|
necessary expertise to make what amounts
to final selections of our judiciary.
Since the majority position presumes
that the governor may pick only his man
to fill the job and not the best man avail-
able, that is, if we do not adopt their sys-
tem — and we disagree with this — that this
will occur since they presume this is the
case, then could he not capture members of
the nominating commission, and the public
know nothing of it?
No matter how you look at it, would we
not be taking away the voice of the citizens
of Maryland to select their own judges, re-
gardless of how well-meaning our actions
may be?
Lest I be accused of suggesting that this
is a concept that is a new one, let me be
one of the first to say that variations of
this plan have been around over 30 years.
I might add, with notable lack of general
adoption by other states. While I am mak-
ing some admissions, let me also say that
some of the finest legal minds in the coun-
try, as well as in our State, urge adoption
of this plan, but I submit that the record
will show, if it has not already shown, that
as many oppose it, more, I submit, than
propose it.
May I also make clear that in my opinion
everyone who urges adoption of this plan
except those, if any, currently contem-
plating judicial appointment, do so with
deep conviction and with a sincere effort to
improve the judiciary in Maryland. I fully
anticipate that more than a handful of
outstanding delegates of this Convention,
friends all, I trust, will urge adoption of
this plan, because in its simplest terms
what we are talking about is a philosophy
of government; I respect the views of
others proposing this plan, and I believe
that most respect the views of the signa-
tories to this minority report.
I trust you know something about the
Missouri plan, but did you know that al-
though it has applied to the appellate court
in Missouri and the trial courts in St.
Louis and Kansas City since 1940, it has
not been extended to any other county in
that State? Did you know that no other
state in the entire country has the plan that
is proposed in the majority report on a
statewide basis at all levels of the judicial
system, as proposed by the majority?
Are you aware that some of the questions
expressed in the minority report of this
Committee with respect to the adoption of
this plan were shared by Judge Menchine
|
and other judges of the Baltimore County
bench, by Judge O'Donnell and Judge
Prendergast of the Baltimore City bench,
by Judge Wilson K. Barnes of the Court of
Appeals of Maryland, by former Governor
Tawes and by Governor Agnew, the Chief
Executive of our State, among many, many
others?
During the debate on matters pertaining
to selection and tenure you will hear from
the proponents of this proposal that it is
being accepted far and wide, and that
every state is either adopting it or will
soon do so. That argument, if there is one,
can be answered by the notable failure to
adopt the plan in any significant form in
any state that recently attempted to write
a constitution, and its notable absence from
the vast majority of the other states.
You will hear how this nominating and
non-competitive election procedure has been
hailed and publicized far and wide. It has
appeared in bar association journals, as
distributed to your desks, and in the Ameri-
can Judicature magazine, and many many
periodicals and pamphlets flowing from
Missouri. I agree with their position con-
cerning its endorsement. You may hear
that everyone loves this plan in Missouri.
Yet the American Judicature Society ar-
ticle contains reference to the fact that a
majority of lawyers polled in Missouri,
while approving some of the features of
the plan indicated they felt it did not take
politics out of the selection process.
You will be told that Maryland is not
getting the best of the best for its judi-
ciary because some members of the bar will
not accept the position because of the fact
that they have to face the citizens in elec-
tion one time every seventeen years. In a
defense of all the outstanding Maryland
jurists who have taken this so-called risk,
I repeat that no evidence supporting this
contention was aired before our Committee
or anywhere else.
As a personal note, may I say that I am
not at all certain that I want a man to
serve as a judge who is unwilling to put
his qualifications before the electorate at
least one time in sixteen or seventeen
years. Reform is really not needed in the
selection and tenure of Maryland judges
in the opinion of the minority, because
something has to be pretty bad before it
can be reformed. However, in the spirit of
good faith and acknowledgement of the
sincerity of many proponents of this meas-
ure we endorse it on an appellate court
level with a slight revision. We strongly
|
