|
of the principle, the so-called catch phrase
of one man, one vote, but it was taken
with the recognition that this principle
cannot be achieved with any degree of ac-
curacy in the absence of up-to-date, state-
wide population figures." "Accuracy", the
court said, "would call for a decree which
would be based upon the 1970 census." The
confusion over determining which popula-
tion figures would be used in any reappor-
tionment prior to 1970 was noted by the
court. The appeal attempted to bring to
the court's attention the disorder and the
disruption of representation processes
which will necessarily arise from three
changes in congressional constituency in-
cluding the present districts during the six-
year period. Now, you will be told, I am
positive, that this 1970 figure will be based
upon some statistical information given by
one of the state agencies and you will be
told that this will modernize it.
Well, I personally do not want to be
panicked or stampeded into any inappro-
priate action. It is hard to stand in the
way of progress and perhaps some day we
will come to computerize society. I hope
I do not see the big brother day.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer, you
have one minute.
DELEGATE BOYER: I do not think
we should be confused by these red herrings
of deviations and figures. I think the fig-
ure before us is shall we accept 1970
census figures as the official figures, or
something else which could be determined
just as easily by Ginger Dorsey barking
up some problem like this, or having some
state agency swear and verify that these
are accurate. I think they are just as ac-
curate, and I would strongly urge you la-
dies and gentlemen seriously to consider
the problem.
We just reapportioned the General As-
sembly in 1966. We would do it again in
1970, and when the population figures
come out in 1971, we will do it again. This
will be three times in a six-year period.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one quarter
minute.
DELEGATE BOYER: I can only close
with this, I think that no matter what
happens here, it would be to the best in-
terests of all the people of the State of
Maryland to act on some official population
figures determined by some official agency
and nothing else.
I urge you to vote for the amendment.
'"Delegate Dorsey's dog.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, and ladies and gentlemen of the Com-
mittee, for over twenty-five years the
people of Maryland have been trying to get
fair apportionment. We are asked by the
sponsors of the amendment which you have
before you, .Amendment No. 6, to ask them
please to wait another seven years or six
years until 1974.
Delegate Boyer would have you believe
that the General Assembly of Maryland
has addressed itself in a proper and ade-
quate fashion to this problem, but that is
hardly the true legislative history of this
matter, as those who have followed the
attempts of those who wished to get general
reapportionment can well testify to.
The whole thrust of the argument which
the sponsors of the amendment would make
to you is this, that there is only one official
figure for population and that is the fed-
eral census figures.
I submit to you that that is not the case.
I submit to you that in providing that in-
terpretation that you have been misled, that
letters to the editor of The New York
Times notwithstanding, and interpretations
of the Washington Post notwithstanding,
the Supreme Court of the United States
has indicated that there are other avenues
to obtain official figures of population other
than the federal census. I will discuss the
case of Rhodes v. Ohio and the language
actually used rather than a newspaper in-
terpretation, but I want to make it per-
fectly clear that when the legislature re-
apportioned in 1966, it presented the most
miserable yet legal collection of approaches
to this problem that you can have.
In reality, the legislature passed two
bills, Senate Bill 5 and Senate Bill 8. One
of them was so obviously so unconstitu-
tional that the Court of Appeals had no
problem, and it looked at the other and it
said it is barely constitutional in 1966, but
under the circumstances it follows a pat-
tern of trying to provide one delegate to
each county. We will let it go by.
Now, I submit to you that the deviations
which were considerable, in 1966 and as
you may see from the memorandum which
you have before you, they amounted to
sixty-five per cent from the norm, that
those deviations existing in 1966 will be
worse by 1969, and even more horrendous
by 1974. Therefore, we have an intolerable
situation, a marginal situation, from a
legal point of view and we are asked to
swallow one gain and to go along with this
|
