DELEGATE BYRNES: Your question
was what would happen if a petition were
presented, and a bill were amended and
passed by the legislature? Our suggestion
was that the legislature be empowered to
enact a law that would set up a flexible
procedure so that the proponents could
withdraw their bill from the ballot. This
would occur at a stage when the legislature
would say that it thought the petitioners
had a good idea, but that there were some
technical problems or some substantial
problems that required editing and amend-
ing. The legislature would go through the
process, submit the bill back to the pro-
ponents who might be ten or five in num-
ber, who would then have an opportunity to
react to the changes. The proponents would
have the opportunity to say they thought
it better than the one they suggested and,
therefore, that they would withdraw, and
no longer want to go on the ballot because
they had accomplished their objective. If
on the other hand the legislature said it
did not think the proposal had merit or
public support the people would have the
right to go to the ballot.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: I have a fur-
ther question, Mr. Chairman. When you
say proponents might make a decision as
I understand it, proponents would be num-
bered in the tens of thousands.
How would you get a decision from this
group?
DELEGATE BYRNES: Our under-
standing is from the practices in other
states that the proponents are a clearly
defined group of individuals and are not
the petition signatories. I think we have
left this flexible. We would want the legis-
lature to enact legislation to define pro-
ponents. I think this is done in one of the
major states; proponents are the ten
people, for example, who are the original
organizers and sustaining organizers of
the petition and not all the petition signa-
tories.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: One further
question, Mr. Chairman. Would it be possi-
ble through the indirect initiative to repeal
a law recently passed by the General As-
sembly?
DELEGATE BYRNES: I would say
yes. I think you could design ^positive law
to have a negative effect on a current law,
yes.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: A final ques-
tion, if I may. Did your group consider the
idea of applying the initiative to constitu- |
tional amendments where it would seem to
me it might have a much more important
use than it would in this case?
DELEGATE BYRNES: As I recall, you
suggested that to us and we did, but the
Committee as a group did not discuss it.
The members of the subcommittee involved
in referendum and initiative, I recall, did
discuss it. We frankly decided that there
would be great reluctance on the part of
the members of this Convenion, being a
Constitutional Convention, to give that par-
ticular right to the people. Our research
indicated that there was some reluctance
to extend it to matters of a constitutional
nature.
The answer to the question is we decided
not to include it for constitutional amend-
ments for the reasons I suggested.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegate
Byrnes, could the same thing not be ac-
complished if a member of the electorate
persuaded his elected representative to in-
troduce a bill similar to his feeling?
DELEGATE BYRNES: I think this is
a very appropriate question. I meant to
deal with it in the discussion.
The answer to the question is absolutely
and unequivocally no. I had, as 1 men-
tioned before on the floor of the house, the
opportunity of working with the General
Assembly and I think it is clear that simply
submitting something by request, this is
what it amounts to, has little or no effect.
We are talking now about fundamental
issues, things that we frankly would like
to jar the legislature a little into thinking
about and reacting to. Of course, they will
not react atall now because of the press
of time and lack of time to anything other
than those bills which are clearly desig-
nated by the leadership and by perhaps
some public clamor to be of a fundamental
nature.
I think simply making it by request will
not do the job.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. Chairman, 1
wish to point out that in the gallery to the
rear of the podium is that great freedom
fighter of the N.A.A.C.P. in Washington,
Mr. Clarence Mitchell, who is the husband
of Delegate Juanita Mitchell and the father
of Senator Clarence Mitchell.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are happy to |
