|
appropriations, taxation, etc., are not laws
that are subject to referendum at any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. President, I
have a further question of Chairman Koss.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. State the
question.
DELEGATE LORD: Chairman Koss, it
is my understanding that this section was
written so as to allow local referenda, par-
ticularly for the public local laws or their
successors, which are the exceptions in sec-
tion 3.23. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Well, if that is the
case, I am a little puzzled as to why the
section is not tied back to those exceptions
rather than saying a law applicable in only
one county, because it seems to me that you
can very well have such a public local law
that may be applicable in an area and not
just in one county. I would assume that you
would intend such a law to be petitioned
on referendum under this section and, yet,
by strict reading of the words, I am not
sure it would be.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Delegate Lord, I
think you assumed our intention. Any law
under the current Constitution which af-
fects more than one county is referable
only as a public general law. It was our
intention to continue that.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Lord, the
intent was exactly the converse of what
you suggested. The intent here was to have
referenda locally only of a law applicable
only to one county.
If a law were applicable to anything
more than one county, it would be referable
only under section 2.10 on a statewide basis.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. President,
maybe I had better address this question
to you. Would this mean that if a law has
some effect outside of one county that the
only way that this law could be knocked
out would be by statewide referendum?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: No.
|
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Pullen?
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
I think it is perfectly obvious what Dele-
gate Koss is trying to do. I think we dis-
cussed that last night, Clagett versus Case,
and I approve of the idea.
The only question I have to ask is, why
ten percent in this case when we put five
percent, I think, in the statewide referen-
dum. Is that not correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Delegate Pullen,
that is correct. We are just continuing the
requirements that are in the present Con-
stitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Because you are
dealing with a smaller area, smaller group
of people, Delegate Pullen. One, you are
dealing statewide, and in the other, you
are dealing with the county.
Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: I accept either
answer, but not the logic, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Delegate
Koss, why did you leave out the part of
section 3.23 that says that no law empower-
ing a county to exercise a power or per-
form a function is petitionable to
referendum?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: It was the assump-
tion that unless that were implemented by
the local governing body, it would be peti-
tionable, according to the charter when it
was implemented by local governing body.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any fur-
ther discussion?
Delegate Bamberger?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, I would appreciate it if some of the
sponsors of the amendment would explain
to us the rationale behind what I under-
stand from the Chair and from Delegate
Koss is the effect of this. If, for instance,
there is a law which applies to some multi-
county governmental unit, or which affects,
let us say, only two counties, why should
that be referred to a statewide referendum
where the result might be that the people
in those two counties which are affected,
would be overwhelmingly in support of it,
but it might lose by a vote in the statewide
referendum?
|
