to the lower, smaller numbers of these
bodies, or with regard to what seems to be
a firm belief in your report, that the com-
mittee system in the House of Delegates
should be changed, et cetera, that your
Committee might change its recommenda-
tion with regard to unicameralism and bi-
cameralism.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: It might
possibly. I do not know that the rules would
allow us to do anything significant about
that, but we could meet and condemn the
document in absentia or Something like
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley?
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, just so the record will be clear, am I
correct in assuming that whenever the
word "day" is used it refers to consecutive
calendar days?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes. The
days referred to in this constitution are
calendar and not legislative days.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: And they
must be consecutive, is that right?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, as
far as regular sessions are concerned, they
must be consecutive.
THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, to
make it clearer, if I understand the ques-
tion, when reference is made to regular
session, 90 days, it means 90 consecutive
calendar days?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
I only rise because your answers to several
questions have raised questions in my mind.
First of all, has the Committee itself
ever considered the question, ever taken a
vote on the question as to when these vari-
ous provisions in a particular section would
take effect?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The spe-
cific discussion that we did have about the
possible postponement was only under sec-
tion 3.08, if I recall correctly, the question
of whether or not an increase in salary
would apply to the members of the Gen-
eral Assembly.
I think we agreed the answer was, yes,
and we intended it to be thus, but on the
question of the recomposition of the legis-
lature, with 35 and 105, the Committee had |
only discussed the possibility of doing
something to provide that that numerical
adjustment be made earlier than 1974. I
did not mention that, but that is true.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I think that
is very important, Mr. Chairman, because
there had been a vote as far as I am con-
cerned with respect to when this provision
would take effect, with respect to the 1970
census, the 1974 election, and the question
raised by Mr. Chabot in connection with
the 90-30-30 position.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: May I say,
Mr. Chairman, that the Committee con-
sidered for example getting an earlier fed-
eral census than 1970. We determined it
would cost us 25 cents per head count,
meaning roughly it would cost us $1 million
to get an earlier census than the 1970
census.
The Committee then considered the possi-
bility of using voter registration as the
basis for reapportionment and redistricting,
without awaiting a 1970 figure. We also
considered the possibility of using voter
turnouts as a method of determining re-
apportionment, so you see the Committee
has been struggling with a way to make
the changes effective for the General As-
sembly to be elected in 1970.
The Committee discussed the possibility
of extending the term of the present Gen-
eral Assembly one year into 1971 by which
time the complete census track figures in
their final form would be available, and
consequently could be acted upon. Presum-
ably this would allow the next General As-
sembly to have a term of three years, so
that we would be back on the same four-
year schedule; a five-year term, a three-
year term and then back to four.
The difficulty with the entire situation
was this: four did not divide into ten, ex-
cept every other ten year period, so we
would have had a recurring difficulty in
1990, 2010, and 2030. The Committee, how-
ever has not given up trying to find a way
to implement its provisions in 1970.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason?
DELEGATE GLEASON: I think the
Chairman has explained my point. Thank
you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there further
questions?
Delegate Wheatley?
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, again on the question I raised, I am |
