|
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. President,
ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will vote
against this amendment. This is the initia-
tive, no matter what else you call it, which
gives ten percent of the voters, under the
pressure of any pressure group, the op-
portunity to put on the ballot and to vote
through, particularly in times of stress, not
an amendment to the constitution, although
they will call it an amendment to the con-
stitution, but it can be any law that they
want to pass and fasten on to the consti-
tution.
They have this in California. It took the
Supreme Court of the United States to de-
clare one of their amendments unconstitu-
tional. When there is a feeling of high
pressure or division within a community or
within a state, this is when these pres-
sure groups go to work, get these signa-
tures, put them on the ballot, and if you
have one of these ballots containing many,
many other items to vote on, it slips
through and gets on the books and becomes
something that you cannot get out, because
afterwards, to remove it becomes a hercu-
lean task.
This is not proper for us. It is wrong in
its concept. We voted it down at a time
when it was given fair consideration. I
urge you to vote against this amendment
once again.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, it seems to me that
the time has come in this Convention for us
to start being concerned with the rights of
the people and to amend, what, after all, is
their basic charter. I listened to the argu-
ments from the delegate from Baltimore
City, and I think we would not conclude
that there is nothing in this present con-
stitutional document, which we soon hope
will got out to the voters, that contains
legislation and not constitutional provi-
sions.
I see nothing wrong with ten percent of
the people, having an opportunity to put
on the ballot for all the voters of this State
a fundamental change in the constitution
which affects all of their lives. This is
what we are here for at this Convention.
Why should we deny those voters of this
State an opportunity to change this basic
document?
It seems that the argument that this
issue comes down to is that we are afraid
to let the people subject themselves to
some organized pressure group that is
|
going to stampede them into putting some-
thing unwise on the ballot before all of the
voters.
Well, that is the way the ball game goes,
which is what somebody said to me at one
time, that is the way democracy runs. I
think we have taken away so many rights
of the people, for example, we have set up
that they have absolutely no control over
their judges any more; I understand a
couple of clays ago we even took the tran-
script of the debates out; but that matter
is going to come up again.
I think it is time that we started think-
ing about giving the people a chance to
express some of their own views on what
this constitution ought to be in the future,
and therefore I hope that finally this initia-
tive provision is supported.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Does
anyone wish to speak for the amendment?
Against the amendment?
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Presi-
dent, if you believe at all in the republican
form of government, if you believe at all
in the legislative processes, you will turn
down this amendment. You will note that
there is no opportunity for debate, no op-
portunity to listen to witnesses, no oppor-
tunity for examination of true issues in-
volved.
I would suggest to you that where this
matter is in effect we can pretty much bet
that the only type of issue that gets through
on this type of petition is an emotional
issue. Emotional issues should be subject to
the same type of examination, debate, and
testimony from witnesses as any other
issue.
I would strongly suggest that if we are
to adopt such a method as this for incor-
porating anything into our new constitu-
tion we have totally wasted out time. I
strongly urge everyone to vote against this.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Does
anyone wish to speak in favor of the
amendment ?
Delegate Clark.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: I rise to sup-
port this amendment. It seems to me quite
unreasonable that we come here, are sent
here by the people of this State as their
chosen representatives to write a constitu-
tion for them which cannot become our
constitution until they have approved it on
referendum, and yet we would be so pre-
|
