|
LB-3 as amended by Report S&D-16, by
Delegate Gallagher: On page 2, section
3.05, Redistricting Commission, in line 38
after the period add this new sentence:
"Any vacancy on the Commission shall be
filled by the appointing authority. The
Commission shall adopt redistricting plans
only by a majority vote of all its members."
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
submitted by Delegate Gallagher. Is there
a second?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
seconded. The Chair recognizes Delegate
Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Presi-
dent and ladies and gentlemen, section 3.05
did not provide for the filling of a vacancy
on the redistricting commission. Conse-
quently we have deemed it appropriate to
add a provision that when there is a va-
cancy it shall be filled by the same appoint-
ing authority which appointed the vacated
seat.
Secondly, we did not provide by what
vote redistricting plans should be adopted
by the redistricting commission. We felt it
highly desirable that we provide that the
redistricting plans should be provided only
by a majority vote of all the members so
you would not have plural plans.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any ques-
tions of the sponsor of the amendment? Is
there any further discussion? Are you
ready for the question?
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 7. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of the amendment; a vote No is
a vote against. Cast your votes.
(Whereupon, a roll call vote was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Have all delegates
voted? Does any delegate desire to change
his vote? The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 96 votes in the affirmative and
none in the negative the motion is carried.
The amendment is adopted.
Are there any other amendments with
respect to section 3.05? Are there any
amendments with respect to section 3.06?
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Presi-
dent, before you leave section 3.05, last
night in considering: the executive branch
sections when we got to the question of
how to designate the presiding officers, I
believe it was ultimately determined to use
president of the Senate. I would assume
|
that for the purpose of uniformity we
would, rather than use presiding officer, if
it be the ultimate determination that we
name the office, want to use president of
the Senate and speaker of the House. That
•would be on line 33 on page 2, section 3.05.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the Chair ask
this question of both you and Delegate
Penniman, because it occurred to me last
evening. I do not see any compelling reason
why, if for sufficient reasons in the article
on the legislative branch, it is desirable to
designate the president of the Senate by
that term. Why would there be any reason
to change the term "presiding officer" when
the term is used to refer to that office in
two different houses where the title is dif-
ferent? Why could we not leave the words
"presiding officer" in this article even
though "president of the Senate" is used
when we refer to gubernatorial succession?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I just
wanted to point out that if you wanted to
try to get absolute uniformity —
THE PRESIDENT: Does it create any
problem?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Not as far
as I can see, no, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Penni-
man?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: It is not in
that section that there was any concern.
The concern was on page 5 where it speaks
about calling special sessions, and it says
"the presiding officer of the Senate and the
presiding officer of the House of Dele-
gates." It was in this connection that I
understood from the members of the Com-
mittee on Legislative Branch that they did
not want to speak of the speaker or of the
president of the Senate on the ground that
this -will be naming them in the Constitu-
tion and they wanted to leave that freedom
to the Legislative Branch itself, or to the
General Assembly. It was that particular
section, not 3.05.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, even though
that is much closer, there would still be no
compelling reason why you would have to
change in section 3.13, would there, Dele-
gate Penniman?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: No, I do not
suppose so. We were doing it because of
the members of the Style Committee who
were also on the Committee on the Legis-
lative Branch who felt that this had been a
decision, and we felt that it ought not be
made by us but brought to the floor.
|
