formula. They did not strike at the
roots of the problem, the weighted for-
mula for apportionment and particu-
larly the limitation on maximum repre-
sentation for the counties and the legis-
lative districts in Baltimore City. Thus
as the smaller counties gained slowly in
population, they were entitled to sub-
stantial increases in their representation
in the House of Delegates. For instance,
between 1940 and 1950 Caroline
County's population increased by 685
persons to a total of 18,234, entitling it
to three instead of two delegates, a 50
per cent increase in representation.
Similarly, a total population increase of
less than 25,000 entitled Carroll, Cecil,
Charles, and Howard counties to a total
of four more delegates while an increase
of approximately 440,000 in Baltimore
City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore,
Montgomery, and Prince George's coun-
ties did not entitle them to any increase
in the number of their delegates. To
prevent such losses in the relative
strength of the more populous counties
and Baltimore City, a constitutional
amendment was adopted in 1950 freez-
ing the House of Delegates in its exist-
ing size and apportionment as estab-
lished under the 1940 census.73
The 1950 amendment marked a per-
manent intensification of the apportion-
ment issue. That same year, pursuant
to a constitutional requirement,74 a
popular vote was taken on the question
of calling a constitutional convention.
Such a convention was approved by a
majority of votes cast on the question.
It was obvious that any constitutional
convention would have to deal with the
apportionment problem and that the
result would inescapably be a relative
decrease in the strength of the rural
73 md. const, art. III, § 5 (1950).
74 MD. const, art. XIV, § 2 (1950).
|
counties. As a result the General Assem-
bly refused to enact any legislation pro-
viding for election of convention dele-
gates or the setting of a convention
date.75
In the succeeding years the legislature
repeatedly refused to enact any reappor-
tionment measures. Even a relatively
mild proposal introduced in 1960 failed
to pass either chamber.76 This proposal
would have left the Senate unchanged
but would have instituted the following
formula for apportionment of the
House of Delegates:
Any county, irrespective of popula-
tion, would have at least 2 dele-
gates.
Any county with 50,000 population
would have 3 delegates.
Any county with 75,000 population
would have 4 delegates.
Any county with 100,000 popula-
tion would have 5 delegates.
Any county with 150,000 popula-
tion would have 6 delegates.
Any county with 200,000 popula-
tion would have 7 delegates.
Any county with 300,000 popula-
tion would have 8 delegates.
Any county with 400,000 popula-
tion would have 9 delegates.
Any county with over 500,000 pop-
ulation would have 10 delegates.
It will be noted immediately that this
was again a weighted formula giving a
county of 50.000 population three times,
proportionately, the representation .given
a county of 500,000 population. More-
over, the limit on maximum representa-
75 In the Senate only 1 vote in favor of the
necessary implementing measure was cast ex-
cept for Baltimore City and the three largest
counties. md. S. jour. 500 (1951). In the
House there were only 7 such votes. md. H.
del. jour. 233 (1951).
76 MD. S. jour. 220 (1960); md. H. del.
jour. 282 (1960).
145
|
