report is to take the 35-105 figures, deter-
mine what the state population would be
per one-thirty-fifth and one-one hundred
and fifth, and on the basis of 35-105 allo-
cated the House and Senate seats on a per
county or political subdivision basis.
DELEGATE CASE: Obviously this does
not mean that Calvert County will have
one-fifth of the Senate.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No.
DELEGATE CASE: That would be
pretty hard to do.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes.
DELEGATE CASE: Even in Calvert
County.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The mathe-
maticians would be required to put together
districts which would assumedly have one
full house district, and then having three
of those, the corresponding senate district.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case?
DELEGATE CASE: So that the plan
does envision an ultimate obliteration of
county and city lines, is this correct?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The plan
envisions the obliteration of existing county
or city lines no more than it had to. It is
not the intention to remove the county
boundaries or the city boundaries. It merely
attempts to conform with the constitutional
mandate of the Supreme Court, that there
be one man, one vote, and while we would
have been delighted had we been able to
find a way to provide one vote per county,
it was not possible as practical matter for
the reasons which 1 mentioned before lunch.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case?
DELEGATE CASE: So that this would
be the ultimate result?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The ulti-
mate result would not be the obliteration
of county or city lines. It would merely be
for the purposes of representation in the
General Assembly, a carrying over in some
areas.
Now, under the reapportionment section,
which is not in here yet, the Committee
will say that political subdivision lines and
natural and geographical barriers should
be followed as closely as possible in deter-
mining the redistricted areas.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case? |
DELEGATE CASE: Can you give us
any county or the City of Baltimore, if it
is true in the city, where the lines would
not in at least one case be obliterated for
this purpose, and everything I am saying
is of course for this purpose.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: We did
not believe that we were required or should
undertake the business of doing the dis-
tricting. This is precisely the power which
we believe belongs elsewhere" in the Gen-
eral Assembly under the plan that we have
developed. If we attempted to work back-
wards, picked the plan and then wrote the
Constitutional provision, we could never
have found a satisfactory plan.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox?
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case, par-
don.
DELEGATE CASE: I suggest the
Chairman did not answer my question.
THE CHAIRMAN: He deemed it to be
an answer, I take it.
DELEGATE CASE: The question was,
and I will repeat it, can you tell us or give
us any county or the City which would not
have its lines obliterated for these pur-
poses in at least one instance?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do not
like "obliteration" but if we agree, we are
not using that term, I will say that it
would be possible to draw a redistricting
plan which would accomplish the non-
obliteration of at least one county or one
city district.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: Mr. Chairman, look-
ing at page 2 of the committee's recom-
mendation, the latter part of section 3.04,
the top of page 2, line 2, where it says,
"Each delegate shall represent one delegate
district and each senator shall represent
one Senate district," would that not prevent
a delegate from being elected in more than
one delegate district?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I would
say it would have that felicitous effect.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions? Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Chairman
Gallagher, I think the answer to this is
clear. I think the Committee was clear on
it, but you did not touch upon it because
you had more important matters to cover. |
