that I understand the exception as you ex-
plained it with respect to the neighboring
senate district. The thrust of my question
is, once a senator or delegate has been
elected, must he continue to live in his dis-
trict? That is question number one; and
while you are answering that one, also an-
swer the question with respect to the ex-
ception: If he runs in a district in which
he does not reside, must he then move into
that district?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Answering
your second question, I think the answer
is yes, that under the interpretation he
should move into the district because of the
time limitation. It says, however, that if
the district has been redistricted within one
year, he would have that option within one
year following the change in the district.
If he wanted to change from that district,
I believe he would be required to change
to the district, if he were not physically
located in it.
Then there is a second question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles,
can you restate your question?
DELEGATE SICKLES: The original
question was, is there a requirement that
he continue to reside in the district from
which he is elected?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
read such requirement, only at the time of
his election.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hickman.
DELEGATE HICKMAN: Referring to
section 3.05, Delegate Gallagher, is there
anything there which would preclude one
person from running for all three dele-
gacies?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
see anything in the constitution which
would prohibit that, no.
DELEGATE HICKMAN: And then
nothing prohibits his winning in all three
and being elected and representing all
three?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I think my
response to that is that the constitution
does not set forth in detail the suffrage and
election laws, but would expect the Gen-
eral Assembly to implement them.
DELEGATE HICKMAN: According to
the constitution as it is now being presented
to us, one person could represent three dis-
tricts in the House of Delegates? |
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I would
say that it would theoretically be possible,
but I would further suggest that if this
constitution is adopted the General Assem-
bly would set up an orderly system of de-
termining options.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions, Delegate Hickman?
DELEGATE HICKMAN: Delegate Gal-
lagher, I see nothing which states that this
may be done by law.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: There is
another section which I believe is forth-
coming with respect to holding one office
of profit and trust. One of the difficulties 1
think in taking the sections piecemeal is
that we do not have before us some comple-
mentary constitutional provisions which
would take care of these things.
THE CHAIRMAN: May I interject to
say that one of the other committees which
has not yet reported has indicated that it
has under consideration a section which
generally prohibits the holding of more
than one office of profit or trust.
Delegate Hickman?
DELEGATE HICKMAN: I understand,
Mr. Chairman, but it still would not pre-
clude a person from running in three dif-
ferent districts?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher,
can you answer the question?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
see any specific prohibition.
The purpose of 3.05 is to set up the
affirmative possibilities, not to take care of
the possible abuses. I would repeat that I
believe that implementing legislation, if
not the Constitutional provision that I have
referred to, could handle this problem.
We did not seek to get into considerable
detail.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dorsey?
DELEGATE DORSEY: Mr. Chairman,
is there anything in the majority report or
that is forthcoming from another committee
that would prohibit the legislature from
increasing items in the budget?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I am not
in position to speak for State Finance and
Taxation, but as I understand what is going
on, the committee, through its chairman,
has expressed some opposition to allowing
the General Assembly to increase the ex-
ecutive budget. |
