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 608   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
608 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 10]
THE CHAIRMAN: There is a period
now available under the debate schedule for
uncontrolled but limited debate.
Does any delegate desire to speak in
favor of the amendment?
Delegate Marvin Smith?
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Mr. Chairman,
I have been thinking about this thing in
how it might affect our small counties from
our parochial point of view.
At the risk of being called inconsistent
with reference to some of the things I said
yesterday and the day before, it seems to
me this amendment would make for good
government.
I tried to think this thing out in terms of
redistricting. I can see it might—let me
make plain, I have no intention as far as
I know of running for public office; the
only time other than this that I ran, the
voters of Caroline County rejected me—I
can reason this thing out in terms of where
I live very possibly being put over in Fred
Malkus' district. I live a half mile from
Dorchester County, yet contacts might very
properly exist in the center part of the
Eastern Shore, which conceivably would
be yet another senatorial district, or an-
other delegate district. By this device if I
had some ambitions, which I do not have,
it might well be that I would have a better
chance for running for office in that area
than in the other fringe area where I might
live, but not be as well known.
It is bad, of course, to use a personal
example in connection with such a situa-
tion, but it seems to me at this time when
the State is about to be cut up more than
it has been before, that this device would
make for a good government.
I am not afraid of the carpetbaggers or
the sundowners, if the people with their
eyes open elect them, so be it. I do not
think we are going to elect anybody who
comes across the Bay Bridge.
(Laughter)
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Henderson?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise largely for the purpose of clari-
fication.
Delegate Hanson has referred to the
English practice under which members of
Parliament have no residency requirements.
I think the import of his remark was that
that was such a good thing that we ought
to follow it.
My reading of one of the main criticisms
of the English system, which is the so-
called rotten borough business, has been
addressed to that very fact. It has led there,
I believe, to the old pro who is beaten in
one section, turning around and running in
another. This would permit that very thing,
it seems to me, that once we depart en-
tirely from residential requirements, we
might put it in the hands of the strong
partisan party member. The door is open to
them to run anywhere they please.
It seems to me the concern for the in-
cumbent, which is a proper concern, is
sufficiently protected except perhaps in
some marginal cases in the proposal put
forward by the Committee.
For those reasons, I shall vote against
the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate James dark.
DELEGATE J. CLARK: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen, in answer to the last
gentleman who spoke, I would like to make
the observation that we never would have
had the services of Winston Churchill if
those conditions had not prevailed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason is
recognized to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman, I
rise to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment.
I think this amendment is at variance
with the single-member district proposal
that we voted on yesterday. The proponents
of the single-delegate district proposal urge
that this would encourage the election of
minority delegates, ethnic and political. But
if we permit this amendment, if we pass
this amendment, we could have people who
do not live in the senate district, but live
in the counties coming to Baltimore City
and running.
The question is not whether or not they
would be elected, but it certainly would do
violence to this concept of single-member
districts.
I will vote against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
(There was no response.)


 
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 608   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