man, just looking at 1980 and trying to
figure out the number of human beings
that would be necessary under the pro-
jected population, it would appear we would
have to use Kent County as the basic
county with the lowest population of 18,800,
so that would be the minimum one county.
Treating Baltimore City as a county,
Delegate Weidemeyer, which 1 assume you
would want to do, Baltimore City would
have 50 times the population of Kent
County. If you took the multiple or the
divisor of five that Delegate Weidemeyer
uses, that would mean that those five sena-
tors—no, it would be ten senators from
Baltimore City would each be casting five
votes, for a total of 50 votes, compared to
the one senator from Kent casting one.
It would look, I am informed, like 234
senators in 1980. I feel this would be a
trifle on the heavy side, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
debate?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 10 to Committee Recom-
mendation LB-I. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of Amendment No. 10. A vote No is
a vote against. Cost your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 15 votes in the affirmative
and 100 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
Is there any other amendment to section
3.04 dealing with numbers?
If not, we will proceed to a consideration
of amendments to section 3.04 dealing with
single member districts.
<»
The Chair recognizes Delegate Lord. Un-
der the debate schedule as amended he has
a maximum of 15 minutes for presentation.
Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. Chairman, this
is an amendment H-l. I do not believe it
has been distributed, although a copy is on
the reading clerk's desk.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read
the amendment. |
THE CHAIRMAN: Please mark in
Amendment No. 11, to Committee Recom-
mendation LB-I.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 11
to Committee Recommendation LB-I, by
Delegates Case and Lord: On page 2 in
Section 3.04, Composition of the Legis-
lature, strike out all of the last two sen-
tences in lines 2 through 6 and insert in
lieu thereof the words:
"One senator shall represent each sena-
torial district. At least one delegate, but
not more than three delegates, shall repre-
sent each delegate district."
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
The amendment is seconded. The Chair
recognizes Delegate Lord to speak to his
amendment.
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates, I would like to explain
what this amendment would do and what it
would not do.
Under the report as submitted by the
Legislative Branch Committee, the lan-
guage reads, "Each delegate shall repre-
sent one delegate district, and each Senator
shall represent one Senate district.
"Each Senate district shall be composed
of three whole delegate districts."
This proposal would require Statewide
single member delegate districts in every
subdivision of the State.
The amendment is not an amendment
that would prohibit, or indeed necessarily
limit single member districts. It would
simply provide other alternatives: under
the amendment, one Senator shall represent
each senatorial district, and at least one
delegate, but not more than three delegates
shall represent each delegate district.
I will now speak to the amendment.
It is the position of the proponents of
this amendment that it accomplishes all of
the purposes and meets all of the argu-
ments of those people who would impose
Statewide single member delegate districts
upon the voters of this State, and yet it
provides a better and more flexible system.
First of all, it would allow single mem-
ber districts wherever this would most ap-
propriately serve the interests of the polit-
ical subdivisions and people involved. |
