I hope, 110 in the House. The number of
physical bodies, however, if the amendment
originally sponsored on fractional voting,
or some other kind of similar amendment
should be passed, would increase the num-
ber of bodies. I have no idea which of those
amendments, if any, may subsequently pass,
but let me show you what would happen,
based on the table which was submitted
with the Report of the Legislative Branch
Committee.
Calvert County, under this projection of
105 would have three-fifths of a vote; Caro-
line, a half.
I do not know whether under fractional
voting they would come up to almost a
whole or nearly a whole. The only answer
I can give you is that it would need more
physical bodies than 120 or 105.
I do say, however, that what we ought to
do is keep our eye on the ball, and that is,
go back to here we were a few minutes
ago, and then take up the subject of frac-
tional voting as it should be taken up,
namely, fractional voting only, without the
other clouds over it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment to the amendment?
(There was no response.)
Does any delegate desire to speak in op-
position to the amendment to the amend-
ment? Delegate Lloyd Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: I would like
to ask Delegate Sherbow a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will Delegate Sher-
bow yield for a question?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, sir.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: I wonder un-
der the fractional voting system, if a dele-
gate with a percentage of a vote, would
be entitled to the same staff as that of a
delegate who had a full vote, the same
staff and the same legislative resources?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: You are
speaking now of what would be legislative
matter and legislative prerogatives. We
would not for a moment dream in this
Constitutional Convention of writing out
those details. Those are matters which
would belong to the General Assembly, and
they would have to make the decision as to
how many employees they would have, their |
allotment and the manner in which they
would serve.
(Call for the question.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question? The question arises on the
adoption of Amendment No. 1 to Amend-
ment No. 9. The effect of the amendment is
to change the numerals, changed by inter-
lineation in Amendment 9 back to the form
in which they were originally printed,
which meant that in line 12, the number is
105; in line 14, the number is 35.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the
adoption of Amendment No. 1 to Amend-
ment No. 9. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Have all delegates voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 46 votes in the affirmative
and 77 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment to the amendment is re-
jected.
The question now arises on the adoption
of Amendment No. 9. Are you ready for
the question?
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to speak against the amendment. 1
think what Delegate Scanlan said earlier
about the constitutional monstrosity ought
to be well taken by this Committee.
I think it is most unwise to create a
General Assembly of unequal members.
Every member of a legislative body ought
to have the same vote to cast in that legis-
lative body.
It seems to me that this is simply a fun-
damental of having a good General Assem-
bly, and an effective General Assembly, and
effective representation of the constituents
of the representatives.
For my own part, I would rather see the
General Assembly have no limit on its size,
although I vigorously opposed this kind of
proposal yesterday; but I would prefer it to
this proposal.
Secondly, I think it is worth pointing out,
Mr. Chairman, that there could be very
serious problems with this proposal. The
right that a citizen has under the federal
Constitution to be represented is not a |
