|
five eligible persons nominated by a judi-
cial nominating commission. The com-
mission shall make nominations to fill a
vacancy not more than thirty days prior
to nor more than sixty days after the oc-
currence of the vacancy. If the judicial
nominating commission has not presented
its list of nominees to the governor with-
in sixty days after the occurrence of the
vacancy, the governor may make an ap-
pointment without the benefit of nomina-
tions from the commission."
THE CHAIRMAN: The debate schedule
authorizes thirty minutes debate controlled
to Delegate Johnson, thirty minutes to
Delegate Mudd and thirty minutes of un-
controlled debate.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: The minority
members of our Committee are prepared to
rest our case on the basis of our report
and the previous presentation. We would
like to yield back all of our time and re-
quest an extension of the uncontrolled de-
bate for the opponents and proponents
alike.
Is that appropriate?
THE CHAIRMAN: No. You can call on
anyone you like or allocate your time any
way you choose.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Then I plan
to make an explanatory statement and then
reserve a short time to conclude.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is possible. You
may proceed.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
may I request at the outset that this ques-
tion be divided; I believe that it is easily
divisible. The first portion of our amend-
ment goes toward establishing a nominating
commission for the appellate court and
then we differ with the majority later on
also with respect to the manner of selec-
tion, that is the manner of final appoint-
ment by the governor rather than the alter-
native.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you indicate
the lines that you think comprise the first
question?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Beginning of
course with line 6 through the first word
on line 18.
THE CHAIRMAN: The word "va-
cancy"?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Dees the Chair
understand that in suggesting that division
the portion of your amendment embraced
in lines 1 to 4 would neverth less remain
unimpaired ; in other words, the first ques-
tion would arise for all of section 5.14, is
that correct?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes, with the
und.rstanding that we would offer the sec-
ond part of the amendment subsequent to
the action of the Committee on the Whole
on the first part.
THE CHAIRMAN: But to determine
whether the question is divisible, the Chair
has to determine that each portion can
stand alone.
In other words, you would still int.nd to
strike out all of section 5.14 and then con-
sider lines 8 down to the first word of 18
and then you would consider the remaining
portion of lines 18 to 24?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: We would sub-
mit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be in
order to do it in that manner. At least we
would request the Chair to consider it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Chair
would have to rule that it is not properly
divisible because the test would be that
each could stand alone.
On that basis if the first portion were
rejected and the second portion adopted, it
would not make sense. Do you follow me?
In other words, if the portion from lines
8 to the first word of 18 were not adopted
and the portion from the second word of
line 18 to the end were adopted then you
would have the last sentence taking the
place of all of section 5.14 and it would not
make any sense. There would be no ante-
cedent.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: We would do
it by way of a clarifying amendment. What
we would do would be to prepare an amend-
ment that would strike out of the majority
report that section beginning with "If the
Governor fails", on line 45 of section 5.14.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not believe the
question is divisible in the way you indi-
cate, and the Chair would so rule. The
Chair would be willing to permit you to
modify the proposed amendment by striking
from it everything beginning with the
word "If" in line 18. The first part ap-
parently could stand alone. The second
could not.
Do you desire to make that modification?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes.
|
