It seems to me that the central question is
not whether a delegate lives in the neigh-
borhood, but the central question is whether
he represents his district. There is a differ-
ence between representing a district and
being statistically typical of that district.
It may be quite possible, for example, that
a district may have a strong Republican
majority and yet the most popular Repub-
lican in the surrounding area or in the en-
tire area lives across the line as a result
of the vicissitudes of redistricting rather
than in that district. Why then should the
Republicans in that district be deprived of
their preferred candidate?
I think the likelihood is as Delegate Hop-
kins has expressed, that only in rare in-
stances would a non-resident even become a
candidate in a district in which he did not
live. It is certainly true, as Delegate. Weide-
meyer suggests, that I, having been de-
feated in Montgomery County, could decide
to run on the Eastern Shore for the House
of Delegates. I would promise this Conven-
tion that the likelihood of that occurring
is somewhat remote. I do not believe that
that would be the most pleasant environ-
ment in which I might seek public office.
It may not be less hostile than the environ-
ment in which I have previously sought it,
but I do not think it would be more to my
liking.
I think, ladies and gentlemen of this
Committee of the Whole, the issue is not
whether we prefer single or plural mem-
bers, it is one of whether we should prefer
to allow the people who live in any district
the maximum opportunity to have whom-
ever they want to represent them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson,
your time is up.
Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I yield three minutes to Mrs. Miller.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to this amend-
ment and in support of the majority pas-
sage of the Legislative Committee. Those
of us who were on the Committee and who
voted for the Committee Report in its en-
tirety were even unhappy a little bit with
this part of the residency requirement in
that we had hoped we could even require
residency within the district. That we did
not do so was because of requiring single-
member districts. We hoped that within a
senatorial district the people of each dis- |
trict would know who their own candidates
were and would do as Mrs. Hopkins and
the other people have suggested, would vote
for the man who lived in the district.
I have heard no one today who has
spoken against the advisability of such a
thing happening. It seems we are all trust-
ing to the voter to use his good sense and
intelligence and vote for the man who re-
sides in his district, but we do not want
to put this in the constitution.
I would give you that the argument has
been made today that gerrymandering will
result, and I wish to take issue with this.
Most of the time gerrymandering is done
to control the votes of the majority party
or the majority of voters within the dis-
trict.
It is not done to suit the residency re-
quirement of the candidate. I am aware
that this did happen in the previous legis-
lature, because the legislature redistricted
itself. We have sought to avoid that evil
by having someone other than the legis-
lature do the redistricting plan and having
the legislature approve it. In this way we
hope that kind of gerrymandering will not
occur.
But I do believe that in attempting to
get rid of a comparable evil or an unfortu-
nate circumstance which might occur to
several people who might live in a district
that might be redistricted out from under
them, we are replacing it with a greater
evil; that is the evil that was spoken of
facetiously yesterday, possibly lightly, I
hope so, but which would exist, the evil of
carpetbaggers and sundowners. I give you
that in today's world with political cam-
paigns becoming the major occupation and
major industry of the public relations firms,
it is perfectly possible for a man from one
end of this State to run and to win in a
small delegate district in another end of
this State, and not to represent at all the
voters in his district.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Miller,
your time is up.
Delegate Hopkins.
DELEGATE HOPKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I think our case rests. We really do hope we
will not prolong the session on this point.
I hope we have made our point clear and
we certainly would be glad to answer ques-
tions.
We have no further speakers.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, we have no further speakers. |
