|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: I think that
should be left to the General Assembly,
Delegate Wheatley. I think a 90- or 120-
day provision would be appropriate but I
would hesitate to write it into the con-
stitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: We are pre-
sented with this, "as provided by law," is
that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: That is my
intention.
THE CHAIRMAN : Is there any further
discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 3 to Committee Recom-
mendation GP-8.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 3. A vote No is a vote against.
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 53 votes in the affirmative
and 67 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
The next amendment is E. This will be
Amendment No. 4.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 4
to Committee Recommendation GP-8, by
Delegates Needle, Hardwicke and Sollins:
On page 1 in lines 11 and 12 strike out
the following: "twenty-five" and insert in
lieu thereof the word "twenty".
THE CHAIRMAN: Amendment sub-
mitted by Delegate Needle, seconded by
Delegates Hardwicke and Sollins. The
Chair recognizes Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: I am told by my
seat-mates I have a winner this time. I see
I am gaining strength. I hope we have
overwhelming support for this amendment
|
and you will approve all the others unani-
mously.
Maryland, with the present twenty-year
duration between those periods in which
the question of calling a constitutional
convention is placed on the ballot, is one of
nine states that have that provision. I do
not know where Delegate Boyer got his
figures. You had a research paper also
done on this question. I find only one state
that has a twenty-five year provision as
his Committee recommends. I find that most
of the states average approximately ten or
twelve years. I think the model state con-
stitution has a fifteen year provision.
I think increasing the duration is a step
in the wrong direction. As I stated earlier,
I would prefer to see a shorter period of
time but I will settle for the twenty years
we now have.
Taken with the other provisions and
your failure to adopt the earlier amend-
ments which would ease the procedure by
which a constitutional convention could be
called, I think it is compelling that you
provide that it be placed on the ballot at
least every twenty years.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Mr. Chairman,
again in support of the committee recom-
mendation, I would urge rejection of this
amendment. We felt, as I reviewed before,
that there are many arguments for a man-
datory submission to the people at a twen-
ty-five year interval the question of a
constitutional convention. We felt there
would be greater trust placed in a legis-
lature that is going to be obviously more
regularly apportioned and more responsible
to the people. We here in this convention
are trying to build up a stronger branch
of government both in the executive, judi-
cial and legislative departments and this
would be one good basic example of the
trust we have in the General Assembly we
are trying to strengthen.
We felt that the arguments for a twenty-
five year mandatory submission would not
only give greater trust and faith in the
General Assembly, but that it would cer-
tainly help to give this constitution that we
are adopting now a more liberal chance to
settle down and iron the wrinkles out of
the many problems that are going to arise
in the transitional period from the Conven-
tion of the Constitution of 1867 to the one
of the miracle Convention of 1967.
We strongly urge that the Committee
Recommendation be upheld because we have
gone into this and heard witnesses from
|
