|
THE CHAIRMAN: The mover modifies
the amendment submitted by striking the
last sentence beginning with the word "If"
on line 18, and continuing through line 24.
Is that correct?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Please so indicate
on your copies that the following words are
stricken: "If the judicial nominating com-
mission has not presented its list of nomi-
nees to the governor within sixty days
after the occurrence of the vacancy, the
governor may make an appointment with-
out the benefit of nominations from the
commission".
I assume the modification is acceptable
to the other members of the minority; can
you say that it is?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I believe that
is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: In the absence of
objections from any other sponsors, the
Chair assumes they approve it, and we will
recognize Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: What does
this amendment propose to do and why?
It proposes to limit the nominating com-
mission and selected laymen to the ap-
pellate courts level, which consisted of
elected leaders and includes the Court of
Appeals and the intermediate appellate
court.
Although some might say that our posi-
tion is inconsistent, let me state for the
record that there are great differences be-
tween appellate courts and the trial courts.
Very briefly, some of the differences
take place in the manner the cases are
heard, the issues involved, the relatively
few numbers of cases appealed, and by
comparison, the small number of appellate
court judges, twelve, as against the tre-
mendous number of trial court judges,
probably easily in excess of 106, as pro-
posed by this constitution. The nominating
commission, consisting of six statewide
elected lawyers and six laymen appointed
by the governor, as proposed by this
amendment, should be an aid to the gover-
nor in selecting the best of the best to
preside on one of our appellate courts.
More often the commission will seriously
consider experienced trial court judges,
and, therefore, have a logical starting point
for their deliberations. Innumerable diffi-
culties would likely be encountered in filling
all of the nominating commissiors with the
best people for the job, because as we
|
understand it, there will probably be
needed at least twenty-four separate nomi-
nating commissions throughout the State.
This fact, together with all of its potential
operational problems and our misgivings
with respect to this procedure as we have
previously stated, compels the minority to
strongly urge the Committee of the Whole
not to lock this possibly fruitless detailed
section into our constitution.
May I also add that the minority has
struck what we believe to be a compromise
between the position of delegates who urge
the adoption of a state-wide nominating
commission and those who are totaly op-
posed to the principle as a matter of prin-
ciple and, therefore, would prefer to see
the governor solely responsible for the
selection.
We have attempted to take a sense of the
convention and we sincerely beieve that the
majority of the proponents in favor of the
nominating commission as well as the ma-
jority of opponents to nominating commis-
sions will find this amendment very ac-
ceptable and we urge its adoption.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman and
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee of
the Whole, I arise to oppose this amend-
ment.
As you may well understand, this sub-
ject matter was debated at great length
within the Committee. It was broached in
this manner: The first question submitted
to the Committee after considerable debate
was whether the system of judicial selec-
tion in Maryland should be changed.
That proposition was adopted by a sub-
stantial majority of our Committee.
The next matter proposed and discussed
was whether the so-called merit system or
Missouri plan or Niles plan should be con-
sidered as the better method of selecting
judges for this State.
Likewise that proposal in principle was
adopted by a substantial majority of our
Committee on the Judicial Branch.
Next in order was the question of wheth-
er this method of selection should apply to
all judges. That likewise was considered at
some length and by a substantial majority,
our Committee on the Judicial Branch voted
that the method of selection under the so-
called merit plan or Missouri plan or Niles
plan should apply to the selection of judges
at all four of the court tier levels.
|
