|
rected by someone in the room, the guber-
natorial election of 1966 was a very hotly
contested one whereas the mayoralty elec-
tion in Baltimore City of 1967 was not
terribly exciting.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: That is all, Dele-
gate Schloeder, thank you.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Thank you,
sir.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: In view of the
fact that we are discussing a radical de-
parture from what has been a stable and
traditional form, may I suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The absence of a quorum has been sug-
gested. The Clerk will please ring the bell.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Thank you.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: May I take
this opportunity to read some of these
figures?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Wait a minute, Delegate Schloeder. We
have to take the roll. The Clerk will take
the roll. Indicate your presence, please.
(Whereupon, a roll call vote was taken.)
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Has everybody indicated his presence?
(There was no response. )
The Clerk will take the roll.
Are there any further questions of Dele-
gate Schloeder? Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Delegate Schloe-
der, I would like to go back to something
you said a while ago about your feeling
that in a matter of urban problems, for
example, there was great value in separat-
ing the mayoralty race or the county coun-
cil race from the gubernatorial race or any
other higher level race.
I wonder if you are suggesting in that
that in spite of the fact you said these
were combined local, state, and national
problems, the elections between the various
levels of government have no relevance to
each other.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Schloeder.
|
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Not at all.
I did not mean to give you that impression.
If I did, I think they have a relevance and
a very great relevance but the answer is.
not at all.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
I want to announce for the tape that a
quorum is present. Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Schloe-
der, in response to a question by Delegate
Child, you gave us the gubernatorial fig-
ures for Baltimore in the last two years.
Could you give us comparable figures for
some elections before that?
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Be very
happy to and I would like to ask Delegate
Weidemeyer what is the reverse of being
Chabotaged? The election figures for 1954,
the gubernatorial turnout was 254,000, in
1955 the mayoral turnout was 218,000. Now
for the three elections, 1958 to 1967, here
is the way it worked. In 1958 the guberna-
torial turnout in Baltimore City was
151,000. The following year in 1959, I
might say the 1958 gubernatorial election
was one in which certainly one of the par-
ticipants precluded a large tournout be-
cause of his fine performance in running
scared. Everybody knew he was going to
win easily. The next year, however, in a
mayoralty election in 1959, 228,000 turned
out. That makes 78,000 more turned out
the following year in a mayoralty election.
In 1962 the gubernatorial election,
203,000 turned out in Baltimore City and
the following year in 1963 in a mayoral
election 212,000 turned out.
So again there were 9,000 more turning
out in a mayoralty election running alone
without any coat-tail effect with greater
visibility.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Are there any further questions? Delegate
Hopkins?
DELEGATE HOPKINS: Delegate
Schloeder, in the statistics you have up
there, do you have any that show what
happened in a gubernatorial election, not
voter turnout, but how many of those ac-
tually voted for the county offices that
were on the ballot with the governor? I
think those are the figures we really need.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Schloeder.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: I would
yield to Delegate Byrnes who is going to
have the minority report on this. He
would be very happy to provide those.
|
