would like to submit a question to Delegate
Rybczynski.
THE CHAIRMAN: His time has ex-
pired. Let me get somebody in opposition
and come back to him.
Does any delegate desire to speak in op-
position?
Delegate Sollins?
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee of the Whole: I
speak in opposition both to Delegate Ryb-
czynski's amendment to the amendment and
Delegate Lord's amendment.
Single-member districts are the single
most important reform that we can bring
out of the legislative branch recommenda-
tion.
It will achieve several things. It will
really make legislators visible, accountable
and responsible to their constituents. It will
enhance not only the two-party system,
which we all treasure, whether we be Re-
publicans or Democrats; it will also en-
hance the representation of minority
groups, not only racial, but rural groups
throughout the state.
Many people in the city, and certain
large counties, are very much opposed to
single-member districts. They suggest that
it will engender more parochialism.
I suggest that you look behind their
statements and ask yourselves if they are
really not concerned about the preserva-
tion of their political machines in these
areas.
This is what they are concerned about,
not parochialism, not small political king-
doms.
Single-member districts, in my opinion,
will be like a breath of fresh air through-
out the state.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski, will you yield for a question from Dele-
gate James?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Would this not
run counter to the concept that the initial
reapportionment plan, or redistricting plan,
after each census would have to be designed
by either a commission or by the Governor?
Now, if this were in the Constitution, the |
recommendation of the Commission that
the Governor or the bipartisan commission
lay out the districts, it would be in com-
plete conflict with this, would it not?
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Your ques-
tion might possibly be premature on this
floor. I would agree with you that if there
would be a separate commission to redraw
lines that, well, of course what would the
Commission do with its work? The Com-
mission would then have to turn it over to
the General Assembly for approval, so
eventually it would get back to the body
anyway.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: But is it not the
concept that if the General Assembly does
not act, the plan recommended by either
the Governor or by the bipartisan Commis-
sion would become law? If this were
adopted, would it not be in conflict with
that plan for handling redistricting in an
orderly manner?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I would
have to answer, I do not know. My guess is
that the two could work together very well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, although I have stated my opposition
to Mr. Lord's amendment, I must say that
if it should pass, I would like to see the
intent of Mr. Rybczynski's amendment to
the amendment carried out, and I think a
way to take care of that problem that Sena-
tor James has just suggested would be to
strike out on line six "The General Assem-
bly shall," and on line 7, "divide the State";
and insert in lieu thereof: "The State shall
be divided," and then it would read, "The
State shall be divided into legislative dis-
tricts for the election of senators and dele-
gates," et cetera.
In this way, regardless of what this Com-
mittee of the Whole should do with our
redistricting and reapportionment proposal,
the intent, I think, of Mr. Rybczynski's
amendment to the amendment would be
carried out.
I would suggest also that if that were
done on line 13, the comma after delegates
should be changed to a period, and the
words on line 13, "in accordance with the",
and the word "law.", one line 14 be struck
out.
If I may state briefly, the proposal
which we expect to bring into the full Com- |
