|
establish really the more democratic type
of judicial system.
The second reason, and I think one that
will be a very effective answer is that I
think the 15-year term in most instances
amounts to a life-time appointment. There
might be a tendency and almost a human
tendency of a man with a 15-year term to
not give his best energies to the job.
I think we all possibly on occasions have
been able to observe this. The more fre-
quent review of the judges activities will
produce and stimulate a greater effort on
the part of the judges so that we have a
two-fold purpose, one to stimulate the con-
fidence of the people and two, to stimulate
the energy of the judges.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boileau.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to speak in favor of the amend-
ment. We have already provided for non-
competitive elections for the judges and in
effect we have been told and from my read-
ing the history it is true, the good judge
has no problems, he will be re-elected. What
you are doing here if you vote against the
amendment is protecting the bad judge.
You are allowing him two more years; it
is the bad judge we are concerned about
here, the judge who can be rejected at the
poll.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any more
discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell,
please.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 44 to Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 44. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Have all delegates voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 83 votes in the affirmative
and 44 in the negative, the motion carries.
The amendment is adopted.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Mr. Chair-
man.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I think I have
an obligation to state for myself and some
of those back here in the corner that our
vote was influenced by the whisperings from
the picture; they kept telling us "Don't let
my descendant in, he is all wet."
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Clagett rise?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Point of per-
sonal privilege. That is why I have ignored
him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther amendments to section 5.21? Delegate
Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, Del-
egate Adkins and I have an amendment
which is apparently being printed. It is a
very simple one. I think I can explain it
now as to the rule of whether we should
proceed or not.
In line 44 of section 5.21 the fourth
word "shall" would be changed to "may"
the effect of which, of course, would make
the so-called poll of lawyers permissive
rather than mandatory.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case, the
Chair is uncertain that this was not talked
about the other day. Was there an amend-
ment about this the other day?
DELEGATE CASE: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. While the
amendment is being printed, the Chair will
entertain as Amendment No. 45, the change
in line 44, page 6 section 5.21 of the word
"shall" to "may".
Is there any objection to considering the
amendment, even though it is not printed
and on your desk with the understanding
it will be put there?
The Chair hears none. This will be
Amendment No. 45. Is the amendment
seconded?
The amendment having been seconded,
the Chair recognizes Delegate Case to
speak on the amendment.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman and
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee: I
share a concern with a number of delegates
to the effect of the mandatory poll of
lawyers in connection with the question of
whether or not a judge shall be retained.
I think there are many areas of the
State in which such a mandatory poll is
|
