|
adopt a different date specified in the law
under the terms of that law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any further
questions, Delegate Barrick ?
DELEGATE BARRICK: That may be
correct, but to leave it without doubt, would
you accept an amendment to leave out the
word "general" ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I would prefer
not to accept such an amendment. I would
rather vote on this as it stands now and
permit the Committee on Style, which I
believe is attempting to reconcile the terms
"general public law", "by law", and other
uses of the term througout the Constitu-
tion, to bring it into reconciliation with the
definition which have just given.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Barrick,
there are so many delegates wishing to ask
questions. I will have to recognize them,
and I will have to restrict each delegate to
one question.
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: It will be a
long question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, do not do that,
because there are eight delegates desiring
to ask questions, and less than four minutes
remain.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Delegate
Hanson, our Committee met for nine weeks
before we submitted our proposal with our
wording. During the twenty minutes that
your Committee met this morning, did you
determine which judges are going to be
elected ? I have not heard about any elected
judges since I have been here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I am sorry that
your Committee overlooked this. I referred
to the election of judges running against
their records as provided in the judicial
article.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Delegate
Hanson, in line 9, "except that judges may
be elected", would you accept an amend-
ment which struck out the word "elected"
and inserting in lieu thereof "approved or
rejected"? We are no longer electing
judges. We approve or reject them, and
that is in conformity with the provisions
and wording in section 5.21.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weidemeyer,
would you be content to leave that to the
|
Committee on Style, if it is stated clearly
that the intention is to make this conform ?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: As long as
they say we are not electing but just ap-
proving or rejecting judges.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the intent,
Delegate Hanson ?
DELEGATE HANSON: That is the in-
tent as determined in the judicial article.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: The sentence be-
ginning on line 10, "Unless otherwise pro-
vided by public general law or by instru-
ment of government", are those coordinated
exceptions or if there is a conflict between
them does the general law g-overn over the
instrument of government?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: It is my under-
standing that a general public law would
govern over an instrument of government
in this State.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Delegate
Hanson, in order .that there may be no mis-
take about the application of the local gov-
ernment section to this particular amend-
ment, would it be accurate to say that
section 706, General Application of Laws,
applies in its entirety, including the sen-
tence which begins "The General Assembly
may nevertheless enable any county or
counties to exercise any power or perform
any function denied to other counties sub-
ject to such standards as the General As-
sembly may prescribe" ? Is this applicable
in its entirety to the amendment before us ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schloeder.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Delegate
Hanson, I do not detect in your argument
for this amendment, do I, an argument for
the separation of elections?
T.HE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Delegate Shloe-
der, I hope that you do not detect that in
my argument. My argument is that we
should not determine that question in the
constitution. My argument this morning
was that if we should determine it in the
constitution we should make them synony-
mous with state elections.
It would be my fervent hope that the
charter commissions in the local govern-
|
