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 777   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

[Nov. 14] DEBATES 777

DELEGATE MOSER: I think that you
have to look at the make up of the Gen-
eral Assembly. The General Assembly is
composed of representatives of the people,
including those in the area. I think it is
perfectly clear that if the temper of the
times is questionable on that issue in any
way at all, that the legislature most cer-
tainly would provide for a referendum.
Therefore if you mean to ask if this might
be harmful to the people, the answer is,
absolutely not. You can go even further.

If, for instance, a very limited form of
entity were being set up, such as a school
board, or a mass transit authority, and if
the General Assembly wanted to provide
a popularly elected representative govern-
ing board, it should not be forced to sub-
mit this to a referendum. It would not
advocate this approach, but it is conceiv-
able.

In addition, this permits a broad choice.
The General Assembly might provide refer-
enda on a county-by-county-basis, if it did
decide to submit the question to referendum,
or the General Assembly might provide it
on an area-wide basis.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schloeder.

DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: From your
answer here and from what is written in
the supporting Committee Memorandum, I
gather that you would feel that the Gen-
eral Assembly in its combined wisdom
would not act against the interests of the
people involved in the area where a multi-
county government might be established.

DELEGATE MOSER: I would not think
they would do it if they wanted to be
elected again.

THE CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing
anyone else to speak, the Chair recognizes
Delegate Fox for the purpose of making
an announcement.

DELEGATE FOX: Mr. Chairman, you
have it there. Maybe it would be quicker
if you made it.

THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I under-
stand that in the gallery over my head
there are forty students from the Sixth
Glen Avenue Elementary School in Salis-
bury with their principal, Mr. Sheldon Lar-
more, and their teacher, Miss Clare Meyer.

(Applause.)

Delegate Cardin.

DELEGATE CARDIN: The present
Constitution, Article XV, Section 1, has a

mandatory referendum. However, Article
XVI, Section 1, permitted people to bring
to referendum any form of boundary or
governmental change.

The new provision for referendum which
was adopted by this Committee yesterday
has eliminated section 16. In our restric-
tions to referendum, we have legislative
districts or apportions.

Is it conceivable that under section 7.10
of your article, empowering the General
Assembly to establish a new form of re-
gional or multi-county government, there
could be new district lines? If so, would
this automatically restrict this procedure
from being brought to referendum?

DELEGATE MOSER: I would say no,
if I understand your question. You men-
tioned some existing provisions. I was just
thumbing through the Constitution to find
them.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cardin
will restate her question.

DELEGATE CARDIN: The changes
made when we adopted a new referendum
procedure yesterday were such that we
limited the power of the people to bring to
referendum certain areas. One was legis-
lative districting or changes. In establish-
ing a new government, either multi-county
government or new regional government
with popularly elected representatives, is
it conceivable we would then have new dis-
tricts from which to elect people?

DELEGATE MOSER: The answer is
section 7.10 would override that limitation
which specifically permits a referendum
upon creation of so-called popularly elected
regional government. I take it your ques-
tion was whether a law for which the Gen-
eral Assembly provided no referendum
could be petitioned to referendum neverthe-
less.

DELEGATE MOSER: I would have to
look at the Suffrage & Elections provision,
which I do not have in front of me, to an-
swer your question.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cardin re-
fers to the provision adopted by the Com-
mittee of the Whole several days ago which
provides that the law providing for redis-
tricting or reapportionment shall not be
subject to —

DELEGATE MOSER: To answer your
question, flatly it was not our intention to
prevent action under 7.10 from being re-
ferred statewide on petition of the people.

 

 

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 777   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