|
report three. It requires them to report
three eligible members. Now, if in their
judgment only two are eligible, could they
not then report two and further report that
only two within the jurisdiction are found
to be eligible, and hence avoid the dilemma
that is created in these small counties?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Within that inter-
pretation it might be correct in that way,
but that seems to be a rather difficult solu-
tion and interpretation. That is my view.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Key.
DELEGATE KEY: I have a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom is the ques-
tion directed, Delegate Key?
DELEGATE KEY: Delegate Chabot, I
suppose.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Key.
DELEGATE KEY: Delegate Chabot, I
too am quite concerned about the smaller
counties, and their judicial problems, but
I do know, as Delegate Sherbow stated, that
the larger city and the counties in the
metropolitan areas do have more crime.
Therefore, the need for good judges there
I would think is a little greater, and my
question is this: If the smaller counties
cannot have three names on the eligible
list, how can they have two permanent
judges from their county, one in the su-
perior court and one in the district court?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: With all due
respect, I do not really believe that this is
a question relevant to this issue. It was a
matter that we had decided upon last week,
and I may say on some of the votes I voted
with Delegate Key; but I think that is be-
yond us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Key.
DELEGATE KEY: Mr. Chairman, I
think that that is the point. If we are say-
ing that the smaller counties have enough
judge material available to have two perma-
nent judges in each county, I feel that we
can make the allowance for the need of
the larger metropolitan areas by allowing
this amendment to be as Delegate Adkins
|
proposes, with three to five names being
submitted to the governor; certainly the
counties can have enough eligible people
available to have three on a list.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan,
for what purpose do you rise?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I would like
to speak against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else de-
sire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Scanlan, you may proceed.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I am not un-
sympathetic to what Delegate Chabot is
trying to do. I think overall that Delegate
Adkins' amendment would best serve our
purposes. We have now, or we either have
or are about to circumscribe the power of
the executive of this State in appointing
judges we have elected, and I think rightly
by 1;he governor's nominating commission
plan.
However, we must recognize that to that
extent the executive power has been cir-
cumscribed. Obviously Delegate Adkins'
amendment is an attempt to eliminate or
minimize possible abuses where powerful
forces, often from the bar associations, the
lawyers of the community, could present
just two names, one a man who obviously
the governor would never appoint under
any circumstances, and in effect make the
appointment himself.
I think it is far less dangerous to have
this happen in the higher level courts
where the circuits are large and where the
focus of public attention is great; where
the evil is most likely to occur, if it ever
does occur, is in connection with the nomi-
nating commissions' recommendations of
eligible appointments to the superior court,
or to the district court. It is there that the
governor should be protected by making his
choice at least a real one, by giving him
the opportunity to pick at least three men.
I am sorry that the case of Garrett
County comes back and plays a part in so
many of our deliberations. Hard cases make
bad law. They have six lawyers there any-
way, and I think they will be able to find
three eligible appointees.
In any event, on the one side you are
protecting the executive power from the
possibility that the nominating commis-
sions will be abused in the local areas, es-
pecially with respect to the district court
and superior court judges. Balanced against
that you have the purpose of the Chabot
amendment, which is laudatory, to take
|
