|
It seems to me we already decided when
we had a choice as to whether we would
elect members of our bench or appoint
them, that we would use the appointive
system, because we thought it was so im-
portant we developed a system of refine-
ment and provided for a series of recom-
mendations before the appointment was
made.
I think the purpose of the election is
sensibly one of having some impact upon
the judge himself. Those of us who are
members of the bar recognize that being
a judge is a very heady wine, and once
we have made the appointment, although
there could be a good argument for this
appointment being provided, that there is
a good argument also that there ought to
be a periodic review. And the people, when
they make this review and they vote yes
or no, ought to have some guidance.
I would suggest that we can trust the
members of the bar to do what is wise and
judicious under the circumstances when
they have the secret ballot, and that they
will not be distressed because they lost a
particular case; but they will do what is
right.
The judges know that periodically there
will be a recommendation made by mem-
bers of the bar, and that that will have
some impact on his behavior — and I think
it will have a healthy impact. It is just
enough to keep him friendly with the bar,
and it will contribute to justice throughout
the State.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate B. Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: The purpose,
if the judicial election is permitted in this
article, is to allow the people to indicate
their own preference in terms of the judge.
The undue influence which would be exer-
cised by the bar and the lawyer members
in dominating the opinion of the people has
no proper place in a Constitution.
If the people are being asked to give
their opinion, it should not be merely to
confirm the opinion of the lawyers, who
enjoy the same voting privileges as other
citizens of Maryland.
Further, since judgment by one's peers
is a fundamental of English law, it might
be more proper to take a poll of the judges
and publicize that.
We are accustomed to having the mem-
bers of any profession indicate their opin-
ions of a colleague who seeks office. In fact,
|
this might be considered a professional
obligation, but it should not be a con-
stitutional one.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate
Weidemeyer desire to speak in opposition?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I desire
to speak in opposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Believ-
ing as I do in free election and the elec-
tion of judges, and seeing this amendment,
I am rather appalled. I remember back in
the early days of the New Deal when Sena-
tor Jim Reed of Missouri stated on the floor
that the people were selling their birth-
right for a mess of pottage.
I saw also in the governments of Europe,
including Germany, where people, in order
to eat, gave up the right of free election.
I also saw this Convention, just before
lunch time, in a great hurry to eat, defeat
very hastily my amendment providing for
the election of the judges.
Therefore, believing in free elections, if
I am being denied my right to vote as a
citizen I do not want my right as a mem-
ber of the bar denied, and therefore, Mr.
President and members, I am strongly op-
posed to this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Harkness to speak in favor.
DELEGATE HARKNESS: Mr. Chair-
man, I rise briefly in favor of this amend-
ment. I am not questioning its wisdom;
but even assuming it had some merit, it
certainly has no part in the constitution. I
would like to quote a matter which was
discussed in the Committee on the Judicial
Branch because I think it spells it out
better than I can say. This is a letter from
a judge on the circuit court in the sixth
judicial circuit, in which he said:
"The Constitution is a basic law of the
State of Maryland and as such should
set forth the basic law of the State, and
it should not invite petitions by lawyers
or anyone else in connection with the
election to a constitutional office. Such
provision has no place in the constitution
of this State. There is no sound reason
why the lawyers of a particular county
or the City of Baltimore can not be
polled and the results of such poll pub-
lished; but for the constitution of Mary-
land to invite such a procedure is con-
trary to the very purpose of a constitu-
tion. This section of the constitution
|
