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 510   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
510 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 8]
Constitutional Convention but I do not
think anyone can say I have shirked my
responsibility since being here.
I have lived up to the promise I made to
the people that I would come and try to
get out a constitution that they could live
with and would approve. That, Mr. Presi-
dent, I am trying to do. If I voted for any
reduction of the House of Delegates or the
State Senate, I feel I would be shirking my
responsibility.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak against the amendment?
(There was no response.)
Does Delegate Chabot desire to speak
against the amendment?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE CHABOT: It is useful in
matters like this to try to understand what
is the logic of the point of view that was
presented by the other side. So in trying
to understand this amendment, I tried to
put myself in the position of one who is
favoring trying to retain at least one rep-
resentative in the legislature from each
county.
It was with this in mind that I inquired
of Delegate Gilchrist as to what the popu-
lation figures would be. We learned that if
we are to have single-member districts, the
only way Kent County could continue to be
represented is if some 10,000 people in one
or more of the neighboring counties would
in effect be deprived of their county repre-
sentation or at least their opportunity to
vote for their county representative.
Under the circumstances, I find it diffi-
cult to see why one who is in favor of each
county having one voice to call its own
would favor this proposal.
Accordingly, from any point of view, I
urge defeat of the proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Raley?
DELEGATE RALEY: Mr. Chairman,
members of the Convention, I suppose that
everybody knows how they are going to
vote. But I don't think, as a matter of fact,
I am sure, I know most of you people that
do not come from rural areas have little
understanding of the deep feeling we have
on this issue.
As I see this amendment, it would allow
more membership in the House of Dele-
gates. It would not give to any, any guar-
antee to every county that they would have
a representative. But they would have more
than they would under 105.
Give them a chance. We heard something
about thinking around here, thinking of the
new, that we have to get away from the
fact we are representing counties but are
representing people. That does take some
time. It has not yet been received in the
rural counties.
It might very well be that if this kind
of amendment were adopted in the Consti-
tution, it would not have the shock as Dele-
gate Weidemeyer mentioned a while ago;
it would not produce the alienation, the
feeling they are going to have that they
no longer will be represented in the General
Assembly.
You can talk all the logic you want, but
the fact remains that that is how the
people feel.
I hope that we can consider that when
we vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak against the amend-
ment?
Delegate Beatrice Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, I wish that Delegate Gilchrist who
opened his remarks and spoke, would have
offered the amendment in Committee, but
at no time in the Committee deliberation
was the ratio of four to one introduced, nor
was it ever considered by us. I would also
point out that this compromise or this
proposal which is presented as a compro-
mise is in fact not a compromise at all. It
is the largest number of all those numbers
offered and represents nothing different
from the highest number which the Com-
mittee examined.
It is a restatement of the minority posi-
tion of the Committee.
In fact, it is made a little larger on the
floor here than ever introduced in Com-
mittee. The compromise position, the posi-
tion on which we gained the greatest con-
sensus was the number of 105 to 35. It is
on that basis I think we should consider
compromise.
I would also point out that a number of
references have been made here to the
Eagleton Report. The Eagleton report does
not deal with size, but with the organiza-


 
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 510   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