I would like to mention that presently
under the existing 142 member House of
Delegates, there are nine political subdivi-
sions that are single member districts. This
experience has been valuable and fruitful,
and it is the last thing in the mind of the
proponents of this amendment to change
this by any arbitrary action. In fact, un-
der the 40-120 plan just adopted by this
body, after the 1970 census there would be
subdivisions that would have fewer than
one delegate.
It may well be that these areas can be
most appropriately served by a single mem-
ber district.
I say this because it would be advan-
tageous if these areas have fewer than one
delegate, that the district should be as
small as possible, to afford them the best
chance of having a person who was a resi-
dent of their county elected. It would not
be to their advantage to run from a large
multi-member district, because that could
be the last opportunity they would ever
have to elect a delegate they could call their
own.
Now, I would like to mention that there
are also ten subdivisions, using Delegate
Gallagher's figures, that would have be-
tween one and three delegates. It may well
be that these subdivisions would be best
served by single member districts, but it
may also not be. Under this proposal they
could be served by one, two, or three dele-
gates.
In the final category are five subdivisions
that would have, using the 1970 census
figures, between 9 and 28 delegates, and
these are in alphabetical order, Anne Arun-
del County, 9 delegates; Baltimore County,
19 delegates; Baltimore City, 28 delegates;
Montgomery County, 15 delegates; Prince
George's County, 18 delegates.
These are the figures that I have hastily
gotten together, when we move from Dele-
gate Gallagher's 105-man House of Dele-
gates to the 120-man House of Delegates
just adopted.
Now I submit, particularly, in these five
subdivisions of the State, it would frag-
ment and disrupt the political map of these
subdivisions to impose upon them single
member districts. Once again, I do not re-
move the possibility that we may go in the
future, or indeed at the next census count,
to single-member districts in all or some of
these subdivisions, but this should not be
done arbitrarily, as would be the case un-
der the language submitted by the Commit-
tee on the Legislative Branch. |
1 use the word "political map" advisedly,
because somehow at this Convention the
cause for the single member district has be-
come identified with apple pie and mother-
hood, and anyone who seems to be against
it is for perpetuation of political bosses
throughout the State.
This is not the case. Let me use an ex-
ample of the existing structure. In Balti-
more City there are now two districts with
eight delegates, three with seven, one with
six. This would be scrubbed out entirely
under this amendment, if adopted. None of
these districts could remain intact. The
most that any one district could have any-
where would be three delegates. Mont-
gomery County has two districts with seven
delegates. This would come to an abrupt
end, a maximum of three. Prince Georges
has one with seven and one with six. Once
again, the maximum any one of these dis-
tricts in Prince Georges could have would
be three. All five-member and four-member
districts would be scrubbed out entirely.
Now, having suggested that we adopt a
flexible system that allows a determination
of what best serves the interest of the sub-
division of the people, I would like to speak
to the arguments that are raised, both on
the floor by Delegate Gallagher and in the
Majority Report of the Committee on the
Legislative Branch.
It is argued that single member districts,
compulsory single member districts provide
visibility, a word that we have heard a
great deal in the last several days. In fact,
quoting from the report, it says, on page
7, in the one paragraph that is allotted to
this discussion, single member districts
create "a concentration of public attention
upon the individual delegate".
I submit that this concentration of pub-
lic attention could be equally focused upon
three delegates as upon one. The subtle
factor that seems to be present in all of the
arguments for single member district is
really an argument against six, seven and
eight member districts. The argument does
not apply to three member districts, which
would be the maximum under this amend-
ment.
Now, another argument is, and I quote,
"single member districts would eliminate
large and amorphous multi-member dis-
tricts."
Once again, I submit that under a maxi-
mum of three delegates, there would not
be large and amorphous multi-member dis-
tricts. They would be compact, contiguous
districts of a workable size. |
