I do not know what the practice was in
the past, whether the specific provision of
the election laws now prohibits this type
of activity, but I assume there is some
statutory prohibition which would make
this an impossibility.
I do not think we should now put it in
the Constitution. In any event, I think we
should wait until we have had the report
of the Committee on Suffrage and Elec-
tions and perhaps have the report of the
Committee on General Provisions to which
the Chairman averted and which deals with
one aspect of this problem, dual office hold-
ing, but of course, not precisely the same.
I hesitate to call it a problem. I think it
is more a figment of imagination and con-
jecture. I do not think this is the type of
activity in which we should take up valu-
able constitutional space by putting in pro-
hibitions that will never be invoked.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Does any other delegate desire—
Delegate Koss?
DELEGATE KOSS: I would like, if I
might, to respond to Delegate Scanlan. The
Committee on Suffrage and Elections has
not considered the question of dual office
holding. We certainly could be directed to
so do.
It has been our assumption that we were
dealing with broad qualifications for vot-
ing and for holding office. In a sense, I
think if we went into this particular prob-
lem, we would also be compelled to go into
the problem of people seeking one office in
one election and holding it and also seek-
ing election in another office as long, as
you set up separate elections.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss, my
recollection is faulty. Is it your Committee
to which the proposal with respect to dual
office holding has been referred?
DELEGATE KOSS: Not that I am
aware of.
THE CHAIRMAN: It must be the Com-
mittee on—I shall find out.
Delegate Koss, can you tell us at this
time whether your report which is about to
come out touches upon the subject of the
power of the General Assembly to enact
legislation in the general field of elections.
DELEGATE KOSS: It contains such a
provision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other |
delegate who desires to speak in favor of
the amendment?
Delegate Blair, did you have an inquiry
or do you want to speak to the amendment?
DELEGATE BLAIR: I want to say, Mr.
Chairman, the Committee on General Provi-
sions took into consideration this dual office
situation. There was something in the draft
commentary or the draft constitution which
covered that of the Legislative Branch.
The General Assembly was mentioned in
the draft constitution as being that cate-
gory which would not hold dual offices of
profit and trust.
The rest of it, I think, was covered in
our commentary which said it should be
left to another section wherein it would be
determined whether it would be a conflict
of interest to hold an office of profit and
trust. I think that is where it was covered.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
(There was no response.)
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in favor of the amendment?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 16 to Committee Recom-
mendation LB-1. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of the amendment. A vote No is a
vote against.
Cast your votes.
(Whereupon, a roll call was taken.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Has every delegate
voted?
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 44 votes in the affirmative
and 84 votes in the negative, the motion is
lost. The amendment is rejected.
Delegate Kiefer?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
for a matter of information, Article XXXV
of the Declaration of Rights covers the
subject that you raised, that no person |
