|
There has always been in the history of
our country a premise which has given us
all assurance and some degree of reli-
ability; and that is that we delegate power,
but we put a restriction on that power by
granting powers to the other branches of
government, and it is this provision that
has been removed by the Majority Report.
Let me say in answer to a comment that
was raised by a delegate earlier, if we
could remove this provision, I would cer-
tainly be inclined to go along with their
recommendation as far as noncompetitive
elections is concerned, because that is not
what bothers me. I have always felt that
the election of judges did not lend itself to
the political process, but we are talking
about the selection of judges now, and that
is a different matter.
The model constitution, which has been
one of the justifications for the majority
recommendation, has two provisions within
it. One provision is pretty much along the
lines of the majority recommendation, but
the first recommendation is the recommen-
dation that is before you today. One of the
delegates rose on his feet here a short
while ago, and asked the Chairman of the
Committee if this commission will operate
in the open, or secretly, and I take it the
Chairman's answer was that there is no
constitutional requirement that it operate
openly.
The next question was whether the list
would be made public, or would it be han-
dled as a secret document, and I take it
the answer is was that there is no consti-
tutional requirement that this list be made
public.
What kind of a government are we set-
ting up?
The recommendation that is sitting be-
fore you at the present time provides for
a commission. It has a commission extended
from 3 to 5 members and it will operate
removed from the bar association with
lawyers and civilians who will recommend
a list to the governor. If the governor for
reasons of his own, and after all he is an
elected man representing all the people,
decides that there is one man that should
be on that list that is not there, he should
retain the right, and he would retain the
right under this amendment to nominate
him and appoint him; but we provide a
further check in that whether he appoints
outside the list or from the list, his nomi-
nation has to go to the Senate of Maryland,
and there will be a hearing which will make
quite clear if the Governor appoint outside
|
of the list, that he has appointed from out-
side the list, and he will carry the responsi-
bility.
I submit to you< that that is a better way.
We are giving the majority of the Com-
mittee a unified system and the power to
have these judges run in elections on a
noncompetitive basis. Let's start thinking
about the people and whether we are going
to have some control over the judiciary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up,
Delegate Gleason. Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee of
the Whole: This is another amendment de-
signed to deprive the State of Maryland of
the merit system or Missouri plan for the
selection of judges, and which plan you
have twice, by your vote, already sustained
by a substantial majority.
The second time you sustained the posi-
tion of the majority recommendation there
was no alternative plan suggested. Here
you have the alternative, appointment by
the governor, with the advice and consent
of the Senate. The alternative is a plan
that Maryland abandoned more than a
hundred years ago.
It is not clear from the second sentence
of this amendment whether the list sub-
mitted is advisory or obligatory. I take it
in the absence of such language that the
list would be advisory only.
The check which the amendment pro-
poses, appointment by the governor with
the advice and consent of the Senate, is
one that was submitted to our Committee.
In fact, it was submitted by the spokesman
for the minority, and I respectfully sug-
gest to the delegates here that the spokes-
man for the minority who submitted this
proposal as a delegate proposal to the Com-
mittee on the Judicial Branch, where it
was debated and considered at length, now
files a minority report, in which he does
not support that matter of selecting judges.
Therefore, this amendment comes before
you as a late thought of one delegate and
unsupported, I assume, by the spokesmen
for the minority, because it was not in-
cluded in the minority report.
I have never been a member of the Mary-
land Senate, and I do not know for certain
the procedure in the executive committee
where greenback appointments are consid-
ered; but hearsay has it that a nominee for
any position is subject to veto by the sen-
ator from whose district the nominee comes.
|
