|
form, but I think that it is useful as a
practical matter to have, with adequate
safeguards — and I believe the ten per-
cent registered voters petition requirement
is an adequate safeguard — recourse from
a legislature which cannot be re-elected but
once every four years, and which in the
meantime may be avoiding grave constitu-
tional issues for which redress is needed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
it is apparent that the whole objective of
this amendment is to say there are times
when we are going to have an irresponsible
legislature, and we have to find some way
of short circuiting the legislature in the
amendment process.
I suggest that this amendment will not
then accomplish the purpose at all because
it gives to the legislature the functions of
making the vital definitions and the process
that would be used under this amendment.
The legislature apparently will be per-
mitted to determine over what period of
time the signatures are to be gathered. If
you have an irresponsible legislature that
is not going to respond to the will of the
people, obviously they can make this time
so short it cannot possibly be used. If, on
the other hand, you have a legislature that
is irresponsible in a way that seeks to pass
the buck to the people and remove its re-
sponsibilities, then they can permit a year
or any such extended period of time for
the gathering of signatures.
Consequently it is clear that the legisla-
ture whose irresponsibility gives rise to
this proposal can either make the proposal
be most useful in a manner that its pro-
ponents do not want, as Delegate Winslow
pointed out in the California experience,
or can so frustrate the objective of its pro-
ponents that no amendment can ever come
to the people under this proposal before us.
I suggest that all of the reasons that
were given for determining that we should
not have initiative in the passage of ordi-
nary laws where any errors can be cor-
rected by another session of the General
Assembly, or by a special session of the
General Assembly, apply with even greater
force to constitutional amendments where
we will not have had the benefits of the
deliberative process at any of the stages
of the game and where errors cannot be
easily corrected later on.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other
discussion? Are you ready for the ques-
tion? Delegate Schloeder,
|
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Mr. Chair-
man, I feel compelled to rise for a number
of reasons in support of this amendment
by a seat-mate, Delegate Schneider, who is
now on the other side of the room. He as-
sured me he is going to support me for
what I think is the third time since Sep-
tember 12. I rise with that kind of backing.
Also Delegate Scanlan, my other seat-
mate on my right, has alluded to George
Norris. I cannot help but remember the
story they told comparing George Norris
to Senator Borah. They said Borah, unlike
Norris, fought his enemies until he saw
the whites of their eyes. Norris did not
begin his fight until he did see the whites
of their eyes.
Being that close to Delegate Scanlan, I
have to rise to oppose his position. I think
three reasons all have been made but I
would like to remake them.
One, it gives people opportunity to par-
ticipate as a part of the government, as
individuals, not through a representative
process. I think Delegate Winslow's ar-
gument about legislative reapportionment
having come to this state forty years ago
is a very compelling one.
I think there is another one. This may
strike closer to home. I think a great
many things we are going to write into
this constitution are going to be suspect as
far as the general public is concerned. I
think that the public is going to be asked
to take a constitution on balance. I am go-
ing to ask them to do that. I think they
should have through the constitutional ini-
tiative process the right to change that
part of the constitution that they may dis-
agree with, to do it directly and not through
their representatives.
I think that the situation or the criteria
set up by Delegate Winslow make this very
restrictive and I do not see that this is
very similar to the indirect initiative that
I was a co-sponsor of earlier in the session.
For those reasons I would appreciate
your supporting this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to speak against this even
though I am in favor of the idea. The more
I have studied it the more I realize there
are pit-falls.
First I would suggest that if this were
so great and so important a need the pos-
sibility of forty-six or fifty thousand signa-
tures delivered to the office of the governor
|
