|
DELEGATE CHABOT: I guess the sen-
timent of the Convention is that it had
better be. I withdraw it.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schloeder,
for what purpose do you rise?
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: A parlia-
mentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: I would
like at some later time and prior to an
executive session to inquire further as to
what is contagious and what is not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer, do you still desire to offer your
amendment?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Yes, Mr.
President. I have been innoculated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let the pages dis-
tribute amendment CT, and while they are
doing so, the Chair would like to announce
that there is one other amendment to this
section yet to be acted upon. I would hope
that we could act on both before recess for
lunch, and would hope that we would not
postpone lunch.
This will be Amendment No. 42. The
Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 42
to Committee Recommendation JB-1 by
Delegate Weidemeyer: On page 6, section
5.21 Term of Office of Judge strike out line
41 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"be determined in a general election by the
elec-"; and on page 6 after line 43 insert:
"electorate shall have the choice of approv-
ing the incumbent judge or any opponent
who may file against him, or of rejecting
all the candidates on the ballot. The"; and
on pages 6 and 7 strike out the last sentence
in the section and insert in lieu thereof the
following: "A plurality of the votes cast
shall determine the election. If a plurality
of the votes are cast in favor of the rejec-
tion of all candidates, then no candidate
shall be elected and a vacancy shall exist."
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
proposed by Delegate Weidemeyer. Is it
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
The amendment having been seconded,
the Chair recognizes Delegate Weidemeyer
to speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, members of the Convention, as you
|
will see, this amendment provides for the
election of superior court judges and dis-
trict court judges. It does not change the
first part of section 5.23 down to line 43,
but it strikes out line 41 ; it strikes out
line 41 and inserts in lieu thereof "be de-
termined in the general election by the
electorate", and it also provides that the
electorate shall have the choice of approv-
ing the incumbent judge or any opponent
who may file against him, or of rejecting
all of them.
That is very necessary, to my way of
thinking. No matter how well we may se-
lect by a nominating commission or by a
bar association, and many times our judg-
ment in selecting individuals goes wrong —
we think we selected the right man and in
some areas I could conceive of where the
man that we selected in all candor and
with all good judgment turns out to be
an autocratic man on the Bench — the rec-
ord may not be brought in view by just
voting rejection.
It may be that good men will qualify to
take that judgeship, would hesitate to run
against him and take the chance of losing
and then have to practice before him.
It also could well be that some other in-
dividual, with very little judicial qualifica-
tions and a lot of courage did file against
him; and so if you could vote to approve
or reject the judge, or vote to approve and
reject, or reject the opponent, then you
would come up with a vacancy; and then
you could start all over and hope in a new
selection to get a good judge.
I think that this meets the democratic
process. The judge can have no opponents.
In that event, you vote for the judge or to
reject the judge, and that is the strength
of the Missouri plan. However, if we come
with the Maryland plan, which this is, and
add the democratic processes to it, then we
allow opponents to file, and if we approve
of one of the opponents, then he would be
elected, and we would not have to go
through the selection again; but if the op-
ponent were not of the proper caliber, we
could then by this amendment vote to re-
ject them all. In the last part of the
amendment, I have provided further that
a mere plurality of votes cast shall deter-
mine the election. If a plurality of the votes
cast are in favor of the rejection of all
candidates, then no candidate shall be
elected, and a vacancy shall exist.
Now, this is different from any plan that
has come up before. It does not change the
judicial selection plan, but does change that
part of the Missouri plan in some little re-
|
