like to state that the subcommittee at least
on referendum felt that it was necessary
to preserve the power of referendum by the
people because it was understood that
the Local Government Committee will re-
quire mandatory referendum on boundary
changes, and in other areas of the con-
stitution.
Therefore, if referendum does appear in
the Constitution, mandatory by the Gen-
eral Assembly, we feel we should specify
that the people also have this right to ref-
erendum, which will not be the same.
The second is that understanding that
there are at present counties which do not
have local home rule, which will in time
ask for referendum provisions in their own
charters, we wish to state that they will
have referendum powers that may be dif-
ferent from this power of referendum; so
we wanted to establish clearly that this
particular provision is the power of refer-
endum established by the people for state
general law.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Gleason rise?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
I just want to find out from the Chairman
of the Committee whether she accepts the
pending amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss, Dele-
gate Gleason asks you whether or not on
behalf of the Committee you would accept
the clarifying amendment submitted by
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE KOSS: Absolutely.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any person
desiring to speak in opposition to Delegate
Chabot's amendment? Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman,
this is a very technical point but in the
local government article as proposed, we
have in two sections provided for refer-
endum, one mandatory referendum within
each county affected on change of bound-
aries, and secondly, a possible referendum
that the General Assembly may attach to
any creation of regional governments.
If you say in this section that the right
of referendum is as established in this sec-
tion, then maybe at the same time you are
saying we cannot have what we are going
to put in our article.
Certainly, someone is going to have to
coordinate this later, but for purposes of
simplicity and style, I think Delegates
Scanlan and Bothe are entirely correct; |
why say it at all here? Why not just specify
what the right of referendum is so far as
the General Assembly is concerned, and
have no difficulty so far as correlation is
concerned.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone desire
to speak in favor of Delegate Chabot's per-
fecting amendment?
(There was no response.)
Does anyone desire to speak in opposi-
tion? Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I am against
the amendment, I think, for the purposes
of the legislative record. I would like to
ask the following question either of Mrs.
Koss or the sponsor of the amendment: is
it the intention, by adding the words "as
set forth in this article" to mean that so
far as the referendum is concerned on a
statewide basis the sections that follow
enumerate entirely the powers of refer-
endum that are vested in the people and
are to be exercised as provided in the Con-
stitution, or is there something more re-
served ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: As to statewide
actions by the General Assembly, the an-
swer to your question is that these follow-
ing sections are intended to be the complete
description of the referendum power that
is reserved, the extent of the power, and
the manner in which it is to be exercised.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: I have only a
question.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom is the
question addressed?
DELEGATE STORM: To Mr. Chabot.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot,
will you yield to a question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Certainly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Do you think that
the clarifying or correcting amendment
would be more desirable if it added some-
thing like this, to say, "as set forth in this
article or elsewhere in the constitution"?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE STORM: That would take
care of the Local Government article and
others. |
