|
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Since we do not
have the amendment before us, and al-
though the Chair made it clear —
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will re-
state it again.
On the adoption of the amendment to
section 8, it will be Amendment No. 17.
You do not now have a printed copy. If you
will follow me with your blue copy cf the
recommendation, I will give you the amend-
ment.
On page 3, section 8, Pluralities, lines
32 and 33 strike the following: ", or in the
case of primary elections, become the
nominee for".
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the
amendment, a vote in favor of the deletion
of that phrase. A vote No is a vote against
the amendment, a vote in favor of leaving
the recommendation as it is printed.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 67 votes in the affirmative
and 56 in the negative, the motion is
adopted and the amendment is carried.
Are there any further amendments to
section 8?
The Chair hears none.
Delegate White, do you still desire to
offer your Amendment O?
I take it you do not, in view of the
action on previous amendments, is that
correct?
DELEGATE WPIITE : I yield to Dele-
gate Gullett.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gullett.
DELEGATE GULLETT: I have a ques-
tion of Delegate Koss which might clarify
this on section 9.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, Delegate
Koss.
DELEGATE GULLETT: In the second
line where it says "except with respect to
|
non-resident property owners in municipal
elections", we, as you now know, have re-
moved that from section 2 where it was
previously. If we are to believe that the
majority statement is true in your com-
mentary where it says that this is an ex-
tension of the vote rather than a restric-
tion on the right of the vote, then it would
appear to me that this would be no longer
necessary.
Do you agree that this phrase would no
longer be necessary?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Delegate Gullett,
I might agree, but I think that this is a
question of legal interpretation, and cer-
tainly the Committee was not in a position
to make that. We differentiated between
the restriction of the right to vote and the
extension of the right to vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gullett.
DELEGATE GULLETT: You do say,
though, that this was an extension of the
right to vote. I recall Delegate Clagett
made what I thought was a very excellent
presentation on this yesterday during the
debate on section 2 where I think he agreed
with this that it was an extension of the
right to vote, and that you were acting
within a class, not discriminating within
a class. Therefore it seemed to me that it
would be appropriate. I wonder if we might
get some opinion from somebody on the
floor as to whether this actually could or
could not be taken out of section 9.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gullett,
will you bear with the Chair just a mo-
ment?
DELEGATE GULLETT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Section 2 was
amended by Amendment No. 8 so that sec-
tion 2 now reads: "Qualifications for voters
in municipal elections may be established
by law by municipal corporations subject
to such procedures and standards as the
General Assembly may provide by public
general law. No municipal corporation may
establish a voting age requirement differ-
ent from the voting age for state elections,
nor a residency requirement of more than
one year."
The Chair takes it, therefore, that under
section 2 it would be possible for a mu-
cipality to authorize voting by non-resident
property owners.
The Parliamentarian calls my attention
to the fact that I read the amendment as
|
