|
As a matter of fact the exact language
of this amendment was proposed and voted
upon in our Committee and lost by a vote
of 11 to 8. Accordingly, the view of the
majority is that requiring one to be regis-
tered to vote as a qualification for appoint-
ment to the bench is unnecessarily restric-
tive and could conceivably deprive the
bench of the services of a valuable lawyer
who through inadvertence or otherwise had
not chosen to register or who had regis-
tered and whose right to vote had been
lost by virtue of its not being exercised.
We oppose the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Is there a divi-
sion of the question on the amendments?
I see two.
THE CHAIRMAN: Division has not
been called for. It can be.
DELEGATE JAMES: The second mat-
ter is different.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is divisible. Do
you call for a division?
DELEGATE JAMES: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The first will be
that embraced between lines 2 to 5 and the
second question will be that embraced in
lines 7 and 8.
Is there a second to the motion? Dele-
gate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: I second the mo-
tion for the division. The second part will
give force and effect in section 5.13 to
Amendment No. 18 which was made the
other day to section 5.10 to require that
there be at least one district court judge
resident in each county.
As long as that amendment was made,
certainly the second amendment here, in
line 28 of section 5.13 should be acceptable.
In the first part as Delegate Storm ex-
plained, it will simply require that a dis-
trict court judge live in the county long
enough to become a registered voter in-
stead of being able to move in one day and
then be appointed a district court judge in
that new county to which he has moved,
the next day. We think it is reasonable to
require three or six months, whichever this
Convention comes up with, as residence in
the county before a person can be ap-
|
pointed a district judge. We want to ob-
viate the possibility that a person can
move in one day and be appointed the next
day.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do any other dele-
gates desire to speak in opposition to the
first question?
Delegate Beatrice Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I have a
question.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom is it
directed?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: To Mr. Mudd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you respond?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Do you have
any figures which indicate how many law-
yers there are at the present time in Kent
County, or some of the other counties?
DELEGATE MUDD: Not off-hand. The
only figure I have is 3,500 in the State of
Maryland. There may be a member of my
Committee who can answer. If so, can you
volunteer?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer,
could you answer the inquiry as to how
many lawyers there are at the present
time in the Kent County bar?
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes, sir, very
gladly. At the present time there are ten
practicing lawyers and we also have four
part-time lawyers who are members of the
Maryland State Bar Association but who
are not actively practicing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you hear the
answer, Delegate Miller?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Yes, thank
you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment on the first question?
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNCKI: I want to
speak in favor of the amendment and I
want to make an observation while I am
doing this. It occurs to me this is the kind
of thing that can open the door to a little
bit of what we want to eliminate.
The person can live in the county and
move back into the city long enough to be
|
