|
This will be Amendment No. 30. Will
you please add the name of Delegate Pascal
to the sponsoring delegates, Delegates
Fornos, Fox, Boileau, and Pascal.
The Clerk will read the amendment,
Amendment No. 30.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 30
to Committee Recommendation JB-1, by
Delegates Fornos, Fox, Boileau and Pascal :
On page 5 section 5.15, Appellate Courts
Nominating Commission, line 10 add the
following: "No more than two members of
the commission may be residents of the
same county."
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment hav-
ing been seconded, the Chair shall recog-
nize Delegate Fornos to speak for the
amendment.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates, I shall try to be very
brief.
The line is self-explanatory. It merely
calls upon this Convention in drafting this
constitution to assure that the widest pos-
sible consideration be given to attorneys
who may be judicial timber throughout this
State, and also to assure us against any
single county gaining a foothold on the
Court of Appeals or on the intermediate
court in this state.
We have some 5,558 attorneys in the
State of Maryland as of May 1, 1967; some
of 3,112 of them are engaged in the prac-
tice of law, or reside within the City of
Baltimore.
It is quite conceivable that when you
elect six lawyers from among all the law-
yers of this State, that all six of them
could come from Baltimore City. It is also
just as conceivable that all six could come
from Prince Georges County, or all six
could come from Montgomery County, and
I think that we would want to be certain
that all, or as many of the counties as
possible are represented on the judicial
nominating commission.
There are those who will argue that this
should be left up to statute. I submit to
you it is a very broad concept, the guaran-
teed representation of people throughout
this state on the judicial nominating com-
mission, and I would hope that you would
adopt this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
this amendment, again, is an effort to put
in the constitution a provision to protect
against the possible, but the improbable.
|
Personally, I am not unsympathetic with
the spirit of the amendment. I think it
highly improbable that without the amend-
ment the commission might be taxed in any
manner suggested by Delegate Fornos or
that might be in the mind of the other pro-
ponents of this amendment.
I will vote against the amendment, con-
sistent with the majority report, and if any
other member of the Committee who has
not had an opportunity to express a view
on this matter, pro or con, desires to do so,
I invite their attention to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in opposition to the amendment?
Are you ready for the question? The
Clerk will sound the quorum bell. The ques-
tion arises on the adoption of Amendment
No. 30. A vote Aye is a vote in favor of
the amendment. A vote No is a vote against.
Delegate Bothe?
DELEGATE BOTHE: Mr. Chairman, I
have a question of the sponsor of the mo-
tion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE FORNOS: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Is it your inten-
tion that if the lawyers in the State should
desire to elect more than two attorneys
from the some county, that they would be
precluded from doing so under this amend-
ment?
If so, how would the question be han-
dled, if more than two lawyers happened
to be elected on the top of the ballot?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: I believe, Dele-
gate Bothe, that you could make that clear
in the communication that would be dis-
tributed throughout the State, and you
could keep it on a restrictive basis, two
per county.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Marion rise?
DELEGATE MARION: I too would like
to direct a question to Delegate Fornos.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos, do
you yield to a question?
|
