people's elected representatives feel that
they need this buffer between themselves
and the electorate. I do not know why they
feel they need this buffer, but nevertheless
I am concerned that they feel they need
the two houses in order to hide some of
what they may be doing.
I am very concerned that the electorate
does not have the opportunity to know ex-
actly what its legislators are doing, really
does not have the opportunity to reach
them effectively. Part of my experience
has been on the other end. I am not a poli-
tician. I have been with groups of people
who made the effort to reach their elected
representatives. I think it provides a sys-
tem for built in frustration for the elec-
torate. One must have endurance and will
power. He does not have the financing the
lobbyist has nor the skill. For this reason,
much of what he would like to see the Gen-
eral Assembly pass, really gets overlooked.
I would suggest that the bicameral system
prevents government for the people rather
than provides government for the people.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any dele-
gate who desires to speak in opposition to
the amendment? Delegate Schloeder.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. As I see the arguments
being put forth by the unicameralists it
breaks into two areas. One is the historical
argument. As a student of history and
political science, I understand the main
thrust of unicameralism was an attempt to
provide an answer to gerrymandering and
malapportioned legislatures. I would sub-
mit that the recent Supreme Court deci-
sions on reapportionment have put to rest
that argument. Even that constitutional ex-
pert, Mr. Bradford Jacobs, would agree
that the 1966 legislature of this State was
a very good step in the right direction. It
would seem to me that the historical argu-
ment is no longer a feasible one or valid
one. I think the second argument, as I un-
derstand it, is an argument for visibility,
responsibility, accountability and efficiency.
I would also submit, as people have al-
ready done this afternoon, that these
things, and I agree with all of them, are
best achieved not by a unicameral legis-
lature, but rather by just those things; by
visibility through smaller election districts
and through a greater responsibility on the
part of the press. I think responsibility,
accountability, and efficiency can all be
more effectively achieved through the other
reforms that are presented in this, what 1
think on the whole is a fine legislative arti-
cle. Thank you. |
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Wagandt, do you desire to
speak in favor?
DELEGATE WAGANDT: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wagandt.
DELEGATE WAGANDT: I would call
attention to just one point. In 1922 the
voters of Baltimore City approved a
charter amendment to change the City
Council from a bicameral to a unicameral
body. It is my understanding that this has
been the pattern throughout this century
for the large metropolitan centers to
change from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislative body.
I am aware of no movement to readopt
bicameralism wherever the people of a par-
ticular city have had the chance to taste
the advantages of a one-house legislative
body.
Dr. Burdette has quite rightly pointed
out that a city council exercises far fewer
powers than a state legislative body. So I
would then turn your attention to this Con-
stitutional Convention. Here we are par-
ticipating in perhaps the most important
deliberative body in Maryland to sit dur-
ing the last one hundred years. Careful
attention is being given to every word, for
our work may live another hundred years.
1 pose this question. Would anyone here
suggest that the work of this Convention
be sent across the hall to the Senate Cham-
ber to have another elected body go through
the same process that we have just done?
If your answer is no, then I suggest you
join us in support of unicameralism. Thank
you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the—Dele-
gate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I would like to,
if I could, Mr. Chairman, inject what I
hope is a new through into this dialogue.
Many of us concerned over the rapidly
mounting intergovernmental relations prob-
lems we are facing in all States—have a
great deal of difficulty adjusting ourselves
to regional concepts. We have a great deal
of difficulty adjusting ourselves to the na-
tional-state relationships. I would suggest
that if it is possible in the future the Sen-
ate or House adjust their rule so that one
house becomes responsible for one area of
state responsibility and the other house re-
sponsible for a different area.
I suggest that there could be in the fu- |
