|
Apparently state censuses have been ac-
cepted by the courts, at least the ones
that are made under official state auspices,
and every argument that I can see calls
for a reapportionment in 1970 rather than
four years later.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Rosenstock.
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates: I just want to
give you the benefit of the experience I
had last year in working with biostatistics.
We had statisticians from the State Plan-
ning Department, The State Health De-
partment, the University of Maryland, The
State Department of Education, the state
teachers colleges, and fortunately we were
loaned two gentlemen by the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company through
the local offices of the C&P Telephone
Company.
When we started to analyze population
growth in Maryland, we found that the
greatest problem was the in-migration and
migration within the large counties of
Maryland, particularly Montgomery and
Prince George's counties. The Telephone
Company had to admit that in those two
counties it was very difficult to plan for
any growth because there were so many
people coming into the scientific industries,
and all. It was very clear in some of the
small counties there were no problems.
Now, since we have developed the single
delegate district, it will be necessary to
learn the population of each election dis-
trict in each county because there will be
many counties where there will be a divided
delegate in a delegate district and to do
that it will almost be necessary to have
the official census, that is, two election
district will hardly be available before
1971.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hopkins.
DELEGATE HOPKINS: We have talked
a great deal about what we would do when
we went to the voters. How about how we
would tell the voters about this constitu-
tion and what the voters would accept? I
tell all of you, if we say we thought it was
a good idea in 1967-1968, but we really
do not think you should adopt it until
1974, that we are going to look a little bit
silly.
Now, Chairman Gallagher has already
told you how carefully the members of the
Committee on the Legislative Branch went
|
into the problem of finding out what the
figures are on the population statistics,
how we should apportion.
We have given to the members of the
still current General Assembly the ways to
most fairly apportion. We have done the
best job that we can. At this point it
would be absolutely foolish for us to change
the work of several months. We have gone
into this as carefully as we have. This is
not the time to suddenly postpone for four
years the decisions we have already ar-
rived at.
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: I do not know if
it is in order to have one last word on this
in rebuttal. It has been mentioned that our
figures are out of date now. Our figures
will be out of date in 1969, it is said. Our
figures will be out of date in 1972 and so
on, ad infinitum.
It would be difficult to computerize it
every other year. There is a historical basis
for census figures. We have used it since
the birth of this country. Do not swallow
this gilded pill blindfold. Think what we
have done over the past several hundred
years on census figures and reject the fig-
ure of computerization.
I do not know where this will lead. Per-
haps next year they will computerize what
income tax you must pay, or the real estate
taxes, or maybe in the next generation who
your spouse shall be.
This is computerization. I suggest that
historically it is a sound constitutional
legal basis that we should wait and act on
official figures.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 6 to Committee Recom-
mendation GP-13.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 6. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
|
