clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3034   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

3034 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Jan. 2]

DELEGATE BOYER: Temporarily, yes,
sir.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Moser.

DELEGATE MOSER: I was going to ask
Delegate Hardwicke to yield for a ques-
tion about this, but since it has been with-
drawn I will wait until it is re-offered.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Are
there any further amendments to section
10.01?

(There was no response.)

The Chair hearing none, we will go to
section 10.02. Are there any amendments
to section 10.02?

Delegate Winslow.

DELEGATE WINSLOW: There is an
amendment marked B.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): The
Chair is getting into the swing of things,
and will this "B" for "boy".

T.he pages will distribute Amendment B.
This will be Amendment No. G.

The Clerk will read Amendment No. G.

READING CLERK: Amendment No. G
as amended by Report No. S&D-17 to Com-
mittee Recommendations GP-7, GP-S, GP-9,
GP-12, R&P-1, and LB-3 on second reading
by Delegates Winslow, Borom, Bryson,
Byrnes, J. Clark, Fox, Freedlander, Gal-
lagher, Hanson, Hopkins, Jett, Needle, F. C.
Robey, Schloeder, Ulrich, Wagandt, White,
Willoner and Winslow. On pages 1 and 2,
section 10.02, Constitutional Amendment,
in line 25 on page 1 strike out the word
"either"; and in line 1 on page 2 strike out
the word "or" and insert in lieu thereof a
comma: and in line 4 on page 2 strike out
the period and all of lines 4 through 8, in-
clusive, and insert in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing: ", or by a petition filed with the
office of the governor signed by a number
of qualified voters of the State equal to ten
percent of the total number of votes cast
for governor in the most recent guberna-
torial election, provided that not more than
one-fourth of such number shall be voters
in any one county. Any such petition shall
be in such form, and shall be signed and
circulated in such manner as shall be
prescribed by law. When proposed by the
General Assembly or by a petition of the
voters, the proposed amendment shall be
submitted to the voters of the State at a
special or general election as determined
by the General Assembly and when pro-
posed by a constitutional convention shall

be submitted to the voters at a special or
general election as determined by the Con-
vention."

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Winslow.

DELEGATE WINSLOW: I hesitate to
offer this amendment. It is the same
amendment, or virtually the same, as came
up before the Committee of the Whole, but
several delegates who were absent on that
day have urged me to do it, and because
there were 1 or 2 pieces of argument which
were not then presented, I ask the indul-
gence of the delegates for a few minutes,
and hope the debate will not be protracted.

I might say, however, this is intended as
an amendment to provide the possibility
of the initiative at the hands of the people
for producing constitutional amendments.
As I said the other day, it is in existence
in about fifteen states. It is set up in this
proposal as a very difficult process in order
that there may be very infrequent amend-
ments.

One of the arguments which was pre-
sented the other day when this came before
this house was that if this should be a part
of the constitution the people could at any
time insert a law in the constitution which
ought not to be there.

I suggest that if this becomes a part of
the constitution the people could at any
time take out of the constitution a provi-
sion which perhaps never should have been
there. It works both ways.

I call the attention of the delegates to
the fact that there is nothing new or dif-
ferent about this. This is not an unusual
provision. It is the same sort of provision
which is to be found in the Baltimore City
charter for amending that instrument; it is
to be found in the Baltimore County charter
for amending that instrument; it is found
in the Montgomery County charter.

This is not new to Maryland, and I know
of no cases in which in those instances
where it has been effective in this State it
has been abused.

I do not care to repeat the arguments
which were presented the other day. I
wanted, however, to give an opportunity
for some of those people who were not in
the Convention a few clays ago to have a
chance to express themselves, and particu-
larly Delegate Clark.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Sherbow.



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3034   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives