clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 427   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
[Nov. 7] DEBATES 427
It says in section 3.01, as follows: "The
legislative power of the state is vested in
the General Assembly." That is basically
the same language from the Commission
draft. That language is not in the present
Constitution, but the Court of Appeals of
Maryland has held that the General As-
sembly of Maryland has plenary legislative
power. Was it the intention of the Com-
mittee to preserve that construction of the
powers of the General Assembly?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: With the
acquiescence of the Committee on Local
Government, the answer is yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt?
DELEGATE WAGANDT: In section
3.12, Delegate Gallagher, is there any in-
tention to limit the length of a special ses-
sion?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, there
is not. In the present Constitution, I be-
lieve it may go to the length of 30 days.
We did not provide a limitation on the
length of the special session.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I would like to
advert to the language referred to by Dele-
gate Scanlan. The Court of Appeals has
held that under the present language, the
General Assembly is not permitted to refer
general public laws to referendum on its
own motion; that this would be an improper
delegation of the legislative power.
Is it your understanding that this lan-
guage would continue that interpretation?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I have not
had as yet an opportunity to study the ref-
erendum language from the Committee on
Suffrage and Elections, but I do not be-
lieve that this intends to make a change
in that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: As to section
3.05, the language, "To be eligible as a sen-
ator or delegate, a person shall be a quali-
fied voter. . ."
By this do I take it, since there has been
some discussion on that point in the Suf-
frage and Elections Committee, that if
registration is one of the matters needed
to qualify to vote, then the person must
have been registered to vote?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, I
would believe that to be the interpretation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Sections 3.06
and 3.12 would make significant changes—
well, 3.12 a significant change, and 3.06 a
small change with regard to the legislature.
Is it intended that those sections would
take effect with regard to the present legis-
lature?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, they
would.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Of course,
there would be no organization session in
the ordinary sense of the word as far as
I can see.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, the question that I have relates to
the interdependence of the various features
of the Committee's Report, and specifically
I would like to have a comment on whether
the Committee would have felt the same
way about bicameralism if all of the fea-
tures of reform that you envision were not
adopted. In other words, may I ask you
whether or not the recommendation for
bicameralism is not predicated upon, first,
your recommendation that the size of both
houses be decreased, and second, the belief
that if you have the new legislature, it will
reform itself to some extent by spreading
the committee load, et cetera. I support to
pinpoint this question, may I ask you, sir,
whether or not if these reforms are not
adopted, or if we do not reduce the size
considerably, would your committee still be
in favor of bicameralism?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: First of
all, I want to thank you for characterizing
the document as one that seeks reform. I
would say to the best of my ability that the
Committee was in an agreeable frame of
mind about bicameralism because of these
other features.
I would not on any given day, indeed at
any given hour, suggest to you what the
exact vote on bicameralism or unicamer-
alism would be if some of these significant
features were eliminated.
I would agree, however, that the ma-
jority vote we did receive was predicated
on considering each of these items in their
totality.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Then, Mr.
Chairman, is it possible, if this Convention
does not go along with the suggestion as


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 427   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives