1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

shall not have any say in the election of qualified attorneys
to the office of judge, and now the proponents of this
measure want to tell you and the other citizens of this
State that our fellow citizens shall have absolutely no
say in who shall judge them and who shall judge their cases.
If we remove this right of removal, we will set
down, we will take out, I beg your pardon, the precedent
that has been established in our Constitution. If we
will remove this right of removal, we will not have the right
of removal as we have in Rule 542 of the Rules of Procedure.
There has been a move afoot for years to do away
with the right of removal because of the charge that
although sometimes correct, this right of removal is used
for delay. I submit that many, many times it enables a
litigant to have a fair and impartial trial either in front
of a fair and impartial judge or a fair and impartial jury.
If you remove this right of removal, you are telling
litigants everywhere that they have absolutely no choice.
They must take that judge or this jury to which their case
is assigned.
Consider that very carefully and please, please