|
he would have to re-register in the other
county or come back to the county where
he was appointed judge to vote. I think
this points up the desirability of having
such amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Rosenstock.
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: I rise to
oppose this amendment of my fellow dele-
gate because under the first eleven sec-
tions we speak of a resident judge on a
circuit level. In the amendment it will be
a resident judge in district court in each
county. You cannot be a carpetbagger and
still be a resident judge in the county.
You would lose your eligibility, as I see it,
if you slipped in to be appointed and then
slipped out to serve as judge. Therefore,
it seems to be a superfluous amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Harkness.
DELEGATE HARKNESS: I do not de-
sire to speak in favor of it or against, but
I think the Convention has not been given
correct information about registering. If
a registered voter of Baltimore County
moves to Baltimore City, all he has to do is
get a transfer, and if the transfer is effec-
tive and the election is the next day, he is
perfectly eligible to vote in Baltimore City.
He then would lose his eligibility to vote
in Baltimore County.
Once you register in one jurisdiction and
you move to another jurisdiction there is
no time limit on how long you have to
reside there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I would like to
ask Mr. Mudd a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you yield for a
question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Do I under-
stand that the Committee intended that
residence and residents as used in this
article would have the same meaning as
used in regard to the qualification of
voters?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I have no better
definition to offer. We do not define it
|
here. It is as defined in the Constitution.
I assume that that would be persuasive in
defining it here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: No, but may I
speak in opposition to the amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: You may.
DELEGATE CHABOT: As I under-
stand the case law thus referred to includ-
ing the reference to a case in which at least
two of the delegates here had been attor-
neys, for the purpose of voting and for
holding office at least residence includes
the concept of domicile, the concept that
you are not simply physically in a place,
but you are in a place with the idea of
staying there for the indefinite future or
for a substantial period of time at the
very least.
Consequently, if that definition carries
over here, unless the General Assembly
changes the definition, the idea of moving
across the county line in order to accept a
judgeship and moving back would be a
strong indication that one had never ac-
cepted or never achieved a residence in
the place from which he was to be ap-
pointed. Without this amendment, one
would be ineligible for an appointment in
the place that he had moved to and stayed
for a very short period of time. With the
amendment, as Delegate Hanson has so
well pointed out, the situation would be un-
changed because in order to register in the
place to which one has moved, one merely
has to live there for three months prior
to the day of election; not prior to the
date of registration.
Consequently a person would be able to
move across the county line and if he were
a bona fide resident of the new county
could register the very next day and satisfy
the requirement of this amendment without
in any way satisfying the objectives of the
movers of the amendment.
I, therefore, urge you to vote against the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready ^or the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the first question
under Amendment No. 22, this is the por-
|
