|
dette's question. The intent of the Com-
mittee was that the municipality could es-
tablish residence terms for voting in mu-
nicipal elections. But this has no relevance
to the House of Delegates districting. Does
that answer your question?
DELEGATE BURDETTE: That is the
intent of the Committee. I have another
question of Delegate White, which also may
be a matter for the Committee as a Whole.
It seems to me so far, Delegate White,
your remarks have been directed toward
property owners who are in fact non-resi-
dent or only occasionally resident. I am
quite familiar in Maryland with just the
opposite situation, in which actual physical
presence is practically year round. There
are many municipalities in Maryland which
permit persons to vote who vote in other
states and who keep their legal residence
in other states in order to work with the
federal government. When I came to Mary-
land a quarter century ago, for instance,
I found that the immediate past mayor of
the Town of Cheverly was a voting resident
in the State of Missouri and he kept that
residence in order to maintain his quota
arrangement in the federal civil service. I
really raise the question whether you are
speaking to the situation which we have
around the metropolitan Washington area
where many persons who may keep a legal
residence, though they may not vote in a
state a great distance away, are allowed
in fact to vote in the municipal election.
DELEGATE WHITE: My chief concern
is with the question of property as a quali-
fication for permitting a non-resident to
vote but I address myself further. I do
not feel that any non-resident should be
permitted to vote in a municipal election.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Ross.
DELEGATE ROSS: Delegate Burdette,
may I suggest that it is perfectly within
the power of the municipality to define
residence and they might so define it.
DELEGATE J. CLARR (presiding):
Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Is it then
the interpretation of the Committee that
the issue in the minority report does not
go to that question? That is, you feel that
the intent of the Committee under its lan-
guage is that the municipality could define
it?
DELEGATE ROSS: Yes.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: The second
|
part of the question is, even with Delegate
White's minority proposal that outside of
property, so far as we have had any dis-
cussion, if a person actually lives in a
house and owns the house, but perhaps for
some technical reason is, say, a resident of
Egypt, but visits the United States, this
could be defined by the municipality.
DELEGATE J. CLARR (presiding):
Delegate Ross.
DELEGATE ROSS: That is correct.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Thank you.
DELEGATE J. CLARR (presiding) :
Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: Delegate White,
do you believe, as I understood you to say
a few moments ago, that this violated some
constitutional question as far as voting
here in the municipalities is concerned? Is
that what I understood you to say?
DELEGATE WHITE: I indicated that
I am not attempting to get into the strictly
legal area. Of course, a presentation was
made before our Committee which indi-
cated that it is a constitutional question
that in time maybe, after very costly liti-
gation, the Supreme Court will indicate
is a dilution of the right to vote. This
could be the outcome, but as I recall it,
the very latest research we have does not
indicate that the Supreme Court has taken
such a position as of this moment.
DELEGATE J. CLARR (presiding):
Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: Is it, therefore,
your intention, if this is not adopted, to
sug-gest that a case be taken to court for
court disposition?
DELEGATE WHITE: I would suggest
that but I feel we have no need to do that.
We are writing a constitution and we can
indicate what citizenship is for the pur-
pose of Maryland. If we do our job, we
do not need to g!o to the courts.
DELEGATE J. CLARR (presiding):
Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: Do you think
some indication of that nature would be
successful if this particular proposal is
not adopted at this Convention?
DELEGATE WHITE: This is possibly
suggested, but this has no relevance to our
obligation to act now and to make it im-
possible for voting rights to be connected
with ownership of property.
|
