same law is still subject to a statewide
referendum, is it not?
DELEGATE KOSS: I suppose it would.
In that event, if I understand you correctly,
there would be the possibility of two refer-
enda on the same question appearing in the
areas affected by that change of boundary?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: As well as
statewide?
DELEGATE KOSS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: If the legis-
lature of Maryland passed a law abolishing
a dispensary system for instance in Mont-
gomery County, could that be petitioned
to referendum?
DELEGATE KOSS: It is my under-
standing, and I might be corrected, that
the General Assembly under the terms of
some of the provisions that have been made
would not be empowered to pass a law
abolishing the dispensary system in Mont-
gomery County.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Let us say it
applies statewide.
DELEGATE KOSS: That would be a
provision of the referendum.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett
DELEGATE BENNETT: Put it another
way around: a law passed by the legisla-
ture authorizing slot machines in a county,
would that be subject to statewide refer-
endum?
DELEGATE KOSS: Again, Delegate
Bennett, it is my understanding and I
might be proven wrong, that the General
Assembly could pass a law abolishing slot
machines in the State of Maryland, and
that could be petitioned to referendum. It
might very well be that this would affect
only less than the full part of the state,
but it would have to be petitioned as a
statewide public general law, statewide ref-
erendum.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions?
Delegate Carson?
DELEGATE CARSON: Delegate Koss,
in Section 4, the last sentence, "No other
verification shall be required."
I take it that the word "verification"
means no other affidavit shall be required?
DELEGATE KOSS: I am listening. You
are correct. |
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
May I ask each of you before you start
another question, could you wait until I
announce you, because otherwise the per-
son operating the console cannot turn on
your switch. Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Am I also cor-
rect in assuming, therefore, that any check
made by the Secretary of State, Attorney
General or other officer of this State as to
the correctness of the referendum petition
would still be permitted under your pro-
posed sections here?
DELEGATE KOSS: Absolutely.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions?
(There was no response.)
If not, we will proceed to section-by-
section consideration of Committee Recom-
mendation S&E-1.
The matter before the Committee is the
consideration of Committee Recommenda-
tion S&E-1. It is open to amendments. Un-
der the procedure we move to section I, on
lines 9, 10 and 1I of the Recommendation.
Is there any amendment? Delegate Scan-
lan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: We have asked
the research staff to prepare an amendment
a few minutes ago. It is a fairly simple
amendment. It would strike section I, that
is, lines 9, 10, 1I, on page I of S&E-1; Mrs.
Bothe and I are the sponsors of that amend-
ment. It has not yet been prepared, to my
knowledge.
THE CHAIRMAN: You mean it has not
been prepared?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: It has not
been distributed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know how
long ago it was?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Within ten
minutes ago, I would say, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Marx.
CHIEF PAGE: I will check.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: It is a fairly
simple amendment in at least the termi-
nology.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
amendments to be offered to Section I
which are already printed?
(There was no response.) |
