|
tain to the entire subject matter or just
this one amendment?
DELEGATE BYRNES: Just this one
amendment, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then you will not
offer the other amendments at all?
DELEGATE BYRNES: I will not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
This is a period of controlled debate.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Byrnes.
Just a second. The amendment is sub-
mitted by Delegate Byrnes. Is it seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was sec-
onded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
seconded.
For what purpose does Delegate Schloe-
der rise?
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: It was my
understanding controlled time would deal
with the entire subject matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the under-
standing but I just understood from Dele-
gate Byrnes that the other three amend-
ments will not be offered at all. That means
it deals only with Amendment No. 14,
which was "F".
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Thank you
for that clarification.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
I understand Delegate Macdonald has an
amendment to my amendment. I would like
to see whether or not that could not be
discussed first before we involve ourselves
in the debate on this subject and then have
it resumed ag%ain.
THE CHAIRMAN: The procedure we
have been following is that the minority
amendment is submitted first, controlled
debate deals with that amendment, and
any amendments to that amendment are
offered at the beginning of the period of
uncontrolled debate.
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
yesterday afternoon Delegate Chabot and
I engaged in colloquy dealing with sta-
tistics we both had and our various in-
terpretations thereof. So as not to mislead
this body or to leave on the record con-
fusion that may be on there now, I would
|
like to compare the gubernatorial and may-
oralty turn-outs in Baltimore City for the
past from 1954 to 1967. If I am incorrect
in the statement, Delegate Chabot will
correct me, I am sure. I will first read the
numbers voting for governor and then
those for mayor. 254,000 for governor,
218,000 for mayor, 1958-1959; 151,000 for
governor, 228,000 for mayor, '62-'63; 203,-
000 governor, 212,000, mayor, '66-'67; 242,-
000 governor, 171,000 mayor.
The point Delegate Chabot was trying
to make was that if you average both
totals, you would find that the drop-off
from governor to mayor on the average is
2 V» percent.
The point I was going to make from the
same figures was that in Baltimore City,
which was not merged with the guber-
natorial, you do have a wildly fluctuating
fall-off. In one year, the mayoralty is
higher than the governor; the next year it
is much lower than the governor, the fol-
lowing year is higher and the year after
that is low. I compare that, if I may, Mr.
Chairman, to the statistics in Anne Arun-
del County and Baltimore County, for ex-
ample, Garrett County, Montgomery Coun-
ty and Prince Georges County, where the
county elections are merged with the State.
In those counties, our statistics indicate
there is a consistently high response by the
county voters to both the county and the
state elections.
So I think from the same statistics we
draw different conclusions. For the bene-
fit of those who were not able to be with
us the latter part of yesterday, I would
like to, if I may, very briefly summarize
what the position of the minority is and
then devote the remainder of my time to
various speakers who have indicated a
desire to speak on the subject.
The majority recommended that there
be odd-year elections for counties; the
minority recommended to you that the
status will be retained. That is to say,
county elections would remain with the
State and Baltimore City which would be
unique in Maryland, with its political sub-
divisions remaining alone in an odd year.
We have said a small turnout produces a
less democratic response, that is to say,
the poor and independents are the ones
who stay home. If there were proof that
odd-year elections do in fact draw a selec-
tive electorate even if not a large one,
then perhaps odd years would be war-
ranted.
Secondly, odd-year elections cost the
|
