I live in a U.S. Senate district, which
is the entire state. I live in the Third Con-
gressional District, First Councilmanic Dis-
trict and under the proposal of the Com-
mittee, I would live in the 16th State Sen-
ate District and the 23rd State Delegate
Disrict. This all seems to me to be abso-
lutely too complicated.
I think that the thing can work very
well with all of us living in a state senate
district, thereby making voting a little less
complicated than proposed by the Com-
mittee.
There is in addition to this the problem
in single member districts, and incidentally,
this provides a procedure for a county that
wants a single-member district. What I am
saying now is that for those areas that
want a single-member district, let them
have it. Fine. However, the areas that want
multi-member districts should have the
privilege of doing this.
I am in favor of multi-member districts
for the reason that voting should not be
overly complicated.
Where areas have a lot more finesse than
my area and voters can keep up with
changes, fine. However, where a person
living on Patterson Park Avenue, where 1
live, suddenly finds himself in anew sena-
torial district, and a new delegate district
every ten years, it gets to be just a little
ridiculous.
Now, it is hard enough to get to know
the elected officials of your area. It may
take you ten years to get to know them. If
by the time you get to know them they are
then switched to another district and you
are switched to another district, what have
we really accomplished in this Convention
except to make voting tougher?
Let's not make it tougher. Our Commit-
tee has spent eight weeks over there trying
to make things easier for the voter. Let's
not make it any harder.
1 strongly urge everyone here, if you
favor letting the area choose its own
method of districting, that is either single
or multi-member, to kindly vote for my
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any dele-
gate who desires to speak in opposition to
the amendment to the amendment?
Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I would like to
ask some questions of Delegate Rybczynski,
if he will yield to me for this purpose. |
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski, do you yield for a question?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I will
yield and I will only try.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Thank you.
I am a bit confused as to the comparison
between your comments and what I see on
the paper before me.
"The amendments, as the General As-
sembly shall provide," et cetera, and yet
you indicate that each county or unit of
government would be able to divide the
state as it wished within its boundaries.
Would you explain this apparent differ-
ence?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: This is
based on an assumption that the General
Assembly, acting as a unit, will go along
with each area on how it wants to vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I have a further
question. Is it clear in your mind that the
General Assembly can make the decision
district by district and is not compelled to
choose either Method A or Method B for
the entire State at any one time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I guess it
could. The General Assembly could, but I
do not believe that it would. I can not
imagine that it would happen.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: A further ques-
tion: you had indicated that under the
Committee's proposal and Delegate Lord's
proposal it was possible for a person to find
himself every ten years in a different sena-
torial district, and that that was a bad
thing. Would your proposal change that
situation?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski, you have just a little less than half a
minute.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: No. I
stand corrected if I said that. I did not
mean that, as it can happen, but I say it is
further complicated by putting the voter
in the same area as the delegate district.
It is absolutely too complicated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate James?
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman, I |
