clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1988   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1988 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Dec. 7]

DELEGATE BYRNES: Say 15 to 20.
Wait a minute, I am being unclear. I am
not relying exclusively on these documents.
I am relying now on the Spencer memo and
the Dabrowski memo, Delegate Dabrow-
ski's memo.

DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Are there any further questions?

Delegate Chabot.

DELEGATE CHABOT: I would like to
find out if those other memos, those other
sources of information, contradict the in-
formation that had been prepared and dis-
tributed to you and me within the last two
days.

DELEGATE BYRNES: No, I would say
that your point is well taken that you do
not have a consistent drop-off between the
gubernatorial and mayoralty response in
every mayoralty election in Baltimore City.
The only statistics we have that would pre-
cisely define what you are asking for indi-
cate that it is a mixed answer. I want to
indicate the minority does not rely exclu-
sively on that argument to counter the
position of the majority. We think there
are a great number of factors involved,
and we suggest that the differential in re-
sponse in the. various levels of elections
are neither conclusive answers to your
position nor conclusive support for ours.
I would concede your point.

DELEGATE CHABOT: You presented
a number of arguments, and statistical evi-
dence was available to back each of them.
I am not trying to ask questions about all
arguments at once. I had hoped to be able
in this time to have gotten through a mass
of arguments but we have problems in
trying to back up the first one that I
asked questions about.

Do you feel that you have statistical evi-
dence to back up the statements you had
made before, that the drop-off from the
head of the state ticket to the head of the
county ticket, is greater when you have
the county elections in a separate year,
than it is when the county elections are
in the same year or is it less? Which way
do you feel it is or are you abandoning the
argument completely?

DELEGATE BYRNES: No, I do not.
I am going to have to review this com-
pletely, then, if you want to be precise.

(President. PL Vernon Ency resumed the
Chair.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?

Delegate Chabot.

DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir, we
have some information that you had de-
scribed to the Committee regarding the cost
of the 1966 general election. This had been
distributed to the Committee on Suffrage
and Elections very early in the Convention.

You had indicated at that time in your
description of this that there was some
confusion as to the accuracy of the total
figures and you referred to a statement by
Mr. Willard Morris who had at the time of
the 1966 general election been the minority
elections clerk in Montgomery County.

Was it not Mr. Morris' statement to the
Committee that the Montgomery County
figure was correct as to the marginal cost
for holding the 1967 general election, while
he expected that the figures for many of
the other counties had been overstated?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot,
the purpose of this period of questioning is
for clarification of the minority report, not
for debate. I think your question gets into
the area of debate. You have the oppor-
tunity to state that in the course of the
debate.

DELEGATE BYRNES: May I make
this point, sir? In order to cut down on
the presentation, I suggested that I would
not document every statement I made.

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. I do not
question his right to ask you a question
as to documentation but I suggest only the
way this last question was phrased it
seemed to be a matter of debate rather
than clarification.

Do you have further question, Delegate
Chabot?

DELEGATE CHABOT: I would be sat-
isfied to get the answer to that last ques-
tion and I would sit down.

DELEGATE BYRNES: I can only read
from the transcript of the hearing we had
with Mr. Morris:

"DELEGATE CHABOT: So the $768,-
000 represented the estimate of the total
cost for the entire state for the 1966
elections, not the special election in 1967.

"MR. MORRIS: I do not know how
accurate that is because I had several
calls from boards that did not have the
records that we had in Montgomery
County when we submitted our form to
the comptroller. Several of them called
up and said, we know how much was



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1988   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives