|
DELEGATE CHILD: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
inadvertently one line was left out, and it
makes some change in the amendment. May
I read the words?
I have given the amendment as corrected
to Dr. Philips, and I hope before the eve-
ning is over we will have it printed.
THE CHAIRMAN: How long ago was it
given?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Just after we
had recessed for supper. That was about
a little over two hours ago.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can the secretary
find out what the status of the amendment
is?
We will have to pass on to another
amendment.
Delegate Chabot, I understand there has
been some confusion. Apparently the
amendment is not printed yet. Is the
Chair's understanding correct that the
omitted words would appear between lines
9 and 10, and would read, "so that the list
is no longer sufficient"?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: In the absence of
objection, the Chair will assume that
Amendment No. 27 so reads, and will sub-
stitute the correct printed copies as soon
as it is received from the print shop.
The language of the amendment, as modi-
fied, would read as follows:
"If a list sufficient to meet the require-
ments of this section has been timely re-
ceived by the governor, but the number
of persons on such a list has been re-
duced by the ineligibility of one or more
nominees so that the list is no longer
sufficient, before the vacancy is filled the
governor may return the list of the nomi-
nating commission, which shall present
him with another sufficient list within 30
days thereafter."
Is there any objection to the modifica-
tion?
If not, the amendment as modified will
be considered as having been submitted by
Delegate Chabot.
Is there a second.
DELEGATE CHILD: Second.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Child sec-
onds.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Chabot to
speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE CHABOT: This is intended
to take care of another possibility which I
suppose is likely to occur, at least as often
as the possibility taken care of in the Com-
mittee's draft of 5.14.
In the nature of things, people pass
away, people move, people have second
thoughts as to whether or not to accept a
possible appointment. Such activity which
would cause the list of nominees to be re-
duced below the number that we have re-
quired, that is, below the number three,
ought not to compel the governor to ap-
point from a list which would have been
insufficient if it had been presented to him
that way in the first place.
For example, if three people had been
presented on the list, and one had passed
away so that there were only two left that
should not be any more acceptable than
had the nominating commission originally
presented only two people; the list would
not have been a sufficient one in the latter
case and the governor could have rejected,
therefore, it should not be in the former,
either.
This amendment merely permits the gov-
ernor under such circumstances to send the
list back to the nominating commission with
instructions to add enough people so that
there is a sufficient list.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
this possibility, although I am frank to ad-
mit that it may be more likely to occur
than failure of the governor to appoint,
was not discussed by the Committee on the
Judicial Branch. Personally, I am not un-
sympathetic to the suggestion that there
be provision for such contingency as Dele-
gate Chabot has attempted to provide for
in this amendment, and I think which is
entirely consistent with some questions he
may have asked me at the time this sec-
tion on selection was presented to the Con-
vention.
Personally, and on first blush, I have
some reservations about it, but all I can
say is that as Chairman of the Committee,
I am not unsympathetic with what Delegate
Chabot is attempting to accomplish here,
if it is couched in acceptable language. My
immediate problem is with reference to the
word "sufficient".
|
