THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Since I did not
feel that there were any substantive prob-
lems raised here by the various delegates,
I merely sought to allay these problems;
but I guess basically the difference between
adopting Amendment No. 2 and defeating
Amendment No. I, on the one hand, or
adopting Amendment No. I on the other
hand is that by adopting it, you will have
a statement that the people can see, an
atmosphere which can be of some signifi-
cance, both in terms of popular reaction to
this document and in terms of later ju-
dicial evaluation of the importance of the
referendum. By leaving out the matter en-
tirely, perhaps some questions would be
raised in the minds of many of the voters.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I wonder
if Delegate Chabot would yield for a ques-
tion?
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you yield for a
question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Certainly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Do you
agree that the right of referendum is so
important to people on all levels of govern-
ment that it should be clearly expressed in
the constitution; and if so, do you not
think that your amendment would have
been better stated, instead of as set forth
in this article, on all levels of government,
and as to state laws, as provided in this
article?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I guess that
there comes apoint when adding additional
phrases for additional clarification ends up
creating more confusion. I do not know
whether this point was reached after Dele-
gate Weidemeyer's present proposal or
after the proposal that I had offered that
he has suggested co-sponsoring, or perhaps
before we had gotten up, but I do not be-
lieve that at this stage, I can examine that
question with sufficient clarity to give the
delegate a yes or a no answer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer, any further questions?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Would
the delegate accept an amendment to his
amendment along those lines? |
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Delegate
Hutchinson, do you desire to speak in oppo-
sition to Amendment No. 2?
DELEGATE HUTCHINSON: Mr.
Chairman, I would just like to say I think
it is about the fourth down, and it is about
time to punt.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to
Amendment No. 2? Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to speak in opposition to
Amendment No. 2, and then direct a ques-
tion to Delegate Scanlan. Because of the
obvious question in the minds of the dele-
gates at this time as to whether or not the
phrase as set forth in this article raises—
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Needle,
will you hold the microphone very close to
your mouth, please?
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Because of the
fact that the Committee on Local Govern-
ment will recommend certain referendum
procedures with regard to boundary
changes and the establishment of regional
governments, and the possibility that the
inclusion of this phrase either raises an
inconsistency or at least a serious question,
I suggest that you vote against Amend-
ment No. 2, and if I may, if it is in order
at this time, I would like to ask Delegate
Scanlan a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan,
would you yield to a question?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Delegate Scan-
lan, if I understood your earlier comments,
in effect the inclusion of Section I is that
the people would have the residual powers
so far as referendum is concerned, with
the exceptions as set forth in sections 2
through 6, I believe it is, in the balance of
S&E-1. Is that not correct?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That is cor-
rect. I might say, Delegate Needle, that as
I followed the debate on Delegate Chabot's
amendment, I see that there is another
source of trouble here. The local govern-
ment area, for instance. If you eliminate
the sections entirely, then the referendum
powers that are authorized by the consti-
tution with respect to state laws will be
set forth in sections 2 and 6. The refer-
endum powers that will be authorized, |
