|
referring to the Institute of Judicial Ad-
ministration Survey of the judicial system
in Maryland, conducted in 1967, with re-
gard to that question.
I personally favor the federal system of
judicial appointment, but I think it is prob-
ably too radical a change for the State of
Maryland. However, I think section 5.14
and this section retain the basic virtues of
the federal system while retaining in the
people the right to approve or disapprove
their judges.
I suggest that you strongly reject this
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is available
fifteen minutes of controlled limited de-
bate. Does any delegate desire to speak in
favor of the amendment?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
because of a note that I received, I believe
that I should make it perfectly clear that
it is the intention of the minority to sub-
mit, if this amendment is adopted, another
amendment pertaining to a term of office
of superior court and district court judges,
providing for an open election, a non-
partisan open election, with the sitting
judges designated as "the incumbent", on
the voting machine for a larger term than
has been provided by section 5.21.
Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen :
There are many reasons why we should not
permit the judges to run in an open elec-
tion, but it seems to me that these reasons
boil down to one, that the best of the best
allegedly will not take the job. That seems
to be one of the reasons which I do not
particularly subscribe to, and another rea-
son seems to be that these elections are
sometimes unpleasant, or that a candidate
for the election for the office of judge
would not be able to have his case tried
very well in front of the judge he was
running against. It seems to me that we are
dealing with such a small group of people,
number one, the judge who refused to place
himself before the electorate, and the law-
yer who is afraid to stand before the judge
he is running against. I submit to you that
that is not a very solid reason for doing
away with the process that we have had
for one hundred years.
Somebody is going to have to show me
where the people, the citizens of this State,
have any say in the election, or selection
|
of their judges. It is not a perfect system,
we submit, but neither is the system sup-
plied by the majority.
We think that there is a difference. We
hate to see this Convention take this step,
which we have considered to be a back-
ward step, and therefore we urge the adop-
tion of the amendment so that we can then
deal with the election of judges on su-
perior court and district court levels.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other
discussion?
Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Presi-
dent, I have grave concern, and I would
like to ask Delegate Mudd a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Delegate
Mudd, what is the purpose of the election
as you have provided in the Committee
recommendation ?
Is it not that the people might check on
the judges?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Obviously and
definitely it is an opportunity for the people
to vote yes or no on the judge continuing
in office and with the benefit of knowledge
of his record as the judge during the time
he has served.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: But as a
matter of fact, is the principle of the sit-
ting judge running against his record not
in violation of the constitutional require-
ment that all of our elections be free and
open?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: You are just as
free to vote against him as you are for him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: But in a de-
mocracy, and this is what concerns me, this
is mentioned as the last stronghold of a
democratic section of government; and
what concerns me further is the eroding
of the principle of free elections by this
method. It seems to me that it is better not
to have any election at all and have the
check of the people at the appointment
level. That is as in the federal system,
with the hearings before the Senate. I
|
