clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 717   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
[Nov. 13] DEBATES 717
have that freedom fighter up there join us
freedom fighters down here.
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
Chairman and members of the Convention,
I would like to ask the minority spokesman
this question. Does the minority on this re-
port feel that when the processes of refer-
endum have become so restrictive as to
make it almost prohibitive to the people of
the State of Maryland that there is all the
more reason for the people of Maryland
to have a voice by the way of initiative?
DELEGATE BYRNES: I do not think
there is any question about it, Delegate
Weidemeyer. This concerns me greatly and
I think it has been a great concern of the
people, too.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I wonder if I
might direct the delegate's attention to
page 6 of his report. As I read this provi-
sion, it provides that if the legislature does
not in fact pass the law proposed by the
initiative, the secretary of state shall pro-
vide for that proposal to be voted on at the
first regular election held not less than 60
days after the end of the session which
fails to enact it.
Do I take it that if there is no election
in the ordinary course of our general elec-
tions here, we would have a special elec-
tion for this proposal?
DELEGATE BYRNES: I would answer,
no, to that. I think using the term "regular
election" would negate that idea. If you
think that is unclear, we would welcome a
clarifying amendment. I think the term
regular satisfies it.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Then I would
suggest to you that the phrase not less
than sixty days after the end of the ses-
sion does need some modification.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Not less than.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: I would like to
ask the gentleman if he is familiar with
the right of free petition as exercised in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
DELEGATE BYRNES: Do I understand
the term was free petition?
DELEGATE PULLEN: The right of
free petition as exercised in the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, where, I believe,
the legislature sits continuously.
DELEGATE BYRNES: My understand-
ing of the Massachusetts procedure is that
they have what we know as direct initia-
tive. I am familiar with that, but not with
the term "free petition."
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Miller. B.
Miller.
DELEGATE BEATRICE MILLER: Is
the maker of the minority report aware
that of the nineteen states he mentioned
which provide initiative, twelve of these
have initiative by statutory law and only
seven have initiative in their constitutions?
DELEGATE BYRNES: I was.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Delegate
Byrnes, you stated that it required a peti-
tion of 90,000 signatures to bring a bill to
the attention of 'the legislature. I am going
to ask you a question partially in argu-
ment and partially as a question. What do
you think would happen to any petition or
any proposed bill or any letter delivered
to the legislature today that had 90,000
signatures attached to it or 9,000 or even
900? Don't you think it would get immedi-
ate attention?
DELEGATE BYRNES: I think that
there is no question that a petition pre-
sented to the legislature with 90,000 signa-
tures would get a very great degree of at-
tention but I think this begs the question.
The problem is how can we instill in the
people the motivation to take that action?
They will not do it if all it means is the
legislature will give it due consideration. I
think what prompts these people to move
and what prompts us to give them the op-
portunity to move and involve themselves
with self-government is the knowledge on
their part that they will be effective in
their ultimate aim is to establish that law
as part of the law of this state, not simply
to go to the legislature and visit Annapolis
and watch debate on their topic and watch
it perhaps die or be amended to death.
I think they have to have that balancing
power so it has not only the advantages
you suggest but also the second advantage
of giving the people that extra weapon of
going to the ballot if necessary. We think
it will not be necessary in nine times out
of ten but nevertheless we prefer to leave
the power with them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor. L.
Taylor.


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 717   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives