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 724   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
724 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 13]
ernment. We have made it more efficient.
We have taken all these offices away from
you, we have taken government as a whole
further from you, but we have balanced
this by giving you something you did not
have before. That is the direct and orderly
way in which you can participate in your
own self-government. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish
to speak against the amendment? In the
absence of members wishing to speak on
the subject, the matter is before the Com-
mittee. The question arises upon adoption
of Amendment No. 11. Would the Clerk
sound the quorum bell so that everyone can
be registered.
This is a roll call on the amendment.
DELEGATE DELLA: There is a lack
of quorum.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the delegate seek-
ing a quorum call?
DELEGATE DELLA: That is what I
thought you called for.
THE CHAIRMAN: I just asked that he
sound the bell so that the people come in
and register themselves on the amendment.
This is an actual vote on the amendment.
The Clerk will record the roll call. There
being 27 votes in the affirmative and 86 in
the negative, the amendment fails for want
of a majority.
The question now is the submission of
the entire subject matter under Committee
Recommendation S&E-1 for adoption or re-
jection by the Committee of the Whole. I
think we promised Delegate Hutchinson an
opportunity to submit his amendment to a
small portion. I think yours, Delegate Gil-
christ, goes to the entire matter. That
would be the last thing we take up.
DELEGATE HUTCHINSON: I would
like to submit amendment lettered M.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
prepared?
DELEGATE HUTCHINSON: Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read
the amendment marked M. Does everyone
have a copy of the amendment?
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 12
to Committee Recommendation S&E-1 by
Delegate Hutchinson: On page 3 line 8 of
Committee Recommendation S&E-1 add the
following: "7. Re-enactment of Repealed
Legislation. Once a law has been repealed
by the people of the State, no subsequent
law designed to accomplish that which was
rejected by the people may be re-introduced
in the General Assembly until a period of
two years has elapsed since the effective
date of the repeal."
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Hutchinson.
DELEGATE HUTCHINSON: Mr.
Chairman, we discussed today and tonight
the issue of referendum and initiative. We
have been speaking about public involve-
ment and at one point last week it was
pointed out that at times we do have to
represent the people who have elected us.
I have in my hand twenty-eight petitions,
some completely filled, some not. These peti-
tions were given to me by people of my
district in support of a proposal I put in,
Proposal No. 61, which is similar to the
amendment before us. The only difference
is that in the original proposal I had set
a three-year limit. In response to these
petitions, which amount to close to 400
signatures, I must speak in favor of this
amendment. If this amendment is defeated,
I will propose a second amendment again
out of courtesy to the people of my dis-
trict.
We have been speaking, as I said, on
referendum, and in a way we have taken
the bite out of it. We have stated that
46,000 people must sign a petition in order
to refer a law and I do not disagree with
this requirement. We have stated that at
least 25 per cent of those people voting
must vote on the issue, which means a con-
siderable portion of the population of the
state must vote on the issue.
Because of that and because a consider-
able number of people must vote, it seems
to me that if we are going to listen to and
take the recommendations of the public, of
the people of the State of Maryland, we
must pass an amendment of the sort I have
put on the desk.
It may be said that one of the major
arguments against such a proposal, and I
can see the reasons for saying it, is that
this does not allow the legislature to be
very pliable, to change with the times, that
they would be dictated to for two years. I
think this is a very good argument against
such a proposal.
Yet, I am not a person who is always in
favor of protecting the people from them-
selves. I think if the people act or react to
an act of the legislature, they must take
the consequences whether they be right or


 
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 724   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