|
is more a matter of the schedule of legis-
lation than it is of Article 2.
Is Delegate Hardwicke here?
Delegate Hardwicke, Delegate Grant di-
rects attention to the fact that in section
2.06 on page G, the General Assembly is
directly authorized to prescribe by law
disqualifications from voting in any event
by reason of conviction of serious crime,
but on page 65, section 3, in the schedule
of legislation there are interim provisions
for disqualifications from voting. It raises
the question of whether the inclusion of
section 3 in the schedule of legislation is
intended in any way as a definition of
what is meant by the words "serious
crime" in section 2.06.
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I think in
a measure, Delegate Grant, it is a defini-
tion.
Let me say that section 3 on page 65 is
excerpted from Article 33, sections 3, 4,
and 5 of the present Annotated Code and
that was the attempt of the existing legis-
lature to define the term. This is our
interim attempt to continue that in our
statute law.
THE PRESIDENT: But you do not
mean to indicate, I take it, that section 3
is intended in any way as a binding in-
terpretation of section 2.06, either to en-
large or restrict the power of the General
Assembly.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: We do not
consider it to be a constitutional defini-
tion. It is what you might consider to be
a legislative definition and only an interim
measure.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I only point this
out that the old qualification section had
"infamous crime" instead of "serious
crime" and this is why I believe the di-
chotomy exists right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions to
section 2?
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: In the schedule of
legislation there is just a typographical
error.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hold it until
we come to that.
This is Article 2. Are there any other
questions?
|
The Chair hears none.
Proceed to Article 3.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: When we
were discussing Article 3 we had the as-
sistance of Dr. Loevy, the staff advisor to
the Legislative Branch Committee. There
were a couple of items that came up which
were discussed on which we did nothing
on because it appeared to us that there
was a substantive matter that might con-
ceivably be involved so those would come
up from the floor and not from us.
On page 10, section 3.04, line 8, we
changed the word "drawn" to "redrawn".
The reason we changed it to "redrawn" is
that elsewhere in the schedule of transi-
tional provisions there is a provision for
the districts to be drawn in 1970, as you
know. We did not want to suggest that
this would be the first time in line 8, so if
the word "redrawn" was used, and it
would have been just as accurate the other
way, but we did it this way for a certainty.
In section 3.01, we changed "The legis-
lative power of the State" from "is" to
"shall be", to correspond with what was
done in the other parts of the article.
In section 3.06, in lines 44 and 45 in ad-
dition to shortening it by saying "commis-
sion plan" rather than "plan of the com-
mission", we put the "commission" in the
active voice to say "If the Court of Ap-
peals finds" rather than in the way it had
been before.
Again, in line 16 under 3.07, we use
"redrawn" rather than "drawn" and also
in line 17 we used the word "in every
tenth year thereafter". The same thing"
was true back on page 10, line 10, "in
every tenth year thereafter."
Let me note also at this point that we
did shift the sections so that we have
Congressional Districts — Congressional Re-
districting Procedure — immediately after
the ones on the legislature.
There are arguments going both ways
on it and we first moved them at the end
to separate them from any state legisla-
tive matters. However, since each is in-
volved or rather the commission is in-
volved in each of the redistricting whether
congressional or legislative, we moved it
back to have it "commission". It is a
change which I think is for the better.
You will notice also we put in headings
of the sort of intermediate variety on
page 9. We inserted the heading Districts
|
