a 120 vote in the House of Delegates for
1970, and using the projected population
as provided by the State Planning Com-
mission, these are the nine counties which
would have percentage votes in 1970, and
the percentages they would have: Calvert
would have a 70 per cent vote, that is,
seven-tenths of one vote, Caroline, six-
tenths of a vote, Garrett, six-tenths of a
vote, Kent, five-tenths of a vote, Queen
Annes, seven-tenths of a vote, Somerset,
six-tenths of a vote, Talbot, seven-tenths
of a vote, Worcester, eight-tenths of a vote,
Wicomico, eight-tenths of a vote.
Now, happily, these nine percentage
figures add up to an even 6.00 per cent.
In order to implement the amendment as
we have it before us, to provide for 120
votes we would have to add three more
bodies and have 123 delegates casting 120
votes. As a result of this you would be re-
quired to increase the number of warm
bodies in the Senate from 40 to 41, since
the Senate must reflect one-third the total
of the bodies in the House.
The amendment, of course, calls for votes
and you must keep adding people until you
are at a point where you do have 120 votes
in the House, so as a result of nine coun-
ties sending nine delegates to cast in the
aggregate six votes, you have 123 in the
House and 41 in the Senate, and you ought
to have, I would say, a computer to help.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Gill, do you desire to speak in
opposition?
DELEGATE GILL: Yes.
When the fractional vote was introduced
in the Legislative Committee by Delegate
dark, I think most of us voted for it tenta-
tively, until we thought about it. We were
all in sympathy with it, but the group was
at a disadvantage. There was a close count.
I cast my vote for it because as I said
then, this seemed to be a bridge.
I am not a native Marylander, but in
the 23 years I have been here, I have
learned one thing, that the people in Mary-
land do not change fast. Realizing that, I
thought perhaps this could be a bridge,
while the counties could be oriented to the
idea that county lines are not sacred.
As times change, and we progress, county
lines will have to give some. We would like
to reapportion the state, but we have been
considering the fact that when it is re- |
apportioned, it would be done within cer-
tain outlines. The district would be com-
pact, and other ingredients, and as one
committeeman said, though in a joking
way, they would be contagious.
To me that was not too much of a joke,
because the people who move into the coun-
ties want to stay close together. Even
though across the county line, or the dis-
trict line, the people next door might have
more things in common with them than the
people in their own county or their own
district. With the idea that perhaps for a
period of time this might act as a bridge
to help make the transition while the coun-
ties were learning to realize that they will
eventually have to give up their county
lines, I thought that this might help. How-
ever, after I went home and thought about
it more, I decided that I did not see how
it could be constitutional. The one-man,
one-vote idea is very good, and I live by the
principle, that you do unto others as you
would have them do unto you, but I could
not imagine anybody's representing me
with a half vote, or a quarter vote—I don't
care what part of Maryland I lived, in—
and satisfying me. So if I would not be
satisfied with it, I certainly would not vote
for it for somebody else, especially if the
number of the legislature were as large, as
this is proposed to be, 160 people. I am,
therefore, speaking against the amendment
for two reasons: First, I do not think it
would be constitutional—I am not a law-
yer, and I was hoping to get an opinion
from you, or from the Attorney General,
but that was not requested. However, I ap-
preciate Delegate Henderson's hasty re-
search, and that strengthens my belief in
the fact that what we are doing would not
be constitutional.
Second, it would be a false hope for the
people in the county. Since what has been
suggested in other amendments, that is,
fair representation with one full vote for
one person, can be adopted, I see no rea-
son to go this way and see some people
under-represented.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Rybczynski?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, there are two matters which are
bothering me, as much as I would like to
vote for this matter. I will yield my time,
after stating the two things that are
bothering me, to whoever would want to
address himself to the problem. |
