|
disability commission may have been ab-
breviated, and I would like to yield three
minutes of my controlled time to Delegate
Marion.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no con-
trolled time on this, Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I beg your pardon.
I will be glad to answer any questions pre-
liminarily if Delegate Sollins has any
question about any section.
THE CHAIRMAN: No. I gather he just
would prefer you to make whatever com-
ment you choose to make about the amend-
ment.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Convention,
basically our recommendation here, as I
think —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, the
Chair was in error. There is controlled
time of five minutes on this amendment.
I am sorry.
DELEGATE MUDD: May I yield three
minutes to Delegate Marion?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. Chairman,
our provisions from sections 5.25 to 5.28
dealing with the commission on judicial
disability are based upon the California
plan for the removal of judges. Virtually
every witness who came before our Com-
mittee and urged us to include language of
this sort in the new Maryland constitution
urged us to pattern it after the California
plan.
We have sought to do that.
The California commission is a larger
commission, because they have a larger
State and a larger judiciary. The total
size of the commission in California is nine
members, but the majority is judges. There
are five judges, two from one level of the
judiciary, two from another, and one from
the lowest level of the judiciary. There are
two lawyers and two laymen.
Maryland presently has a Commission
on Judicial Disability. It was established
by constitutional amendment, adopted by
the voters of this State in 1966, and when
the California plan was recommended to
the State of Maryland, it was recommended
wisely that we would reduce somewhat the
total size; but the recommendation, which
was adopted by the General Assembly as to
size and composition, and which was ap-
proved by the people, was a five-member
commission on judicial disability with three
|
judges, one lawyer and one layman; so we
give you in this recommendation the same
composition of the commission on judicial
disability which we presently have in
Maryland.
Those who are familiar with the Cali-
fornia system feel that it is important that
the majority be judges. This Is really an
extension of the judiciary and is a com-
mission which is to advise and make recom-
mendations to the Court of Appeals as the
ultimate trier of fact and as the ultimate
authority to remove, and since it is a ques-
tion largely of the judiciary policing its
own members, and because it has worked
well by all testimony which we have heard
in the State of California, where it has
been in effect since 1960, I urge that this
Convention approve it with the composi-
tion which the Committee on the Judicial
Branch is suggesting.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I will be glad
to yield back any time remaining, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I have no other—
I beg your pardon, does Mrs. Cicone wish
to say anything on this? I yield to her
whatever time I have left.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cicone.
DELEGATE CICONE: I do not believe
I have anything to offer. I think Mr.
Marion has said it all. Only one point, per-
haps, and that was if you make a com-
mission of this type any larger, it gets
rather unwieldy; and we felt that the
composition, as was set up, could serve
the same purpose here in this section of
our article, and that is why we adopted it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask a question of either
Chairman Mudd, or if he desires, of Dele-
gate Marion or anyone else familiar with
the sections.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before putting the
question, does Delegate Beatrice Miller de-
sire to debate?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: No, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom do you
direct your question, Delegate Carson?
DELEGATE CARSON: I would direct
it to Chairman Mudd.
|
