|
level, anyway. Certainly in recent" years
they hare not been challenged in elections.
Inasmuch as their opinions are reported
in the press and the electorate has an op-
portunity to know where they take their
positions, we feel if you are going to have
non-competitive elections that would be a
proper place to have them, on the appellate
court level.
I do not view it as "a strict experimenta-
tion" unless, of course, you would like to
view the entire majority proposal as an ex-
perimentation. I do not think that that is
your point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: That is
not my point.
I have no further questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the minority spokesman?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Delegate John-
son, do you have any information on how
many presiding circuit court judges in the
State of Maryland received their position
by being elected, as opposed to being ap-
pointed?
THE CHAIRMAN: You mean when they
first ascended the bench?
DELEGATE DUKES: First took the
bench. How many were actually elected in-
stead of being appointed by the governor?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: It is my un-
derstanding in the recent history of Mary-
land, going back 50 or 60 years — someone
can correct me if I am wrong — I think only
four judges have ascended to the bench by
way of opposing an originally appointed
judge and being elected.
DELEGATE DUKES: Over what period
of time did that cover?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I think fifty
or sixty years. It might be beyond that.
DELEGATE DUKES: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further ques-
tions of the minority spokesman?
Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Delegate John-
son, do I understand that you retain the
lawyer poll for the appellate level and do
not retain it for the lower level?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Let me state
that in the minority's view there was not
|
a clear distinction as to whether or not the
minority would recommend a lawyer poll
to this Committee of the Whole. We thought
the question under section 5.21 would be
easily divisible. In other words, what we
would propose by way of amendment was
that section 5.21 be titled "Term of Office
of Appellate Court Judge," and then our
amendment would go up through "State."
We would also introduce an amendment
with respect to the lawyer poll only to keep
it consistent with the majority draft, but
I can say personally that I do not see where
it is necessary on the appellate court level.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: I am afraid I
do not understand. I am correct in assum-
ing you will not retain the suggested plan
at the trial court level?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Under our
view, if judges run — I didn't understand
your question, perhaps. That is my fault,
I am sure.
On the trial court level the judge runs
in open election, and I see no necessity for
having lawyer polls. Is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Would you see
any benefit at all to the public in providing
this poll for all four levels, even if it is
competitive election?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: That is an ex-
cellent question and it gave the Committee
some concern. What we had to weigh, Dele-
gate Byrnes, was the real possibility of a
judge receiving a substantial number of
votes in the poll, perhaps 60 or 70 percent,
but yet recognizing that that really would
not be much of an endorsement, either.
What do you do with the judge who re-
ceives 51 percent? We were very concerned
about that, particularly when there will be
judges who will be running in the same
election. In our opinion it is a necessary
evil in non-competitive elections on the trial
court level, but with an open election it
just simply is not worth the risk in our
opinion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Would you sug-
gest that there is a risk to the public in a
competitive open election that an emotional,
highly financed campaign would put some-
one in office in a very sensitive position?
Did you consider that risk?
|
