|
ninth congressman. Under the constitu-
tional language here and under the acts of
the Congress, the State would have to be
redistricted. We could not have this ninth
congressman if we got him to run at large.
We would have to have districts through-
out for all congressional seats.
Addressing myself now to the question
of continuity —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
I think it might be helpful if we take up
the questioning on each of the three sub-
jects because they are so diverse.
Are there any questions of the Committee
Chairman with respect to congressional
districting? Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Mr. Chair-
man, is there any real necessity for the
inclusion of a congressional districting pro-
vision in our constitution?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I think the
necessity arises from the woeful lack of
success which the General Assembly has
enjoyed, or not enjoyed, in its past at-
tempts. I think if we provide them with
guidelines that one would anticipate that
if they acted at all they would act within
the constitutional realm which hopefully
would keep them out of the courts. I think
that would be the purpose.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Is it not true
that Article I, section 4, of the federal
Constitution places the entire responsibility
for congressional districting in the legis-
lature subject to guidelines which may be
laid down by Congress, itself?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I think the
language which you refer to can be in-
terpreted that way. However, I do not
read the Constitution of the United States
as prohibiting Maryland from putting into
its constitution what we attempt to do here.
Congress apportions and the State dis-
tricts, and it appears to me that a state
may set down constitutional guidelines not
inconsistent with Congress' or in areas
where Congress has not preempted the field.
As you suggest, if Congress should pass
statutory legislation covering these areas,
these constitutional areas would fall.
TPIE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Would we
not then be better off if we did not write
a provision which had the potentiality of
|
being inconsistent with congressional ac-
tion?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: We might,
but the point was made during earlier
debate that if we do not put constitutional
provisions in, then what we are trying to
do, or what we will allow the General As-
sembly to do is to pass the least acceptable
kind of congressional redistricting. This
would be an attempt to hold them up to a
higher level of performance than might be
expected of them if there were no state
constitutional standards.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: But it still
remains a strong possibility that the stand-
ards which are set forth in this section may
be totally inconsistent with standards which
are adopted by Congress.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: You are
quite right. I would say this, however, that
since there has been nothing of significance
in the field since 1929, in the Congressional
Redistricting Act, thirty-eight years have
gone by with Congress failing to act and
there has been a continuous effort since
1951 on the part of Congressman Celler to
do something. But nothing significant has
been done there, and nothing would have
been done at all, it seems to me, without
the decision of the Supreme Court in West-
bury v. Sanders, where it was held that
the populations of the Congressional Dis-
tricts had to be substantially equal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Delegate Gal-
lagher, you point out that Congress has
just enacted a law which would prohibit
at-large congressional districts, at least for
the State of Maryland. It does not apply to
every single state, I take it; is that correct?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct. Originally they exempted Hawaii
and New Mexico specifically, but dropped
them out eventually.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: If that law
should subsequently be repealed so that
there is no federal prohibition against an
at-large congressional district, would it be
your understanding that the language pro-
vided in section 3. 03 (b) would so prohibit
in Maryland an at-large congressional dis-
trict?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That would
be my understanding.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
|
