DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I yield five minutes to Delegate Gill.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gill?
DELEGATE GILL: Mr. Chairman and
fellow delegates, we believe that interests
of all citizens, and especially the average,
and those with specialized problems, would
be far better represented and that the elec-
torate would be better able to hold their
representatives accountable if the legis-
lative power exercised by the representa-
tives were not divided in two houses.
Because of the visibility and account-
ability of the legislature it would be very
difficult to play one house against the other
as is often done in the two houses now.
A streamlined well-organized unicameral
legislature which is effectively, intelligently
and justly operated could do more than any
other single thing to help democracy work
in Maryland.
Because of its simple and non-duplicating
process, the people could become fully in-
formed as to their government's operations.
Simplicity of form would encourage public
knowledge and participation and involve-
ment.
A single chamber, a single-member dis-
trict, would open up and keep open many
channels of communication between the
legislators and the people.
Because of pure legislators, no duplica-
tion of committees and a simple process,
the citizens would learn more about the
legislative procedures, and this would en-
able them to judge more adequately persons
and issues.
This direct and often personal experi-
ence would cause them to trust their fel-
low man and have more confidence in deci-
sions.
Unicameralism would particularly bene-
fit the minority and ethnic groups and in-
dividual citizens because the responsibility
and blame for actions taken or not taken
on bills could be clearly fixed. Minority
groups who have long histories of unful-
filled promises and buck-passing, which
has resulted in many frustrations, disillu-
sionment and disappointments should wel-
come the opportunity of a unicameral legis-
lature so that they would know who are
and who are not living up to their prom-
ises, and could then react appropriately at
the right time.
The smaller number of legislators in a
unicameral chamber should result in a |
higher caliber of persons selected to repre-
sent the electorate, and that in itself is
far more important than any particular
number.
This smaller body would be able to trans-
act the elaborate's business in clear view
of the public, and would, we think, be in
a better position to make citizens and pub-
lic enemies their main concern.
These superior legislators selected to
serve in a unicameral body should cause
the end result to be a better percentage of
participation by the people, of the people,
and for the people.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I yield three minutes to Mr. Neilson.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Neilson.
DELEGATE NEILSON: Mr. Chairman,
fellow Delegates, unicameralism in theory
may be an acceptable substitution for bi-
cameralism. I am not for using the State
of Maryland as a guinea pig for the polit-
ical scientists to prove a theory. Nebraska
unicameralism in 31 years has not proved
its superiority to bicameralism. I cannot
and will not argue all the points previously
argued in the Committee. Much testimony
was heard. I recall one particular witness
from out of state who stated he had much
experience in Nebraska serving either with
the legislature or working with it, and al-
though he stated that he favored unicam-
eralism in theory, on direct questioning,
stated that he was afraid that if we at-
tempted to adopt such a radical change in
the State of Maryland, he feared we would
lose the whole constitution that might come
out of this Convention.
I would urge that the recommendation of
the Committee, who gave much thought to
this whole question, be accepted and the
amendment as preferred be rejected.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson?
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I yield three minutes to Delegate Raley.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee of the Whole, I
think there is one basic issue here: there
is no question that unicameralism will work.
So will bicameralism. But the one big dif-
ference as I see it is that the legislature,
the legislative branch, would be able to
efficiently, purposefully meet their needs of
the people through unicameralism. |
