I am convinced a great many people here
are already convinced of the validity of
five per cent. I was going to submit an
amendment for ten per cent, and I was
going to do that on the basis of three
points: one was the fact that a number of
the legislators and other people who testi-
fied before our Committee suggested ten
per cent. Among these was Senator Brew-
ster, and among these were those who
made the point that it would be more diffi-
cult to have a referendum by virtue of re-
quiring the signature from three or more
counties. The other reason that I feel this
was is the fact that since we have ap-
proved the Legislative Article with its ac-
companying recommendations, I would sug-
gest the time we spend in either collecting
signatures or educating to gain citizens to
support would be much better spent in
electing qualified persons to both houses in
the legislature. My third point is based on
the amount of study that we have done in
the Committee on the legislative reforms or
the constitutional reforms of those states
which have recently written constitutions;
and I would point out that the States of
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New
Jersey and Hawaii and Georgia, all of
whom have written constitutions since
1945, have not included referendum in their
constitutions. The referendum, I would sug-
gest is fairly out of date, and I would not
allow it to be used or would hope it would
not be used here as a method of frivolously
overturning the deliberate process that we
have set up the legislative branch.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is anyone in favor
of the amendment? We still have a little
controlled time left. I am not urging any-
one to use it. The question arises upon the
adoption of the amendment. All in favor,
say Aye; opposed, No. The Noes seem to
have it. Unless there is demand for roll
call, the Chair rules that the Noes have it.
Any further amendments to section 3?
Delegate Kahl.
DELEGATE KAHL: I would like to
make a motion to reconsider the amend-
ment by Delegate Hostetter.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules it is
in order. The question arises upon the mo-
tion to reconsider the vote by which Amend-
ment No. 6 failed of adoption.
DELEGATE KAHL: My reasons are
based on the fact that I feel this amend-
ment is less one of substance than one of
clarification. The term "emergency law"
as used in this amendment has been used
in Maryland in the past. I feel it should |
be continued. The amendment also defines
what is meant by emergency laws whereas
the Majority Report introduced a new
phrase, special legislation, but did not
clarify the term. Since it appears the Ma-
jority and Minority Reports have the same
objective, it would appear to me we would
be safer by using the terminology as we
used before.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish
to be heard on the motion to reconsider?
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: If it is in
order, I would like to rise to support Miss
Kahl. I do not know if I would be out of
order. I thought maybe somebody opposing
the motion would be in order.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may be.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: If the Gen-
eral Assembly faced the storm halfway
through the passage under the language
suggested by Mr. Hostetter, they could
remedy it by inserting an emergency clause.
Under the language of the Committee if
the bill had not originally been introduced
as special legislation, they could not do
that. True, they could introduce a new bill
but as you pointed out yourself from the
Chair, they might run into the statutory
deadline. I think on balance, Mr. Hostetter's
amendment does give the legislature the
flexibility it should have in dealing with
that situation, should it arise. 1 rest my
case with the remarks Mr. Case made in
his previous address to the Convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is on the mo-
tion to reconsider. Delegate Koss, do you
wish to be heard?
DELEGATE KOSS: Since the previous
speakers spoke to the substance of the
amendment, I think it should be in order I
should do so also.
It does not seem to me the Committee
recommendation would prevent the General
Assembly from acting in either the situa-
tion declared by Mr. Case nor can I see
what Delegate Kahl's objection to this is.
What this does, it seems to me, is en-
hance the opportunity of the General As-
sembly to react to changing situations with-
out being bound either by the definition,of
an emergency which as we pointed out be-
fore the courts might at some later date
decide to investigate behind the definition
of maintenance of the public health and
safety. I would oppose the reconsideration. |
