|
would be expected to give the greatest re-
turn because it would have the greatest
difference, and in those cases a majority
of the bar did not respond to the poll.
Now, here you have a question of asking
a majority of a minority of the bar its
opinion of a sitting judge. It just does not
seem to me from the point of view of effec-
tive techniques, of finding out what the
lawyers in the jurisdictions think, a very
useful method of determining even that,
let alone basing a public judgment on the
retention of a judge on what the bar thinks
of him or allegedly thinks as represented
through a poll where the only answer can
be yes or no. I have the greatest reserva-
tions about including this in the constitu-
tion, and even greater reservations about
its adequacy as a public policy.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Macdonald. Delegate Willoner
had the floor first, if you would yield. Never
mind. He yielded. Delegate Macdonald, you
may proceed.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I rise to
oppose the motion to reconsider.
We voted on this matter, not once, but
twice, in connection with Amendments Nos.
43 and 45. Both times we voted down.
Now, the advocates of this motion to re-
consider are suggesting to you that you
deprive the public, the voters, of the ad-
visory opinion of the lawyers. Perhaps the
lawyers will be smart in this matter and
cast a ballot which is near perfect, and
maybe they will not be. I think the first
group to know that they are not perfect
in casting this ballot will be the public. But
I think that the public is entitled to know
what the opinion of the lawyers is in re-
gard to their judges. It is advisory only,
and I think it should be held, and for that
reason, I would oppose the motion to recon-
sider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the mo-
tion? Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Presi-
dent, I rise to speak in favor of the motion
to reconsider because I think that this pro-
vision has no place in the constitution. It
is statutory or regulatory in nature, and
therefore should be left to either the rule-
making powers of the judiciary or the
legislature to prescribe.
Further, I think it is inconsistent with
the very purpose of this article of judicial
|
reform. If the purpose is to provide in
Maryland a high quality, free and inde-
pendent judiciary, then I think such a pro-
vision as is provided in this article for an
election, at least a vote by secret ballot of
the lawyers, is demeaning, it casts asper-
sions on the ability of the people them-
selves to select competent judicial leaders.
I am very much concerned that this kind
of provision embodies in it, especially the
provision of secret ballot, of the kind of
suspicion and distrust which I think has
no place in a constitution, much less a
democratic system of government; and I
therefore recommend the reconsideration
of this section.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
motion to reconsider? Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
I just have a question of Delegate Bam-
berger, if it is in order and if he will yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does Delegate Bam-
berger yield to a question?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman
and Delegate Bamberger, I just want to
make certain that I understand the mean-
ing of your remarks.
Do you mean to say that in your opinion
lawyers are not qualified to pass upon the
qualifications of a sitting judge, but by
virtue of this service on a nominating com-
mission are qualified to pass upon the po-
tential qualifications of a potential judge?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I believe
that a nominating commission made up of
three lawyers and counterbalanced by three
laymen is competent to recommend a num-
ber of people to an executive for his re-
view and consideration of an appointment.
I do not believe that lawyers are so well
qualified that the constitution should pre-
scribe for his life that there shall be an
election conducted as a constitutional elec-
tion under the auspices of the clerk of the
Court of Appeals of Maryland, which I
think will have more persuasion with the
electorate than it is entitled to have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
motion to reconsider? Delegate Scanlan, do
you desire to speak in favor of the motion
to reconsider?
|
