|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Ross.
DELEGATE KOSS: The Committee's
intent was that this was a broad grant of
power to the General Assembly and that
they would exercise that mandate in a
manner similar to the way they had be-
fore.
I would suspect that my answer to Dele-
gate Marion would have to be that the
General Assembly could or could not, that
they were under no mandate to require
secrecy of the voting in a primary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, on this Amendment No. 9, it occurs
to me that while it may be desirable to
give everybody the opportunity to vote, it
is what I would call a floater voter amend-
ment. More serious than that, it does not,
if you look at line 20, afford the right to
vote as much as it claims. If you struck
out the three months in line 20 and in-
serted in lieu thereof thirty days, under
the wording then, it would mean that a
person who removed to another district
after thirty days lost his right to vote in
the old district and he, if he failed to
register in the new district, would not have
the opportunity to vote anyway. So I think
this is a very bad amendment in many
respects, because as I read it, removal
from one district to another in this State
shall not deprive a person of his qualifica-
tion to vote in the house district from
which he has removed until thirty days
after his removal.
As I read this amendment, his right to
vote in the old district would only hold
good for thirty days after his removal and
I think that removes the right to vote,
rather than gives it to him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: May I just
reply to the last remark, the whole pur-
pose of my amendment and the Commit-
tee's original report, as I understand it,
and of the present constitutional provision
that this is patterned after, is to make
sure that everyone who removes prior to
the cut-off date is entitled to register and
vote in his new place and a person who
moves from one place to another after the
cut-off date under my amendment which
would be thirty days before the election,
|
votes in his old place of residence, and I
see no gap in there at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 9 to Committee Recom-
mendation S&E-2. The Clerk will ring the
quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 9. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of Amendment No. 9. A vote No is
a vote against. Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Does any del-
egate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote. There
being 43 votes in the affirmative and 70
in the negative, the motion is lost. The
amendment is rejected.
The amendment marked A F will be
Amendment No. 10.
The amendment is offered by Delegate
Weidemeyer and seconded by Delegates
Sosnowski and Pullen. The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Weidemeyer to speak to the
amendment.
Excuse me.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 10
to Committee Recommendation S&E-2 by
Delegates Weidemeyer, Sosnowski, and
Pullen: On page 1, section 1, Eligible
Voters in Federal, State and County Elec-
tions in line 10 strike out the words "six
months" and insert in lieu thereof the
words "one year"; And in lines 12 and 20
respectively in each instance strike out the
word "three" and insert in lieu thereof
respectively in each instance the word
"six".
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, and members of the Committee, this
would strike out the requirement for only
six months residence in the State for a new
voter and replace one year which would
bring us back to our present constitutional
provision, and in lines 12 and 20, we would
strike out the three months residence in
|
