|
ticle, which establishes qualifications for
voting in the constitution; secondly, section
2.06 itself, in the constitution, which allows
the General Assembly by law to provide for
disqualifications from voting and, if so, to
provide for the removal of those disquali-
fications; and, finally, bear in mind on
page 15 of the blue papers in front of us,
section 3 in the schedule of legislation,
which would provide an interim provision
for disqualifications from voting, which
would take effect on July 1, 1968, and
which would terminate one year later on
July 1, 1969.
Unless we delete section 5 in the schedule
of transitional provisions, which this
amendment proposes to do, section 2.06,
which gives the General Assembly the au-
thorization to establish disqualifications in
derogation of the qualifications established
in section 2.01, there is no authority for a
disqualification on the basis of conviction
of a criminal, or because of mental in-
capacity.
If we delay the effect of this section,
therefore, it is entirely possible, and per-
haps probable, that section 3 on page 15, in
the schedule of legislation, would itself be
unconstitutional, because there would be no
constitutional basis for that section to
stand in law.
The purpose of section 5 initially was to
give the General Assembly the opportunity
to provide for these disqualifications. That
is done by the language of section 3 in the
schedule of legislation, which establishes
an interim provision for disqualifications to
last just for one year, and which would
no longer be effective one year from the
date of the adoption of this constitution.
But it is necessary, I submit, to delete sec-
tion 5 so that the authority for that to
stand is in the constitution, which we will
adopt and which will become effective on
July 1, 1968.
I engaged in a colloquy this morning
about this provision with Delegate Hard-
wicke. He agrees with this analysis and
has co-sponsored the amendment. I have
discussed it also with Chairman Ross of the
Suffrage and Elections Committee and with
Delegate Rybczynski, who chaired a sub-
committee of that committee dealing with
the matter of disqualifications from voting.
I respectfully urge that in the interest
of constitutionality we adopt the amend-
ment and delete this section.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any dis-
cussion?
(There was no response.)
|
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 4 to Committee Recom-
mendation GP-13.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 4. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
(Whereupon, a roll call vote was taken.)
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 109 votes in the affirmative
and none in the negative, the motion car-
ries. The amendment is adopted.
Are there any amendments to section 6?
Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman, I
call to your attention that I have a verbal
amendment adopted, that the language now
reads "a public local law enacted prior to
January 6, 1971." You may not have that
on your copy. This was at the suggestion —
THE CHAIRMAN: Modification by Del-
egate Rybczynski?
DELEGATE JAMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Please mark your
copy if you have not already done so: On
page 3, section 6, line 19, strike out "prior
to January 6, 1971," capitalize the "A",
and in line 20, after the word "county"
insert a comma, and insert the language
"enacted prior to January 6, 1971."
Delegate James, there seems to be a dis-
pute on the two copies as to where the
language was added.
DELEGATE JAMES: My record shows
that the sentence will begin with "A public
local law enacted." Then you go back,
"prior to January 6, 1971, for any one
county," so that you transpose the words
"A public local law," add the word "en-
acted", and just put that at the beginning
of the sentence. At least that was my in-
tent. However, any way would be all right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Penniman,
this is purely a stylistic question. Could you
resolve it right now so we do not have to
change it again?
Delegate James.
|
