only two months deliberations, that the
size of the legislature for all time, barring
a Constitutional amendment sometime in
the future—and we know how difficult this
is to get accomplished—shall be in the ratio
of 35 to 105.
There seems to be some implied criti-
cisms of the remark I made, that my re-
marks were intended to imply some deroga-
tion of the members of the Legislative
Branch Committee. If any of those remarks
were so taken by any member of that Com-
mittee I do hereby apologize for it. I
thought it was appropriate to point out
that there was no unanimity of opinion on
that Committee, that the condition existed
while the Commitee had this matter under
consideration, and I say to you fellow dele-
gates, it exists here today.
The Chairman of the Committee of the
Legislative Branch has mentioned the fact
that never in the tradition of Maryland has
this formula that we are recommending
here today been applied to the State as far
as apportionment is concerned. I have to
say that never in the State of Maryland
has it had to face two Supreme Court deci-
sions and try to resolve two difficult deci-
sions as they have today in Baker v. Carr
and Reynolds v. Sims decisions. I say again
the testimony of the legislators that came
before our Committee was mixed. It was
mixed. The Chairman mentioned 12 people
who talked and said that we should set
that figure in the Constitution—12 mem-
bers of the legislature. He says that some-
where we have to draw the line: the buck
stops here.
It seems to me that he is afraid to let
the legislature handle their job. I think
Delegate Bamberger pointed out that this
is a difficult job. Nobody has ever said that
the life of the legislator is an easy job. It
never will be if the legislator is doing his
job.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason,
you have three-quarters of a minute.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I say once
more to my fellow Delegates in this Com-
mittee and this Convention, we are here
dealing with a situation that is unique in
the history of state government in the
United States. We should allow time for
the Supreme Court decision to have effect.
We should allow time to see what the gam-
bits and parameters of these decisions may
be, and we should allow this matter to be
discussed in committees, and be discussed
with people who can take a lot of time to |
consider it and not freeze it into the con-
stitution.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, it is most unfortunate that the spon-
sor of the amendment would hold out what
I would characterize as the whimsical hope
that the Supreme Court of the United
States is going to change its one-man/one-
vote rule, and that we feel inevitably will
not happen. I have said that we developed
figures to show that if every county in this
State were to have one member of the
House in 1970, it would at least be 192; in
1980, 227; in 1990 or 2000 undoubtedly it
would parallel the Congress of the United
States at 435.
Unfortunately, he has confused the fixing
of the number of the members of the House
and the Senate with the process of appor-
tionment. That matter has not as yet been
reported upon by the Legislative Commit-
tee, but I described it yesterday to Dele-
gate Adkins; the legislature itself will
have the job of drawing the districts within
certain confines, that is, to say, compact
and contiguous and other general confines.
So we are not redistricting or reapportion-
ing any body in or out of this legislature
as a result of fixing the number.
The question is simply this: is there
some number which this Constitutional
Convention feels provides the ideal way to
operate the General Assembly of Maryland;
and I suggest there is such a number. We
may not have it at 105 and 35, but I sub-
mit to you that we are in a far better posi-
tion here to decide what the ideal balance
may be between efficiency in government
and representation in government. Those
who urge a number are not opposed to
representative government. We are inter-
ested in effective government, and repre-
sentation can become such a runaway cause
that efficiency, indeed effectiveness, may
well disappear from the General Assembly.
All I ask this Committee of the Whole
to do today is to provide the avenue of
maximum efficiency with maximum repre-
sentation. We have told you that the mem-
bers of the General Assembly do not want
to fix their numbers.
Why should we give them a job which is
ours, and which they do not want? How
long do you think it will take them to
straighten out the matter of numbers if
we entrust them with that responsibility? |
