|
is not part of it. It is taken in as a pack-
age arrangement.
I would say that the acceptance or re-
jection of the Missouri plan is one of the
most difficult and frustrating and soul-
searching decisions that I have had to
make since I have been in this Convention.
No doubt the plan has merit and it is for
that reason that so many capable lawyers
and capable judges have differed with each
other. But where do we go for the answer?
While the plan has merit, it has certain
built-in weaknesses. The plan results in a
departure from history and a system
wherein the judiciary becomes dependent
upon the executive branch of the govern-
ment, and it destroys the long-established
doctrine of separation of the three powers
of government into three independent de-
partments. It destroys the independence of
the judiciary and makes it dependent on
the political, rather than the elective
process. The removal of the judges from
election by the people deprives them of
the inherent, basic right implicit in the
philosophy that the closer the government
is to the people, the better the government.
It constitutes another erosion of the prin-
ciples of an elective system.
The plan perpetuates judges in power for
the balance of their lives. They become en-
sconced within an impregnable wall wherein
power feeds upon power and tends toward
mediocrity in the autocratic regime of a
judicial oligarchy. Politics is not removed
from this plan as evidenced by those polled
in Missouri. Forty-one to thirty-eight per-
cent indicated that politics played a great
part in the selection process. The only dif-
ference is that it goes on back in the
chambers of the judges and it is not played
out in the political arena where the people
have a right to decide about the judiciary.
Missouri tried this system without suc-
cess, and after twenty-five years it is till
not an accepted principle over the entire
State of Misouri. In a panel discussion one
of the members who endorsed this plan
using the language of a legislator from
Missouri, stated, "those guys get on the
bench and all hell can't move them off."
Now, I submit to you that if after twenty-
five years you do not have a workable plan
in Missouri, and according to the Governor
of Missouri — and I quote him: "The pres-
ent plan in Missouri known as the Missouri
Plan is not yet the perfect solution" —
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up.
|
DELEGATE BLAIR: I would like to say
one sentence.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE BLAIR: If we intend to
put something in our constitution that is
not of a perfect nature or near perfect,
then I say we should not use it as a dump-
ing ground for things that have been at-
tempted legislatively unsuccessfully, or
which have been taken before the bar as-
sociation without success.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I would like to
yield three minutes to Delegate Gallagher.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man and delegates: If there is one area
where this proposed reform will have a
positive impact, it will be at the nisi prius
level. I would urge that you accept it as
proposed. This is not a question of trying
to remove politics from the appointment
of judges. What actually happens is that
under the present system when a man gets
appointed to be a judge he is subject to
gross political pressures for the period of
time that he must serve on the bench be-
fore he actually aspires to election.
This is a question of taking the political
influence out of the judges' chambers. I
would be the last one to deny that there
is always some political consideration that
goes into choosing judges. You cannot
eliminate this as long as you have human
beings.
I am fearful of the political impact and
pressures on a judge once he has been se-
lected by the governor. I have had the
luxury of serving on both sides of this
particular battle line. I have been chair-
man of two campaigns for two sitting
judges in Baltimore City. I also partici-
pated in a campaign where the city judge
was defeated, and I campaigned for the
man who defeated him. I can tell you some
of the real evils that exist in the set up
today. When you require a member of the
bench to deal with political bosses in order
to be placed on a ballot you are jeopardiz-
ing the function of political life and you
are jeopardizing the judiciary, to say the
least. Raising funds is an important aspect
that cannot be removed. When a judge
solicits or accepts funds, we know that
many times the large contributors are not
contributors or donors; they are investors,
and they are investing in future litigation,
and litigation which is yet to be heard by
|
