whatever they may be, with respect to local
government, will be set forth in that arti-
cle, but in either event, you will not have
the troublesome language of Section I to
haunt you. If you leave section I in, al-
though the Chabot amendment clarifies it
as to statewide laws, the question still
arises whether or not there are referendum
powers reserved other than those set forth
in section 2 through 6, and in the section
dealing with local government. It is un-
necessary, and I think this debate has made
it manifest; it is troublesome and the lan-
guage raises more questions than answers.
The only justification I can see for it is
that somehow the people will easier find in
examining the constitution that there is a
power of referendum, but even that is mis-
leading, because other sections of the con-
stitution, namely those dealing with local
government, will deal with referendum
again. I think even on the limited basis on
which the section is justified it does not
stand up under analysis.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Needle, do
you have a question beyond that lengthy
answer?
DELEGATE NEEDLE: The answer
went beyond the question. I wondered if
Mr. Scanlan still feels this way: if we in-
tend to restrict the right of referendum in
the people, we should eliminate section 1,
and I wonder if that is the case, in view
of the first clause of section 2, which says,
that every law is subject to referendum
except—
Does that not do exactly the same thing
that section I does?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I think you
are right. That makes Section I quite un-
necessary, and superfluous.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the end of
the question? Delegate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Then if we
were to enact section 2 through 6—
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Needle, the
Chair suggests that you are not asking
questions. You are carrying on debate. If
you wish to speak either in favor or oppo-
sition, the Chair will recognize you. I think
we can make better time than to continue
it in this manner.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Actually my
inquiry goes to Amendment No. 1; so I
will cease at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm, do |
you desire to speak in opposition or in favor
of Amendment No. 2?
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman, I
was wondering if it might be in order,
and I do hope Chairman Koss would not
feel badly about this, but I wondered if it
might be in order to refer this back to
them to go over the local government pro-
visions and the governor's lawmaking
power. There are so many little questions
that have arisen, and I am so worried, I
think they can fix it up if they take it back.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm,
wisely or unwisely, the rules expressly
forbid the Committee of the Whole from
referring to any committee other than
Style; so your motion or suggestion would
be out of order.
DELEGATE STORM: I guess Style
would not want this, would it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to
Amendment No. 2? Delegate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: I think I rise
to speak in opposition, but I want to phrase
it in a question to the Chair. Is it proper
for us to ask if the Committee on the Pre-
amble of Rights has a provision saying
that people exercise the rights of refer-
endum as set forth in this constitution, and
then, secondly, to begin, "This section, No.
2, of law of the General Assembly"?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure I un-
derstand your question. Was it, has the
Committee on Personal Rights and Pre-
amble considered such provision?
DELEGATE MENTZER: Can this Com-
mittee ask them to consider such provision?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think this is a
matter for the Chair. The Chair has re-
ferred the subject matter of recommending
to the Committee on Suffrage and Elec-
tions, I should not say the Chair, the Presi-
dent. I think it is properly a part of the
province of that Committee.
Does any delegate desire to speak in op-
position to Amendment No. 2?
(There was no response.)
Does any delegate desire to speak in
favor of Amendment No. 2? Delegate
Harry Taylor.
DELEGATE H. TAYLOR: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise to speak in favor of Amend-
ment No. 2, but I can find no justification
for it or any support except that if we |
