that is on the edge of your district, you
may well find yourself over in the other
district as a result of the lines being re-
drawn. This hardly seems fair if you have
been representing your district for four
years or eight years, to suddenly find you
can no longer run in that district, even
though you only live one block out of it.
This is the kind of situation to which
we are addressing ourselves.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I think I under-
stand the value of the proposal to the cur-
rent elected officials, and to those who have
been active in politics in the past. I am
not sure I understand the value to the
State of Maryland.
Would you explain that to me, please?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hopkins.
DELEGATE HOPKINS: The value to
the State of Maryland?
I think if you have an experienced offi-
cial who has been doing a good job in the
legislature of the State, that the State of
Maryland still needs him. I think it is a
value of the people who are elected.
DELEGATE DUKES: Do you think it
is not also possible to have experienced
legislators who have not done a good job
for the people who could maintain their
position?
DELEGATE HOPKINS: You can al-
ways have that. I do not take such a dim
view of the legislature.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Groh.
DELEGATE GROH: Does the Commit-
tee Recommendation which requires resi-
dence in the senatorial districts only, not
in any individual single member district,
not tend to eliminate your problems to a
certain extent?
DELEGATE HOPKINS: It makes the
problem somewhat less of one, Delegate
Groh, but with 120 districts in the State,
or even 40 senate districts being redrawn
every ten years there are a lot of bound-
aries all through the State of Maryland.
You could have a large number of people
living near these boundaries. It is less of
a problem, true.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions? |
Delegate Borom.
DELEGATE BOROM: Mrs. Hopkins, if
I gather the gist of your minority report,
your concern is to protect those office hold-
ers who by virtue of boundary changes may
be having to compete against the incum-
bents. Would it not seem better to include
in your suggested section, a specific refer-
ence to an incumbent being eligible? Other-
wise I see you leaving the door open for
any Johnny-come-lately to roam anywhere
he wants to all over the State because he
thinks he has a better chance in one sec-
tion than another.
I would vote for this if you were more
specific in terms of an incumbent who is
affected having the opportunity to run for
office outside of the place where he resides.
DELEGATE HOPKINS: What you are
suggesting is a little closer to the majority
report, but it was our intention in order to
be totally fair, if we were going to do this
at all to go the whole way; and again we
get back to the same old business that you
are concerned about, we think we can trust
the voters, with modern methods of com-
munication, et cetera, not to be fooled by a
Johnny-come-lately.
When you have fewer candidates prob-
ably in the future and only one from a dis-
trict, I understand what you are talking
about and it may suffice, but for now it
does not go far enough for us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Hop-
kins, you mentioned the federal law and
pointed out that a member of Congress
need not under the United States Consti-
tution, reside in the district that he repre-
sents.
However, the United States Constitution
also does not require that the member of
Congress have been a resident of the state
for two years. It merely requires that he
be an inhabitant, which is presumably
something less than residence, only at the
time of his election.
Why would you depart from the federal
model there if you use the federal model
as part of your argument?
DELEGATE HOPKINS: I do not quite
see what you are driving at.
THE CHAIRMAN: State your question
again, Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: The United
States Constitution does not require that a |
