The question has been raised as to
whether delegates to a constitutional
convention which might be held in
Maryland prior to 1970 must be elected
or whether some of them (perhaps eight
out of a total membership of 150) could
be appointed either by the governor or
by the legislature, or by one with the
concurrence of the other.
It appears that even though no direct
or conclusive Maryland authority has
been found, the selection of delegates
by means other than election by some or
all of the qualified voters of the State,
would be improper.
At the outset it should be stated that
there is very little direct authority, either
decisional or through text writers, on
this question. The reason for this is that
the question which arises concerning the
selection of delegates is not whether or
not all delegates are to be elected — this
is assumed — but how the delegates are
to be elected to produce a representative
convention. An illustrative example of
this is seen in the comprehensive opinion
of the attorney general to Governor J.
Millard Tawes, dated February 9, 1965.
In that opinion Attorney General
Thomas B. Finan ruled that the Gen-
eral Assembly can legally call a consti-
tutional convention prior to the vote to
be taken at the general election in 1970
pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2 of
the Maryland Constitution. In setting
forth the steps which must be followed
in calling such a convention, the Attor-
ney General ruled that the General
1 This article was prepared for the Commis-
sion by Lewis A. Noonberg, Commission re-
porter to the Committee on Miscellaneous
Provisions; Assistant Attorney General; A.B.,
1959, Dartmouth College; LL.B., 1962, Uni-
versity of Maryland; member of the Maryland
Bar.
356
|
Assembly "may, but need not, submit
the question [of holding a Constitu-
tional Convention] to a vote of the
people. . . ." In this connection the
opinion recites:
"The next question ... is whether
the General Assembly can call a con-
stitutional convention and the elec-
tion of delegates thereto without first
submitting the question ... to a vote
of the people."2 (Emphasis supplied.)
The opinion also recites in connection
with the question of when the election
of delegates can be held :
"If a vote is called for on [the
question of holding a constitutional
convention], the election of delegates
to the convention can be held at the
same time or at a separate election."3
(Emphasis supplied.)
It certainly appears from the quoted
language that the Attorney General con-
templated a Constitutional Convention
to which the delegates were elected.
While the proposed constitutional
convention is not to be held pursuant to
Article XIV, Section 2, it should be
noted that this section specifically pro-
vides "for the election of delegates
thereto," and the apportioning of such
delegates. In the same opinion of the
Attorney General above referred to it is
stated, with respect to the question of
apportioning of delegates to the conven-
tion:
"[W]e do feel that delegates to a
convention should be apportioned on
the basis set forth in [Article XIV,
Section 2]."4
2 50 op. att'y gen. 54 (1965).
3 Id. 55.
4 Ibid.
|
