gate wish to speak on this issue? If not,
we will call for the vote.
All in favor of the adoption of the
Amendment No. 7 say Aye; opposed, No.
The Noes seem to have it.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Roll call.
THE CHAIRMAN: The clerk will call
the roll.
(A roll call vote was taken.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Has everyone regis-
tered his vote?
(There was no response.)
The clerk will take the roll call.
There being 30 votes in the affirmative
and 100 votes in the negative, the motion
is lost. Amendment No. 7 having failed to
receive a constitutional majority, fails.
DELEGATE BEALL: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Beall.
DELEGATE BEALL: I would like to
acknowledge my presence. I would like to
report my presence.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your presence will
be duly noted. We can do that for everyone
at the end.
Now the next order of business is the
consideration of the Minority Report
S&E-1. by Delegate Hutchinson, to reduce
the signatures required to three percent of
the total votes cast for governor in the last
election.
Do you want to come forward, Delegate
Hutchinson, and present the minority re-
port?
DELEGATE HUTCHINSON: Mr.
Chairman, Committee Recommendation
S&E-I, section 3, reads as follows:
"A petition is sufficient to refer a law
to referendum if it is signed by a number
of registered voters equal to five percent
of the total number of votes cast for gov-
ernor in the most recent gubernatorial elec-
tion."
Since 1915 the people of Maryland have
been afforded the right of direct participa-
tion in government by the use of the refer-
endum.
Until 1962 only 10,000 signatures were
needed in order to refer a law to a vote of
the people. In 1962 the General Assembly |
increased the petition requirement, through
a constitutional amendment, to three per-
cent of the total number of votes cast for
governor in the most recent gubernatorial
election.
It must be remembered that the three
percent requirement was established only
five years ago. It was the General Assem-
bly, the men who are directly affected by
the referendum, who established this three
percent requirement. What their reasons
for establishing this three percent figure
were I do not know, but it is quite evident
that they had reasons for not raising the
figure above three percent. I do not see any
reason to do so today, nor does the mi-
nority.
In the fifty-two years that the referen-
dum has been a part of the governmental
process in Maryland, the people have used
it on only twelve occasions, as Dr. Pullen
pointed out. On eight of these questions
the voters approved the actions of the
General Assembly. On only four occasions
did the voters disapprove the General As-
sembly's actions. Thus, it is quite evident
that the people have not made frivolous
use of the referendum.
In fact, it has never been pointed out to
me or to the minority how the people of
Maryland have so abused their right to
referendum that it is now necessary to
make it more difficult for the people to vote
on issues which they are directly affected
by.
If the proponents of the five percent re-
quirement simply want a higher signature
requirement, then this will be naturally
accomplished through an increase in the
population in the state.
At present 27,600 signatures are neces-
sary to refer a law of a vote of the people.
If five percent were the requirement then
approximatly 46,000 signatures would be
necessary.
Projected population figures show that
in 1980 the number of people in Maryland
will be approximately 5,331,000. If the
signature requirement for referendum re-
mains at three percent and the same per-
cent of the people vote, then in order for
a bill to be referred to a vote of the people,
approximately 48,000 signatures will be re-
quired. If the percentage requirement is
increased to five percent, then approxi-
mately 80,000 signatures will be required.
We of the minority feel that this unduly
deters the people's right to referendum. If |
