the people? If you have such a mandatory
review, which is totally foreign to our ju-
dicial system as it exists now, would not
a decision by the court saying, for ex-
ample, that it is constitutional have anef-
fect, perhaps on the electorate?
DELEGATE BYRNES: Our answer to
that is no; in response to the first portion
of your question, we are not mandating
judicial review and I did not understand
your first question to inquire about that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
questioning? If not, thank you very much,
Delegate Byrnes, for your presentation.
Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: I would like to
speak to it.
THE CHAIRMAN: First we want to
get the amendment. Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to call for amendment desig-
nated "D."
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be no. 11. The
Clerk will read it. Is there any desire to
have the Clerk read the entire amendment?
Would someone like to make the motion
that reading so much of the amendment be
considered all of it?
(The motion was made and duly sec-
onded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor, signify
by saying Aye; contrary, No. The Ayes
have it. It is so ordered.
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to yield at this point. Is this
controlled time?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, this is con-
trolled time.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I would like to
yield three minutes to Delegate Dorothy
Murray.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Murray.
DELEGATE D. MURRAY: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Delegate Byrnes, I will not
need three minutes because the hour grows
late again. I think what I said on refer-
endum goes doubly so for initiative. You
may cast your vote. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. Delegate
Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman, fel- |
low delegates, the whole question of initia-
tive was debated long and I think, given
full consideration in the Committee. As
you know, we included no recommendation
for its inclusion.
I think many of the arguments that were
made before in terms of strengthening of
the legislature certainly have to be made
in terms of the indirect initiative. The in-
itiative, whether direct or indirect, is an
assumption of legislative responsibility.
The indirect initiative, as outlined to you
by its proponents, does grant to the legis-
lature a minimum role in process of en-
acting laws upon petition by the voters.
Again we are faced with a problem of bal-
ancing the prerogatives of the legislature
and power which inherently lies with the
people.
We spent some time last 'week discussing
the legislative article, strengthening the
legislature, vesting the legislative power of
this state in the General Assembly. To
what extent and for what purpose are we
now placing restraints on the exercise of
that legislative power? It seems that the
high point of referendum, initiative and re-
call have long since passed. I think gen-
erally their popularity was a reflection of
a deep distrust by the people of their
elected ^representatives. To propose in 1967
that we strengthen our legislature only to
erode a part of that authority is incon-
sistent and moreover is not merited by our
legislative experience. To add initiative to
our constitution this year is to assume that
the General Assembly is not responsive to
the voters who elect it.
I am sure that not 90,000, but the ex-
pression even on the past of 900 interested
citizens on one issue would find not only a
responsive ear but also a sympathetic ear
in the General Assembly.
In addition to the theoretical arguments
against this, I think the amendment leaves
great room for all sorts of deviltry. No-
where are the sponsors identified. Nowhere
do the 90,000 voters who have to sign this
have to approve what the legislature has
done. It seems to me the sponsors can use
this to whatever purpose they want without
in any way informing the petitioners. As
a matter of fact, the recommendation itself
does not require that the initiated law or
the proposed initiated law be on the peti-
tion only than an adequate summary be
made. I think the whole thing should be
rejected, not only on theoretical, but also
on practical grounds. |
