Article 1, the Declaration of Rights of
the draft Constitution is concisely and
courageously drawn with imaginative flexi-
bility. I commend those who assisted in the
drafting for their care and precision. How-
ever, I would like to make just a few ob-
servations about Article 1.
In that respect, I think it most important
that section 1.02 be adopted as in the draft,
and particularly that the words, "each per-
son remaining responsible for abuse of
those rights," be retained. We have re-
cently seen the error of allowing criminal
incitement to riot attempt to hide behind
the cherished constitutional right of free-
dom of expression. The draft language of
section 1.03 courageously faces the truth
that the right "not to worship," alien
though it may seem to us who believe in
God, provides the only absolute guarantee
that we will not later be told how and to
what degree we must worship. In my
opinion, section 1.06, to be totally accurate,
should be amended to read as follows:
"Every person shall have the right of trial
by jury of issues of fact in civil proceed-
ings at law in the courts of this State,
where the cause was recognized at common
law and where the amount or value in con-
troversy exceeds such minimum as may be
fixed by statute." This change is suggested
because there are certain administrative
and purely statutory actions at law which
did not exist at common law and for which
no jury trial is assured.
I want to particularly commend and em-
phasize the need for the extension of the
search and seizure protections of section
1.08 to cover the unreasonable interception
of communications. The uncontrolled wire-
tap and other snooping devices must be out-
lawed. Reasonable use of such surveillance
is assured under the warrant procedures
and court jurisdiction. The protection
against double jeopardy, not extended to
the states by the federal 14th Amendment,
is a progressive addition to our Declara-
tion of Rights. Section 1.1I wisely leaves
to the Legislature the question of capital
punishment.
Article 1I governs our most precious
right as free citizens — the right to elect
those who govern us. In referring to voting
age requirements, it is my intention to
raise a question, not to criticize. I urge you
to join me in serious consideration as to
the logic and justice of retaining the tradi-
tional age of twenty-one years as a qualifi-
cation for enfranchisement. If a man is old
enough to die for his nation at eighteen, is
he not old enough to vote? If a citizen is |
required to perform civic obligations — to
pay taxes to and defend his government —
is a responsible government not obligated
to guarantee equivalent rights?
Consistency of logic is a cogent constitu-
tional objective. In Maryland, statutory
provisions as to legal majority vary, but
these are subordinate to the single consti-
tutional issue you must confront. Is the
attainment of twenty-one years of age a
just, logical, pertinent or valid qualification
for enfranchisement?
In Article 11, tightening the referendum
procedure and eliminating certain legisla-
tion from referendum petition is desirable.
This portion rernoyes ambiguities which
clouded the 1867 Constitution yet guaran-
tees the important right of referendum
most effectively in terms of Maryland's
present and projected population. There is
one mechanical difficulty with section 2.08,
however, which could cause trouble. In
cases where there is a very short space of
time between the date a bill becomes law
and the date the bill becomes effective as
law, the referendum petition could not be
completed in time to stay the law's becom-
ing operative. This would mean that a law,
passed by a simple legislative majority and
made effective immediately, would have to
be implemented by the executive branch
prior to referendum petition and would re-
main in force until 30 days after a possible
defeat.
The point is that the implementation of
some laws is costly and we have always,
and properly I believe, felt that if a law
to be questioned by a referendum vote is
to be effective while that vote is awaited,
it must be passed by a three-fifth's majority
of both houses of the Legislature. There-
fore, I suggest that the Constitution pro-
vide that any bill which is to become effec-
tive less than sixty days from the date that
bill becomes law must be enacted by a
three-fifth's majority of both houses.
Article III, defines the scope and powers
of the legislative branch. I support the re-
tention of the bicameral form, particularly
for the reasons expressed in points 2, 3,
4, and 9 of the comments to the draft
Constitution.
Section 3.03 of the draft instrument,
providing for mandatory redistricting and
reapportionment will assure fair and rea-
sonable representation on a continuing
basis.
Section 3.12 of the draft Constitution
enables the General Assembly to convene |