|
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Presi-
dent and ladies and gentlemen of the Con-
vention, we come at last to the subject
matter that has been the object of some
correspondence these past several weeks. I
apologize for all the memoranda but it be-
comes necessary to provide you with as
much material as possible because of the
various arguments that were being scat-
tered about with respect to single-member
districts. This Convention disposed at one
point of the question of whether or not
there should be exclusive single-member
districts by voting 83 to 52 in the affirma-
tive. Since that time there has been con-
siderable pressure brought to bear by the
wooden soldiers of the status quo — to use
a phrase which is bandied about these days
— who are afraid that their positions of
security will be impaired by this particular
approach. I apologize to them. It is quite
true that the proposal that you had before
you is identical with that which you have
rejected before and which I commended
at one time, but let me say that a preacher
before the burial often commends the de-
ceased before the final ceremony, and I
would hope that the same parallel would
apply in this particular situation.
In the matter of history, I should simply
like to say that Maryland has from the
beginning — although Delegate Lord over-
looked the fact — used the single-member
district in the Senate and did so quite re-
cently because under the 1776, the 1851,
and 1864 Constitutions, there were provi-
sions for a senator from each county. Thus,
the single-member district aspect has been
one which we have had for quite some time
as far as the history of Maryland is con-
cerned.
Make no mistake about it, this particular
amendment you have before you would be
the death knell of the single-member dis-
trict approach because we would know
what would happen if this matter were left
up to the General Assembly. You can be
quite certain that in the interest of trying
to keep all those who are in office in office
in the future that immediately they would
go to the multi-member districts through-
out the State of Maryland. I think that is
quite obvious.
The opposition that you have been hear-
ing has been the opposition from men and
women who serve in the House and the
Senate and who live close to each other,
and they do not like the geography of the
situation. They are opposing this bill pri-
marily because of the fact that it would
scatter the representation geographically
and they might be forced to move,
|
I submit that this is not too great a
price to pay for the admitted and obvious
advantages which the single-member dis-
trict does provide.
You have had spread before you this
particular throwaway from the state leg-
islature's progress report which indicates
the remarkable success which single-mem-
ber districts have found in other states,
and I will not bore you with reading it.
You may read it yourself, but it certainly
puts to rest the arguments which Dele-
gate Lord just made about the alleged lack
of success of single-member districts else-
where. You have been heretofore provided
with the population census of those which
used the single-member district and fortu-
nately we have not heard yet today the
argument of a parochial system. When
you look at the position of Maryland with
respect to these other states when we still
have an average of almost 33,000 persons
per delegate districts and 100,000 per sen-
ate district there is no parochial system
when indeed one of the delegate districts
is twice as large as Kent County is or will
be in 1970.
We have also attempted to demonstrate
to you through the material you have had
that it is not true that in Baltimore City
you will have a few square blocks that will
make up a single-member district. On the
basis of two different approaches which we
have attempted to make we have demon-
strated that on the average every single-
member district ought to have at least one
hundred square blocks even though it be
the smallest in the City of Baltimore. I sub-
mit to you that one hundred square blocks
is no small amount of territory for anyone
to be able to consider and be able to wrap
up and put in somebody's back pocket. It
simply is not the case.
The best argument I can make to you
about the fear which has been engendered
and promoted and expanded about the in-
terests of the single-member representative
in a small area when he votes in the Gen-
eral Assembly, is this: that this constitu-
tion is going to go a long way toward send-
ing local problems back from Annapolis,
back to the county seat, and that conse-
quently those areas of interest which might
naturally attract someone on a parochial
basis will simply not be before the mem-
bers of the General Assembly. They will
be here not as representatives of neighbor-
hoods to vote neighborhood issues, which
in reality under the present Constitution
are really local issues, but they will be
down here dealing with the questions that
|
