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 486   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
486 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 8]
search, Delegate Gleason, you must have
stumbled upon the figure of the states that
had no limitations at all.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I presume you
are using that word "stumbled" rather
loosely. I might say to the delegate that
he had the same basic research material
before him that I did. Essentially, there
are two books. One put out by the Council
of State Governments, and the other put
out by Citizens' Conference on State Legis-
latures. Both are recent books, both up-to-
date. I am saying to him, what I said to
Delegate Chabot, though he may not want
to accept the answer, but it is the answer,
that that information was not available
in those books, and I was not able to pro-
cure it anywhere else. Maybe the Chair-
man, who has done a great deal of re-
search, and of course, who has research
assistants, may have come up with the
answers. I would be very happy to have
the answer myself.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: May I say,
by way of question, that would it be proper
to suggest to Delegate Gleason that page
24 of the research document to which he
just referred, contains the information
that Montana and Virginia set the size
of the legislature by law.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Yes, but the
full answer to that question, if I may re-
spond to the Chairman, is that other sizes
of legislatures have been established and
have been revised over the past four or
five-year period. We cannot tell precisely
how that was done, whether by constitu-
tion, having been declared unconstitutional,
or by the legislature, or in response to
federal courts.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any
further questions? Delegate Scanlan?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That still is
not my question. My question is, how many
states have no limitations at all, in short,
how many states do what you asked this
delegation to do in your motion?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Well, I think
one of the answers to that is as the dele-
gate knows that there have been very few
states in the process of revising their con-
stitutions in the past four-years and so
that I cannot tell just how many states
allow this to be done. My case is resting
on the proposition that since the Supreme
Court decision, which you fostered, has
brought such great impact into this state,
you ought not now extract all the blood
from the rock but should leave the legis-
lature a little bit of a chance to ease the
pain of the burden.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will suspend for
just a moment to change the tape.
(At this time a brief recess was taken.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to ask Delegate Gleason if
the size of the House were permitted to
rise in such a manner that each county's
population would be assured of not having
to share a delegate with another county,
what the size of the House of Delegates
might be in 1970.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Well, let me
say in answer to that question, I do not
think either the delegate or I know, be-
cause we do not know where these popula-
tion increases are going to occur. There
has been some evidence submitted by our
research assistants to the Committee that
this House would go up to perhaps 192
by the 1970 census, by what I am saying,
and of course, it is the burden of our
report, is that we ought to set the size
at the time that all of the facts are avail-
able and the facts are not available to this
Convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Delegate Mason?
DELEGATE MASON: Delegate Gleason,
I believe you indicated that several states
have reapportioned their legislatures. I
wonder if you have any record as to what
states were forced to reapportion because
of court order and what states voluntarily
reapportioned.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I would defer
you to the great experts on this, Mr. Scan-
lan, and Mr. Hanson. I do not have that
information.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Very few have
reapportioned without either a direct court
order or the threat of an order in the wind.
Several, New Jersey being one, and I think
one other state, did reapportion before the
flood of reapportionment decisions. By the
way, I did not foster the decision, Mr.
Gleason; I merely argued it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions? Delegate Taylor?
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: In the case
of Baker v. Carr, in the State of Tennessee,


 
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 486   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives