DELEGATE CHABOT: Certainly.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Delegate
Chabot, I would like to pursue Delegate
Hutchinson's question a little further on
the advisability of the issue. It seems to
me that you have two very good principles
involved, one, the extension of time and the
other, the question that you put to a second
category, I think, as to the base for calcula-
tion. Now, I would think it would be diffi-
cult, perhaps, to vote on one without the
other, as you see it, but on the other hand,
not knowing what further amendment
might be offered, I wonder; I can see where
you have the two interwoven so closely
that they could not be voted on separately.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Wheat-
ley, it is obvious, as I said, that we were
not intending to make a referendum ballot
more difficult. Consequently, we would not
have simply proposed an increase in the
number of signatures. At the same time,
we were not intending to cross the border
to make the availability of the referendum
easier. Consequently, we would not, with-
out any other change, have proposed an
extension of the time period.
The two are put in conjunction here, and
the effect of both the extension of time and
the increase in number of signatures are
jointly intended, it would have the effect
of, simply changing who, what part of our
population, what part of those who try to
work with and for the people, could most
easily use the referendum. A change of
one of them, but not the other would have
a completely different effect.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: If I may
pursue the question, if the percentage it-
self were changed, would you feel this
would have a devastating effect on your
proposal? I have in mind the question that
might arise as to the lower percentage
based on the number of registered voters.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Certainly, it
would. As I indicated, the percentages that
we have indicated here, and the time, are
in more or less proportion. Any significant
change, any change which would be signifi-
cant enough for this body to take its time
away from it would significantly change
the effect of the entire package.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: I gather
from your remarks then in answer to my
question, you would feel preferable to de-
feat the amendment rather than possibly
divide the issue; is that correct?
DELEGATE CHABOT: I would feel
that it were preferable to support the
amendment rather than divide the issue. |
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chair-
man, I should like to ask Delegate Chabot
a question, more properly a series of ques-
tion. Delegate Chabot, in your language
explaining the Minority Report which is in
the form of the proposed amendment, you
speak, as I understand it, of registered
voters; in the language proposed in the
amendment, there is used the words "per-
sons qualified to vote".
It may very well be that these are in-
tended to be the same, but I ask first, is
it not correct that under the Constitution
of 1867 that they are not the same, and by
getting to the second one that comes from
that, if this is a hint of the report of the
Committee at a later stage, are we not in-
troducing a new principle of constitutional
law in Maryland? I am informed only from
reading the Constitution, and I do not
know the decisions of the Court of Appeals.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Dr. Burdette, I
had not been aware that there was a clear
distinction under the current Constitution
between the use of those terms. When LB-I
was before us, I am not sure if I specific-
ally asked a question of the Chairman of
the Legislative Branch Committee on this
point, but in any event, the qualifications
for running for the House of Delegates
were stated in terms of qualified voters, ex-
cept for the matter of age requirement for
the Senate, and as our next Committee's
proposal will indicate for the House of
Delegates also. I had assumed that anyone
who was a qualified voter under the re-
quirement for running for the General As-
sembly, was a person who had met all of
the requirements, including the require-
ments of registration. If there is a differ-
ence between the meaning of those terms,
I would like to know what it is, and I think
that the other members here would like to
know what it is.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chair-
man, it seems to me that this may be the
most important question, and I should in-
deed like to be enlightened by some of the
members of the Bar who may have been
familiar with the matter. As a standard
textbook matter in this country, there is a
distinction. The distinction generally made
is that registration is proof of the quali-
fication, but our Constitution of 1867 seems
to make this very clear, for it is Article
I, Section I, which specifies the qualifica-
tions, but Article I, Section 5, which speci-
fies the legislation is in this language:
"The General Assembly shall provide by |
