator can, if he chooses, argue that
he was meeting with constituents, that he
did not hear the bell, or that he was
otherwise detained. Legislative devices
for evasion, for escaping pressures and
avoiding records are numerous. Most of
them are maintained by plausible, if not
altogether convincing reasons." That is
the end of the quotation.
I apologize for quoting from a professor
of government, but I think if we want our
legislators to be responsible to the elec-
torate, if we want them to be responsible
to the house in which they serve, I think
we should deprive them of the opportunity
simply to be absent, and thereby avoid a
vote.
In reference to the comments of the dis-
tinguished former President of the Sen-
ate, who spoke a few minutes ago, refer-
ring to the squirrel in his house, I would
say here only that we have no intention
that the squirrels vote in either house.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute, Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: We would hope
that we would have a situation in which all
members would be present and vote, but in
the event of the illness of a member, in
which there was a 60 to 59 vote, it would
seem to me, it would seem to the majority
of our Committee, that the bill should not
die simply because one member happened
|
to be absent, either for causes he could not
prevent, or for causes which he in fact
developed himself.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist,
you have one and a half minutes you may
allocate.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Mr. Chair-
man, I believe I would like to use the re-
maining time to correct one impression
left.
I suggest that the research of the ma-
jority is a little bit inadequate because if
you take the combination of the two pub-
lications by the Citizens Conference and by
the Council of State Legislatures and com-
bine them you will find that of those states
which do not have a constitutional provi-
sion requiring the majority of those elected,
you will find that all but two of them limit
by rule the majority which is required for
the passage of the bills and that four of
those states which have no constitutional
provision respecting passage have a two-
thirds quorum requirement fixed in their
constitutions, so that the number of states
which are using a provision in any way
similar to that which is being offered by
the majority here, is very much more
limited than they would have you suggest.
I might also comment with respect to one
thing.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-quar-
ter minute.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: If enough
members of a particular house do not wish
to have a bill passed, perhaps it should not
be passed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under the debate
schedule there is now available a maxi-
mum of ten minutes of limited but uncon-
trolled time. Is there any further discus-
sion?
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: I would like to
speak in favor of the majority report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE GILL: I think we should
write into the constitution something that
fits Maryland rather than what the other
states are doing. We should only use what
the other states are doing as a guide. With
that in mind, I would like to differ with
Delegate Della in believing that we must be
consistent in each of our provisions. I think
that is good at times but if at times we
|
