The Chairman stated yesterday that the
proposition that was before the group in
the matter of a majority report was a
compromise. I think that compromise should
be clearly understood. It was not only a
playing of the numbers game. It was a
playing of the game with the firm realiza-
tion that unless we had some kind of a
majority report, some kind of a ratio in
numbers, no proposition would ever come
before this chamber, and that is the com-
promise that is before you today.
The Chairman stated that there was no
presumption in favor of a chairman com-
ing before you here, favoring a majority
report.
I think that answers itself, because ob-
viously no presumption could attach when
the majority does not really have a major-
ity to support it.
With respect to sizes of the legislature,
he mentioned quite frequently of course
the size of the lower house of New Hamp-
shire, which has 400 members in it. I
have already mentioned the fact that in
New Hampshire they meet on an every
other year basis. I might say there are no
states in the union that have 300 members
in their lower house, and there are only
three states which are in the 200 class;
so all of the other 45 states are under 200.
I think it is a fair question to ask,
whether all of those states are badly repre-
sented, whether all of those legislatures
cannot do a job.
The Committee Chairman mentioned the
fact that there was a feeling among some
members that when we had a senate of 29
members it was too clubby. I wonder if
we increase it to 35, whether it will get us
just a little bit more clubby, or will the
clubbiness disappear by increasing it six
members.
He mentioned the fact that we do not
want to get ourselves in the situation that
they have in the House of Representatives,
where they have 535 members, and I think
the import of his remark was to the effect
that it was a very ineffective body. I am
sure that conclusion would come as a sur-
prise to each and every member of the
House of Representatives, none of whom,
I might say, have ever been going out
lobbying to have the size of that chamber
decreased. I think he needs a little ex-
perience of what goes on in the House of
Representatives. He has been spending too
much time in Baltimore.
Reference has already been made by
other members on the floor to the favor- |
able comment that has been given in the
nation's press about the legislative session
that has just been completed this past
year. The Washington Post—I am sure
that appeals to some of our people here in
the group—the Washington Post character-
ized it as the most productive legislature
we have ever had in the State of Mary-
land, and there are 143 members in the
lower house.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the Committee of the Whole, what
is the case for allowing the size of the
legislature to be provided by law, rather
than freezing that size in the Constitution
from now into the eternal future?
The first proposition and the first foun-
dation of that case is this: this body does
not and cannot have the foresight to de-
termine precisely what the exact number
should be. We have to ask ourselves the
honest question, whether a 35-105 ratio
that may be good enough for the year
1968 is going to be good enough for the
year 1970, and I am talking here about
adequate representation of people—that is
the issue—and will it be good enough in
1980, when the population has increased
over 1970 by 30 percent?
The second proposition that the Minority
Report stands on is this: since the Supreme
Court decisions, the case is no longer argu-
able as to whether a State shall equitably
apportion itself. It must do so. The only
question left is how that apportionment
shall be applied in each state, and I have
already demonstrated that this apportion-
ment is applied in about 48 different man-
ners in 49 different states.
The third proposition is this, and a
point that deserves some consideration:
since the existing predominance of the
legislature, some 70 percent, now rests in
three counties and the City of Baltimore—
Baltimore County, Montgomery County,
Prince George's, and Baltimore City,—it is
senseless, it seems to me, to assume that
these individuals, if they are given the
responsibility of apportioning the State
legislature, will dilute their power by
greatly expanding the size of the legisla-
ture. We already have a safety valve pro-
vided.
I might say that that safety valve was
not provided by the constitution. It was
provided by the legislature of Maryland
and approved by the federal courts, and
the state courts.
The fourth proposition is this: inasmuch
as the Supreme Court has left some mar- |
