not representation by political subdivision.
The issue is the best kind of political, or
representative democracy that we can fash-
ion here, and the only way that we can do
that is to represent people and not political
subdivisions. As we said yesterday, there
are other committees, which are taking up
the question of how the political subdivi-
sions will manage, how they will control
themselves and govern themselves. It is
important to note also that the spokesmen
who are opposing this smaller legislature
appear to be from the large subdivisions.
Mr. Rybczynski is correct; if he ran for
the legislature his seat would be saved.
Probably if 1 were to run for the legis-
lature in a larger House my seat would
be saved. We both have names beginning
with M and going further down the alpha-
bet ; but I do not think that that is a reason
for fashioning such a House here today.
I think what we are trying to do is find
the most functional, the most efficient and
the most truly representative kind of gov-
ernment that we can make. I believe that
the amendment offered by Judge Sherbow
would not achieve that end, that in itself it
is a deceitful type of amendment in that it
implies that it would achieve representa-
tion for the smaller counties when in fact
it would not do so.
I would rather that we go back to the
original recommendation of the Committee,
and I support the amendment to the amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment to the amendment?
Delegate Kirkland.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: Mr. Chair-
man, seeing this is my happy day, it could
well become my unhappy day, also.
I would like to ask Delegate dark a ques-
tion, if I may.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will Delegate James
dark yield for a question?
DELEGATE J. CLARK: As long as it is
on his time.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be on your
time.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: It does not
really matter.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: I would like
to ask you if the fractional voting would |
not adjust itself to a figure of 120 also? I
mean, why does it have to be 108? Could
it not just as well be at 120, and in this
way have even more representation?
DELEGATE J. CLARK: It could be ad-
justed to any number, this is true; but I
would not feel that I would be in position
to offer a larger number. I think it serves
its best purpose at the lower number.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you desire to
speak in opposition, Delegate Kirkland?
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: The delegate
did admit that he could just as well have
this fractional voting at 120. I am going
to have to, certainly myself, support Dele-
gate Sherbow's figures, because I do not
appreciate the generous compromise figures
on behalf of the amendment to the amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment ?
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: I wish to speak in
favor of the amendment to the amendment
for two reasons. First of all, when we con-
sidered 35-105 it was done with two main
things in mind: that we would have a legis-
lature that would be visible, accountable,
responsible, and secondly, that it would be
truly representative, not only of the large
areas, but also of the small counties and
minority groups and ethic groups, in other
words, that everything might be considered
in the reapportionment and the changed
districts.
Yesterday when another delegate spoke
against the smaller numbers in the differ-
ent amendments, the decision of the Su-
preme Court was always referred to as
one-man/one-vote, and it seemed that the
wrong interpretation was being placed on
the decision. Quite often people who spoke
against the smaller numbers, were inter-
preting it to mean that because the num-
ber was small their areas, therefore, would
not be represented equally.
The recommendation of the Committee
took into consideration all of those factors
and never forgot the one-man/one-vote
principle, so that even though the numbers
would be larger, the vote would be equal
and everybody would be represented. If
anyone has a mind to vote against the
smaller numbers because he thinks his area |
