clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1145   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

[Nov. 21] DEBATES 1145

DELEGATE SCANLAN: Yes, Mr.
Chairman. I have no desire to prolong this
extended debate at this late hour, but it
seems to me that Chairman Mudd made a
significant admission when he conceded
that in a State where the plan of the nomi-
nating commission and the noncompetitive
election has reached its highest apex of
practice, Missouri, handles this matter of
the lawyer poll by statute. I think that is
the way that this should be handled if at
all, and perhaps Delegate Hanson is right,
it is not sound public policy at best, but
whether or not it is sound public policy
should be a matter determined by the legis-
lature. If I have one criticism of the mag-
nificent monument that we are creating to
Judge Niles and to the apostles of judicial
reform, it is that they have on occasion
here in their article laid it on a bit too
thick; and I think this is one case where
the lawyers are laying it on a bit too thick,
and I urge the amendment, the vote be re-
considered.

THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Jett rise?

DELEGATE JETT: To speak against
the motion to reconsider.

THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.

DELEGATE JETT: I think, Mr. Chair-
man, and fellow delegates, that we are
missing the point on this question. It is my
very positive feeling, after considering this
matter and reconsidering it, that this is
not a special privilege for the bar. It is an
obligation of the bar.

We have been here four and a half days,
and the public would think that this is
an article that is being written by law-
yers, for lawyers, and the public is not
concerned.

The public is interested in this thing,
and I say to you, men and women of the
bar, and fellow delegates here, that we have
an obligation which we should not shirk
when it comes to having a judge run on
his record, having been appointed by a
commission, with no one else having had
the opportunity to see him as practicing
judges and other members of the bar have.
It is their duty to come forward and
show their courage rather than mumbling
in the corridor and to speak out against
or for this man on the bench. I say to you
that it is an obligation that the bar should
not shirk. It should tell the people and it
should be compelled to tell the people what
manner of man has served them for eight
years. For that reason, I am opposed to
the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?

(Call for the question.)

The question arises on the motion to re-
consider the vote by which Amendment No.
43 to Committee Recommendation JB-I was
rejected. If the motion to reconsider is
carried, Amendment No. 43 will be again
before you. If the motion fails, we will
proceed to a consideration of other sec-
tions.

A vote Aye is a vote in favor of the mo-
tion to reconsider. A vote No is a vote
against the motion to reconsider. Will the
Clerk please sound the quorum bell? Cast
your vote.

Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?

(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.

There being 79 votes in the affirmative
and 43 in the negative, the motion to re-
consider carries. Amendment No. 43 is be-
fore you. Is there any discussion? Delegate
Bamberger.

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I only
rose if it is necessary to move the adoption
of Amendment No. 43.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary.
The amendment is before you. Delegate
Rybczynski.

DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, I should like to ask Delegate Bam-
berger a question, and as a matter of fact,
I will take an answer from anybody who
wants to answer it.

I voted with Delegate Bamberger just
now.

THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second; Dele-
gate Bamberger, do you yield to a question?

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes, I
yield.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.

DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I voted
Aye on Amendment No. 43, but now the
hope of discussion has raised a new prob-
lem in my mind. The question here is,
should a judge run against his record. Now
you have eliminated live opposition, and we
would presume that live opposition would
bring forth a record.

Now, in this vote, which as I said before,
I voted with you before, if we eliminate

 

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1145   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives