I want to get this thing before the house.
It seems if we call for a vote on the ruling
of the Chair at this point while the Chair
is trying to get the matter before the
house, it is a hard way to do it. I am trying
to cooperate with Delegate Scanlan and
find out whether everyone has copies of the
amendment submitted by Delegate Scanlan
and Delegate Bothe so we can have the
matter properly before the house.
It is a simple matter. It strikes out lines
15 through 25. We really can take it by
unanimous consent, take it on a verbal mo-
tion, if there would be a unanimous con-
sent to that proposition. It is relatively
easy to understand. In the absence of ob-
jection, that is the form in which it will
be submitted.
Does anyone wish to be heard on the
question?
DELEGATE KOSS: I would like to
address a question to Delegate Scanlan if
I might. I would like to know whether he
thinks that these safeguards are not neces-
sary in order to guard against frivolous
use of the referendum or whether he thinks
they are not constitutional in statute, or
what is the basis for striking it?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Obviously they
are statutory materially. While there are
safeguards at the present time, there may
come a time when they do not do the job.
There may come a time when they are un-
necessary or unduly restrictive.
It seems to me this is precisely the type
of material that would be better left out of
the constitution and entrusted to the legis-
lature. It is purely a matter of administra-
tive detail saying the petition may consist
of several papers, each paper containing a
full text, et cetera. I think that is entirely
unnecessary and really has no place in a
modern and hopefully sparse constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Point of inquiry
from the Chair.
Section 3 begins "a petition". If this
language is not in, would that raise a ques-
tion as to whether it had to be all in one
paper? This question occurred to the Chair.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I would think
this would be a legislative judgment. I
think the legislature could define what a
petition, but I doubt the legislature would
say it has to be one single sheet. They
would have to make provision for the form,
but I think provision for the form of peti-
tion again is a matter that should rest with |
the legislature in the statute and not in
the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are prob-
ably right.
Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask Delegate Scanlan if he
does not agree that not only section 4, but
other sections of this proposal as well also
are subject to the same criticism. There is
much in this provision, it seems to me,
statutory in nature that should be left to
the legislative process to handle in the
proper manner.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I certainly
agree with Delegate Gleason. I gather that
is part of the thrust of Mr. Gilchrist's
amendment that will be offered later.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further com-
ments?
Delegate Schloeder, would you like to di-
rect a question to Delegate Scanlan?
Will Delegate Scanlan yield?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Certainly.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Delegate
Scanlan, is it not true that the material
very much like the material contained in
section 4 is presently found in the 1867
Constitution?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: No question
about that, but one of the jobs we came
down here to do is to eliminate unnecessary
material and I think this is a classic ex-
ample of it.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Thank you.
Would you yield for another question?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Is it not
true that the material that you would like
to delete here is also not found in the Con-
stitutional Commission draft?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: That is right,
I do not believe the Commission draft has
material similar to this.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Since you
were one of the authors of that article, I
bow to your knowledge. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I wonder
if Delegate Scanlan would yield to a ques-
tion? |
