|
DELEGATE JOHNSON: We considered
the possibility that the electorate could
elect whomever they pleased, but in our
view if this were in fact a government of
the people and by the people, and if the
government is for all practical purposes
"to the people," and if they in fact provide
the office of judge through their taxes, they
should have a right to determine who in
their opinion should fill that position.
If there is a risk involved, as you indi-
cated, we are willing to take it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Delegate
Johnson, I would like to ask you the same
question I asked your Committee Chairman.
What was the discussion in our Commit-
tee as to how a lay member of this nomi-
nating committee would know the quali-
fications of the various attorneys in a large
metropolitan county or a large city?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I am at a dis-
tinct disadvantage because I do not believe
I was present when Chairman Mudd an-
swered the question. But let me say that
in my own opinion most of the witnesses
and even in our discussion we indicated in
all probability that the lay members of the
nominating commission really would not
know too much about the general or the
majority of the lawyers in the area. This
is one of the reasons, at least in the mi-
nority view, why we did not think a nomi-
nating commission would be effective.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Schneider.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Delegate
Johnson, in the telephone conversation we
had with Judge Holt and several members
of the Missouri Nominating Commission,
what was the job held by the layman mem-
ber of the Commission with whom we
talked? Do you remember?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I do not.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: It was
something like a corporation head or presi-
dent of a company?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I do not know.
If you have that information, I would not
mind a bit if you told us.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: It is prob-
ably on my desk and it would take me
twenty minutes to find it. I know it is some-
|
thing on that level. Do you envision that
the governor would put sheepish laymen on
this commission that would be easily led
by lawyers, or he would put men of stature
that would not be easily persuaded without
good reason.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I have no idea
what a governor might do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schneider.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Do you en-
vision that this nominating commission
would blindly make its nomination, or
would you envision perhaps that they would
look at the resumes and also interview and
test public sentiment by perhaps hearings
and other methods of this sort?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I think a lot
will do either. That is what concerns me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate L. Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Delegate
Johnson, do you feel that a voter is more
qualified to make a selection of the quali-
fications of a judge, or would a layman be
more qualified?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Would you re-
peat that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Would a
voter be more qualified to ascertain the
qualifications of a judge, say compared to
a law member of a nominating commis-
sion? Which one would be more qualified,
in your opinion?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: If I may an-
swer the question in this way, it is the
opinion of the minority that it is the right
of the citizens of Maryland, all the citizens
of Maryland, to have some say in who
their judges will be. To that extent they
are qualified.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Do you feel
that a lay member would have more time
to reflect and to think and to really deter-
mine the qualifications of a candidate for
the judgeship?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Certainly a
lay member of a nominating commission
|
