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 474   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
474 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 8]
or a large county and we have the votes,
we are dictating what the small county is
going to be and how it is going to be repre-
sented and that the large county will repre-
sent the small one.
My friends, I think we are going about
this in the wrong way. I think the small
counties need representation. They have
added something to the State of Maryland.
I hope this amendment is defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Do you desire to speak in favor, Dele-
gate Fornos?
DELEGATE FORNOS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee of the Whole:
I think the vote in favor of retaining the
large house is a vote in favor of machine
politics. It is only machine politics which
rear its head and offers manipulation when
you have a large body, as we are con-
fronted with at the moment in the House
of Delegates.
When you take a look at the House as
it is constituted today, many a member
loses his individuality through block voting
by delegations and through manipulation of
large block votes that are sent down to the
legislature by party bosses back home in
their districts, party bosses who are able to
raise large coffers of money and elect their
tickets wholesale.
I do not think that any honest, dedicated,
sincere individual running for a seat in a
small or large assembly has to fear a lack
of money if he is willing to give the people
service as he runs and seeks their help to
get him elected.
Again let me stress, I feel very strongly
that a vote for a large house is a vote for
machine politics.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak against the amend-
ment?
Delegate Neilson.
DELEGATE NEILSON: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I rise to speak in opposition to
the amendment.
Committee Recommendation LB-I really
was a compromise of a running up and
down the scale from a low number to a
high number, but the result of the Com-
mittee deliberation was not necessarily the
middle ground or the half-way mark. The
figure that was pulled out of the hat, so to
speak, is a deliberate figure, based on a
ratio of three-to-one; on the 40-80 you have
two-to-one ratio.
Most of us agreed in the Committee that
the time was past to permit each county
to have its own individual representative.
It was believed that with the number on a
three-to-one basis the representation would
be extended through the districts to the
farthest point, to the smallest county that
we could possibly get and yet not let the
House and the Senate become too large.
The question that was raised at one time
was that with this smaller number, or the
number at 105-35, who would be repre-
sented—people or counties?
I believe, as others do, that the legisla-
tors here in Annapolis should represent
people, and consequently, carrying it coun-
tywise would not make any difference in
making up the district. It is my feeling
that the three-to-one ratio is the key point
in deciding the size and the makeup of the
legislature.
It is possible, with the recommendation,
to have a smaller House than 105. It is
also possible to have a smaller Senate. The
language of the section merely places a
maximum of 35-105.
I urge again that the three-to-one ratio
should be kept, and consequently, I urge
you to oppose the amendment.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Boyce.
DELEGATE BOYCE: Mr. President, I
think the members of this august body from
Baltimore City and perhaps even from Bal-
timore County are in somewhat of a hot
seat on this subject. We have seen a lot of
maneuvering going on in the hope that the
40-80 would be turned down, and that in
turn the single district would be turned
down; but I for one feel very strongly, in
the City of Baltimore, that the eight of us
representing the third district should not
all come from a section that is west of
the Harford Road. There is a tremendous
area to the east, and it should be repre-
sented in General Assemblies in the future.
Unless we move to a situation where we
have a smaller House of Delegates, and


 
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 474   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  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives