|
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor, signify
by saying Aye; contrary, No.
The Ayes have it. It is so ordered.
(Whereupon, at 2:18 P.M. the Convention
resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole.)
(The mace was removed by the Sergcant-
at-Arms.)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
NOVEMBER 20, 1967—2:18 P.M.
PRESIDENT H. VERNON ENEY,
PRESIDING
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee of
the Whole will please come to order.
The first item under the general orders
of the day is a resumption of consideration
of Committee Recommendation JB-1.
We concluded consideration of the por-
tion of the committee recommendation dealt
with in part 1 of Debate Schedule No. 4,
and are ready to take up part 2 of Debate
Schedule No. 4. This embraces sections 5.12
to 5.28.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Mudd and
requests that he come forward to the
speaker's desk to present the Committee
Recommendation.
DELEGATE MUDD: We did that Fri-
day.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. We al-
ready had that Friday.
We concluded the question period and the
matter now arises under the section-by-
section consideration for purpose of amend-
ments.
Are there any amendments to section
5.12? The Chair hears none.
There is a minority amendment with re-
spect to section 5.13. Does the Clerk have
the amendment?
The page will distribute the amendment
marked C. This will be marked Amend-
ment No. 20. The Clerk will read the
amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 20,
to accompany Minority Report JB-1, by
Delegates Johnson, Harkness, Hickman,
Kahl, Siewierski, and Rush: On page 4 line
18 of section 5.13, Eligibility for Appoint-
|
ment as Judge after the word "person" add
the following words "shall be at least 30
years of age and".
THE CHAIRMAN: The Debate Sched-
ule allows five minutes to Delegate John-
son and five minutes to Delegate Mudd.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I yield the
five allotted minutes to Delegate Siewier-
ski, the chairman of the minority.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Siewierski.
DELEGATE SIEWIERSKI: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates: the minority
recommends that we have the minimum
age requirement of 30 years for eligibility
as a judge for several reasons.
First of all, we place a minimum age
requirement on several public officials, for
example, our chief executive and legisla-
tors. Why should we exclude the judiciary?
We submit that five years may not be long
enough to obtain the broad legal experi-
ence necessary to be a good judge. We sub-
mit that the longer a person practices law,
the more law he learns and the deeper his
understanding of the law becomes.
Some have suggested that perhaps a
ten-year minimum of experience at the
bar would be desirable. We suggest that a
five-year requirement of practice plus a
thirty-year age requirement is a just com-
promise.
Thirdly, we suggest that the public gen-
erally feels that an older person is better
qualified to sit in judgment. The older
judge is often better able to temper mercy
with justice.
I would like to point out that the Com-
mittee on Judicial Administration of the
Maryland Bar Association, which was
headed by Delegate Case, recommended
that the minimum age requirement of
thirty years be required for a district court
judge. We would assume that they would
recommend an even higher age requirement
for judges on the appellate level.
I would further like to point out that
twenty-four States have a minimum age
requirement, the average age being twenty-
six years, seven months, and one day. Six-
teen of these twenty-four states had the
requirement only on the lower court level,
and perhaps this is the level which should
have the requirement, because experience
has shown that judges appointed to the
appellate level are usually around forty
years of age and have at least twelve years
of experience.
|
