clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1102   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1102 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 21]

in the State of Missouri is that large num-
bers of lawyers can be considered by the
commission without fear that if they are
not placed upon the list which is submitted
to the governor, that that fact will be gen-
erally bandied about in the public press.
If we want to have a large number of law-
yers considered by a nominating commis-
sion, we will not require, as this amend-
ment proposes to do in all of these meetings
and all of the discussion about the quali-
fications of all of these persons under con-
sideration, that it be made available and
generally public knowledge. I urge defeat
of the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?

(There was no response.)

Does any delegate desire to speak in op-
position? Delegate Rybczynski.

DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I would
like to ask either Delegate Gleason or Dele-
gate Marion a question concerning their
previous statements.

THE CHAIRMAN: Which do you desire
to question?

DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Since
Delegate Gleason made the statement first,
I will ask him if he will yield.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason,
do you yield to a question?

DELEGATE GLEASON: I yield.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.

DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Delegate
Gleason, if you will recall, yesterday I
asked the question of several people as to
how the lay members of these commissions
will know about the lawyers about whom
they are to judge. In other words, my ex-
perience is that lay people simply do not
know enough of the lawyers who are prac-
ticing to know who is actually best quali-
fied. They do not see them in court, they
do not see them in their offices.

Now, today you have said and Delegate
Marion has said, that the job must seek
the man. If applicants or qualified N people
for the judgeships are not to submit their
own names and their friends are not to
submit their names, how are these lay
people going to find out about the people
who are best qualified for these jobs?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.

DELEGATE GLEASON: Well, I can
say to the delegate, I imagine that the
names that will come before the commis-
sion will come from a variety of sources.
First of all, the members themselves will
have names of their own volition. Names
will be submitted by bar associations, other
organizations, et cetera.

Now, I do not expect the requirement
that these sessions be open to the public
will drag into public scrutiny all the de-
tails of individuals' lives, because I imagine
that the members of this commission will
act responsibly.

My only argument is that we are not
dealing here with an elective process. Since
we are not, it seems to me that that check-
on the people's right ought to be instituted
on a constitutional level because we are in
an innovation stage in setting up the com-
missions in the first place; but the names
themselves come from a variety of sources.
I presume they will come from members of
the government, they will come from mem-
bers of the General Assembly, from the
governor, from places elsewhere, but the
thing that disturbs me about the commis-
sions themselves is, that there is absolutely
nothing in this provision that is going to
say how they shall operate, whether the
list is ever made public, and so how are
people supposed to know?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, will
you yield to a question from Delegate Bard?

DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard.

DELEGATE BARD: Delegate Mudd,
what is the nature of the report of the
nominating commission? Might it be more
than a mere listing of names?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.

DELEGATE MUDD: It is entirely pos-
sible in my judgment, Delegate Bard, that
the commission in its wisdom might elect
to give the governor some summary of the
qualifications of those on the list, and could
pass on to the governor some of the infor-
mation that prompted the commission in
selecting for nomination those who are
transferred to the governor for considera-
tion for appointment.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard.

DELEGATE BARD: Then, Mr. Chair-
man, I should like to say just a few words
against the amendment.

"V

1

 

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1102   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives