Does that not envisage that one Senate
district may in a number of places en-
compass more than one county?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: If there are
to be three delegates under this proposal
from each senate district, it encompasses
also the requirement that these three dele-
gates be from that one senate district,
which may in turn include more than one
county.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: And then
since' you have it reduced to a separate dis-
trict for each delegate, the division line
there being narrower, it could be in one
county, in two counties, or partly in one
county and partly in the other. Isn't that
right?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
right.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: And if there
is a proposal that there be three delegates
from one senatorial district who run at
large, there is no question then that under
your plan those three delegates, if they
were permitted to run at large, would be
running for office from that one senatorial
district, which could be more than one
county where those counties are too small
to come within the 35-105 classification?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
correct.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I was won-
dering if the Committee gave any consid-
eration to putting this new plan into effect
in 1970 or before that election, based on
the 1960 figures. It just occurs to me that
while that might be a troublesome opera-
tion, by putting the new plan into effect to
reduce the legislature, it might simplify
the transition.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, Judge
Henderson, it did not, but it certainly is
something that we should consider. I do
not know whether the malapportionment
would be so bad that you would find your-
self with a suit in 1971, in any event.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions?
Delegate Chabot |
DELEGATE CHABOT: I wonder if the
language of section 3.12 would permit or
would preclude the carrying over of bills
from one session to another so that one
would not be required to introduce bills
anew.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I think
that in the absence of a definitive sentence
to the effect that one does carry them over,
one would not interpret 3.12 as allowing
the bills to go over in life from one year to
another.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Has the Com-
mittee given consideration to this point?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The Com-
mittee has not actually given full consider-
ation to it. It may well recommend it in
another section.
There was some consideration of having
a bill stay alive through two years, cer-
tainly not longer than two, but the Com-
mittee has not taken any action on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions for purposes of clarification?
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
just for the record again, referring to sec-
tion 3.08, page 3 of the Committee Recom-
mendation, would you say that there is
anything to bar the legislature from au-
thorizing additional salary, for example,
$1,000 for the additional 30 days and an-
other $1,000 for the second 30 days?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I believe
that the 30 day extension would be a con-
tinuation of the regular session, and if
there were a second 30 day session, that
that would be a further continuation, so I
believe that would fly in the face of the
prohibition here.
The Committee recognizes, of course, that
there is enough ingenuity in the mind of
man to get around any prohibition, but at
the same time we felt that we only wanted
to prohibit a specific praction and conse-
quently we merely addressed ourselves to
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions for purposes of clarification?
Delegate Bamberger?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: My pur-
pose is to clarify the Chairman's answer.
I think he missed the last word of Dele-
gate Byrnes' question, which was whether |
