|
in another, he should not be prohibited
from being considered for the bench. This
will insure that anyone nominated to the
judiciary will be a resident of or has prac-
ticed in the area where the vacancy has
occurred. This will broaden the number of
candidates and assure the knowledge of
the courts and the people in the particular
area affected.
I hope that you will support this
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman and
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee:
Delegate Proposal No. 5 was referred to
our Committee and representing the Com-
mission draft did include provisions iden-
tical with that obtaining in Amendment
No. 21. The discussion in our Committee
was that the inclusion of this provision of
eligibility of residence or principal office in
fact gave some attorneys a double oppor-
tunity for appointment to the bench com-
pared with those who lived and worked in
the same district.
By a vote of 14 to 4, 14 against this pro-
posal, we excluded it from our Recommen-
dation and adopted the requirement that
residence and not place of principal office
be the qualification.
Accordingly, consistent with the ma-
jority view of our Committee, we urge
that this amendment be defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: I have a question
for the maker of the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sollins, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Yes, I will.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Why have you not
extended this to the Court of Appeals
judgeships and intermediate court judge-
ships?
DELEGATE SOLLINS: As I under-
stand it, the circuits are much larger than
are the areas involved in the appointment
to superior and district court.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lord?
DELEGATE LORD: It is my under-
standing that Baltimore City is a separate
|
appellate circuit from Baltimore County.
You would have the same problem there,
I think.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sollins.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: My personal
opinion is I have no affection for any kind
of residency requirement. We should get
the best possible legal talent. If all the
judges lived on the same street, it would
concern me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: I juSt wanted to
clarify your position.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
want to speak in opposition? Delegate
Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman, in
marked contrast to my good friend Dele-
gate Finch, I have only submitted one dele-
gate proposal to this Convention. I hasten
to add that this proposal that I submitted
was the only proposal that was adopted by
the Committee on the Judicial Branch. My
proposal is that the superior court judge
and the district court judge should be a
resident of the area where the vacancy
occurs.
In the Commission draft, they proposed
that the judge be appointed either from
the area where the vacancy occurred if he
had his principal law office there, or if his
residence was in that area. Significantly
enough, nothing was said about the appel-
late courts where the appellate judges are
statewide.
I think if we do away with residency
requirements it should be at the appellate
level and not at the superior or district
court level. I asked the reporter for the
Convention why they made the exception
for the superior court and he advised me
that this was a Ruxton amendment.
Now, Ruxton is a community outside of
Baltimore City where, apparently, a lot of
Baltimore City residents have moved, but
they still desire to become judges in Balti-
more City.
I think we have gone on record as having
a district court for each county, a superior
court for each county, and I would hope
that this Committee of the Whole would
see to it that when we have a superior court
vacancy or a district court vacancy, that
the residents would have the first oppor-
tunity to fill the vacancy. I urge this Com-
|
