stitution include the following provisions
with respect to State Debts and Gifts:
THE PRESIDENT: Committee Recom-
mendation SF-4 is referred to the Commit-
tee of the Whole.
You have or will have this afternoon
Committee Memorandum SF-4, accompa-
nying Committee Recommendation SF-4.
Are there any motions or resolutions?
(There was no response.)
If not, the Chair recognizes Delegate
Powers.
DELEGATE POWERS: Mr. President,
I move the Convention resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole for the pur-
pose of resuming consideration of Commit-
tee Recommendation LB-I, and that the de-
bate schedule be amended so as to permit
fifteen minutes to Delegate Lord for pre-
sentation with respect to legislative dis-
tricts; fifteen minutes to include time
yielded to answer questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second?
(Whereupon, the motion was seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: All those in favor,
signify by saying Aye; contrary, No. The
Ayes have it. It is so ordered. The motion
is carried.
Whereupon, at 2:07 P.M. the Convention
resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole.)
(The mace was removed by the Sergeant-
at-Arms.)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
NOVEMBER 9,1967—2:07 P.M.
PRESIDENT H. VERNON ENEY,
PRESIDING
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee of
the Whole will now come to order.
The Committee of the Whole has before
it for consideration Amendment No. 9. At
the proper time and before this is sub-
mitted to vote, the Chair will divide the
question so as to eliminate consideration
at this time of the question of single mem-
ber districts.
After we dispose of this amendment if
there are no other amendments pertaining
to the size of the legislature, the Chair will |
entertain amendments to section 3.04 with
the question of single member districts.
Does anyone desire to speak in favor of
Amendment No. 9 to Committee Recom-
mendation LB-I?
Delegate Miller, Beatrice Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask a question of the
maker of the amendment, Delegate Sher-
bow, if I might.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow,
do you yield to a question?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, indeed.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I would like
to know Delegate Sherbow, whether or not
you favor this amendment, and if you do,
why do you? We have not heard from you.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Well, I must
say I am glad you asked the question. I am
in this situation, which I had explained
before: when the other amendments were
before this Assembly and it was clear that
the subject of fractional voting would be
withheld from the assemblage if the vote
on the 120-40 division was carried, but
would be presented to the body if the other
ratio of 36-108 was carried, I took the view
that I was in the situation of a member of
the House of Delegates or of the Senate
who would be asked normally to present
something by request. In this instance, this
request came from my inner self, because
my conscience compelled me to see to it
that those people who wanted to discuss
the subject of fractional voting had the
opportunity to do so on the floor, and to
air and debate this subject. However, your
question is how I feel about it. I can simply
say that on the subject of fractional voting,
this is not my cup of tea.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to Amend-
ment No. 9?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President, Members of the House:
While I appreciate the sentiment of Dele-
gate Sherbow and the thought behind it, I
will have to oppose that amendment of his
because of the fact that it is fractional
voting rather than weighted voting, and
therefore would be far more complicated.
In discussion and later on I hope to offer
an amendment for a weighted voting plan
in the Senate which will not have the frac-
tional vote, but will have whole votes and |
