|
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Before
we reach that, I would like to get back to
the addition of the language. I would like
to have a formal adoption of that proposal.
Pinpoint the section and line for the pur-
pose of getting a formal record vote on it
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Mr. President, I
will draw the appropriate amendment and
have it submitted.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): All
right.
Proceed to the next question.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Now, with re-
gard to section 3.22, again the sentence be-
ginning on line 28: "The General Assembly
shall prescribe by law a congressional re-
districting plan or the commission plan.",
and I question whether the General As-
sembly can prescribe the commission plan
by law. Would not the more appropriate
language be "enact into law the commission
plan"?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: The originat-
ing committee felt it should be "enact". We
think that is better.
Can that be amended without a formal
amendment? Where we say "prescribe by
law"—
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Line
29, page S, section 3.22. The language "pre-
scribed by law", your suggested change is
what?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: "shall enact
a congressional redistricting plan or the
commission plan."
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Is
there any objection to the modification? If
there is no objection, the language "pre-
scribed by law" in line 29, section 3.22,
shall be changed to "shall enact".
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. President, in
somewhat the same vein as in section 3.0(>,
I would address the question both to Dele-
gate Penniman and Chairman Gallagher.
Would the same infirmity be found in the
use of the word "prescribed" in line 48 ?
As I understand the discussion of this
section, it was clear that the 70-day time
included passage by the General Assembly
and sufficient time for the governor, which
I think is 20 days, to veto it before it
would become law without his veto.
And to use the language that "the Gen-
eral Assembly has not prescribed by law"
|
might just indicate the inaction of the Gen-
eral Assembly instead of just the enact-
ment of the la\v itself.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Delegate
Penniman has accurately expressed our in-
tention in the use of the 70 days. Senator
James, you remember that. I think his sug-
gestion would be helpful.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): The
suggestion is that we return it to "has not
been enacted"?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: "has not been
enacted."
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Sec-
tion 3.05, line 48, page 2, the word "pre-
scribe" would be changed to "enacted".
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Then we
would have to remove the words "by law"
later in the same sentence.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Any
objection to this change ?
DELEGATE MARION: To make it ab-
solutely clear it should not speak of the
General Assembly in the active voice, but
should speak of the enactment of the plan
in the passive voice, much as the Legisla-
tive Branch Committee had reported it.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): I do
not propose to do anything about it at
this moment, but I wonder if Chairman
Gallagher might reflect on it and just
consider it. Without making any formal
change, possibly a formal amendment can
be made on this point.
For what purpose does Delegate Beatrice
Miller rise ?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: A point of in-
quiry.
Does the redistricting procedure not re-
quire a governor's veto? Is it not subject
to a governor's veto?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No. It is
subject to the governor's veto.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Chair-
man Gallagher is having a bite to eat, so be
easy on the questions until he has his lunch.
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: One other ques-
tion, if I might, for Delegate Penniman.
On page 3, section 3.07, line 17, we used
"registered" instead of "qualified". My
|
