clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 584   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
584 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 9]
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment to the amendment?
Delegate Bushong.
DELEGATE BUSHONG: Mr. Chair-
man, this Convention just forced the small
counties into the legislative districts, and
all of a sudden we come to Baltimore City
which voted overwhelmingly in favor of
this, that is, against the small counties,
and now they have their problems, which
also arise over the Supreme Court decision.
Now, I think it is high time that they
take their medicine, along with the rest of
us. Let's not bog down here on a lot of
oratory about how 100,000 people are neces-
sary before you can get good representation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment to the amendment?
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
very briefly, I happened to come across in
the National Scientific Review a comment
which I think is very appropriate to Dele-
gate Sherbow's comment. They say that the
demand for a short ballot was indeed met.
In this respect the plan even went beyond
the expectations of the sponsoring group.
Their editorial spokesman, the "Plain
Dealer," which we know is a very respected
and objective news journal, was soon to
warn that no voice, not one voice in the
legislature was heard to speak for the
counties as a whole.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate James Clark.
DELEGATE JAMES J. CLARK: Mr.
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I want to
compliment the gentleman who just spoke,
Delegate Bushong. He said more in a few
words than perhaps most of us are capable
of doing.
Another way of putting it is those who
say you have to have 100,000 people to be
able to intelligently send people to the
House of Delegates do not trust the people.
I think we can take 33,000 people in any
portion of this State and they can find
decent people, capable people, people whom
they know, and candidates who know the
people. This is a two-way street.
I think in the long run this is the tool
that we will use to get the best repre-
sentation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment to the amendment?
Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Please, don't di-
vide Frederick County.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment to the amendment?
Delegate Singer.
DELEGATE SINGER: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to speak against the amendment.
I would suggest that the essential merit
of the Lord case is the flexibility it pro-
vides. I believe that the amendment by
Delegate Rybczynski would destroy that
very flexibility. The memorandum by the
Committee in support of its recommenda-
tion of single-member districts cites two
goals to be achieved: The first is to shorten
the legislative ballot, and second, to shorten
the lines of legislative responsibility.
I believe both benefits are gained in large
measure without sacrifice of flexibility by
adoption of the provision allowing one-to-
three delegates in a district. We have heard
many claims as to the merits of the single-
member districts. I am still unconvinced
that the concept of a single-member district
contains the merits to make it work. To
me the proof is lacking. To divide Balti-
more City into 30 provinces is to my mind
a step backward, not an advancement to-
ward more effective government.
I urge you to vote against the Rybczyn-
ski amendment and in favor of the Case-
Lord amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the Ryb-
czynski amendment?
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: I am going to
vote in favor of the amendment, hoping
that later it might be reconsidered. The
virtue of the Case-Lord amendment is that
it does not require three member districts
or one, but allows for the possibility that
the two member district might be adequate.
I think at this time it is best to vote in
favor of the Case-Lord amendment, and
hopefully I can come back and perhaps add
a little bit of flexibility later.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Hopkins to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment to the amendment,
and before she speaks, wishes to announce


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 584   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives