2, line 3, "votes cast" and inserting in lieu
thereof "persons qualified to vote"; and by
striking out, on page 2, line 7, "60" and
inserting in lieu thereof "90".
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been
advised that we have been following the
procedure that where one seeks to change
one word by unanimous consent it will not
be considered as an amendment to the
amendment, but will be considered a modi-
fication in the original proposal, so that in
the absence of objection, the words "per-
sons qualified to vote" will be changed to
"registered voters."
DELEGATE STORM: "Registered vot-
ers"?
THE CHAIRMAN: "Persons registered
to vote," or the word "qualified" will be
changed to "registered."
Is there any objection to that change?
(There was no response.)
If not, the Chair recognizes Delegate
Schloeder, under controlled time.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to
say at the outset that this Minority Re-
port is meant in no way to reflect upon
the work of the Committee. The feeling is
that this Committee has labored long and
hard and labored ably to come up with a
workable and feasible article on suffrage
and elections, and on a referendum, par-
ticularly.
However, we do reserve the right as a
minority to speak to certain points within
the Report, and I would like to say that
this is not an attempt to gut the referen-
dum procedure.
While it is a fact that increasing the
number of signatures is needed, we are
adding thirty days for the acquisition of
these signatures, and the way it works out
is simply this: that the daily average that
the Committee would require is 776—ex-
cuse me, 766, and the daily average re-
quired by our amendment would only add
17 to that total, 783, so I do not think there
is a real basic change here.
We are raising the percentage, but we
are giving more time to raise those signa-
tures.
Also in our hearings, one of the ques-
tions raised, time and time again, was that
the entire referendum procedure was a
process that was a reflection on the dis-
trust of the representative form of govern-
ment. |
Now, I think that this is not true, and
I am a very firm believer and believe basic-
ally in the right of direct legislation. How-
ever, I feel that criticisms of referendum
time and time again went to the ultimate
question of suspendability, or suspension;
that went to the argument that it was a
maneuver in which you could delay legis-
lation, that you could delay the workings
of the elected representatives of the people.
To override this criticism we are at-
tempting to keep the referendum strong
and viable, but to prevent easy use of sus-
pension, which would make it possible to
override the legislature by a small number
of people before the greater body of the
people had had an opportunity to do just
that if they wished.
We feel that this amendment is a
strengthening of direct legislation, a
strengthening of the popular movement of
direct participation in democracy, and is
not an attempt again, I repeat, to gut the
referendum.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates:
I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment. I think it has in it three com-
ponents: (1) the fact that more time is
given; (2) that this makes it more difficult
to suspend; and (3) the rationale for tying
the number of petition signatures to regis-
tered voters. The rationale for tying the
figure to registered voters I think can be
defended, and in Committee it had a cer-
tain degree of appeal. However, we found
that in areas where you have had reregis-
tration or canvass that as many as 25 per-
cent of those registered were, in fact, either
not resident any longer, or had since died,
and should not have actually been included
in that. That figure is not only inaccurate,
but you are thereby penalizing the circu-
lators of the petition by really denying to
them as many, or as much as twenty-five
percent of those who might be able to sign
the petitions, and I think that this is a
snare and delusion.
As far as tying it to the base of regis-
tered voters, I think you have to realize
that what this does is to require on the
basis of the 1966 figures that petitions
have to have 70,500 signatures. The Com-
mittee recommendation sets the figures at
five percent of the votes cast in that 1966
election, which is 46,000, so that the net
effect of this is to increase it; and I think
to increase it unconscionable. |
