|
(Call for the question.)
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: I would like to
ask a question of Delegate Gilchrist.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist,
will you take the floor to yield to a question?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Certainly.
DELEGATE CARSON: By this amend-
ment you certainly do not mean to imply
by use of the past tense that a person who
was once authorized and was since dis-
barred could qualify. You mean is author-
ized, is admitted at the time?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson, the
Chair calls your attention to the language
of Amendment No. 3 which would be the
phrase immediately preceding the one to
be substituted by Amendment No. 9 and I
take it that Delegate Gilchrist is intending
to tie the two together. Is that correct,
Delegate Gilchrist?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: That is cor-
rect.
THE CHAIRMAN: As the sentence would
read with Amendment No. 3's language
and Amendment No. 9's language, it would
be, "To be eligible for election as Attorney
General, a person shall have been a quali-
fied voter in and have been authorized to
practice law in the state for at least five
years," and so forth.
There is another amendment which
changed a phrase but it does not change
the meaning.
DELEGATE CARSON: To make it abun-
dantly clear, you do intend at the time a
person runs or becomes attorney general
that he is then admitted to practice in this
State ?
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the question
goes a little further than even you original-
ly suggested, Delegate Carson, so that there
be no doubt of the Committee on Style, you
mean not merely the question of being dis-
barred, but that he had been authorized
for five years immediately preceding or do
you mean at any period?
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman, as
I understand it, the intent is that a person
must have been a member of the Bar which
means the same as having been authorized
to practice in this State for the entire pre-
ceding five years and also at the time of
his appointment.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist, is
that the intention?
DELEGATE GILGHRIST: That is the
intention.
DELEGATE CASE: Would we under-
stand that a similar chang-e would be made
by the Style Committee in Section 5.13
which specifies the eligibility rules for one
to become a judge? This says "A person
shall have been a citizen of the State and
a member of the Bar/' so the same critique
you give to this particular section is equally
applicable there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gilchrist.
DELEGATE GILCHRIST: Yes, Delegate
Case, it has already been discussed with
Chairman Mudd of the Judicial Branch and
the same kind of language was in the
present Constitution as is suggested for
use in this and they certainly ought to be
uniform.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Since we are
changing this language all the way through
the Constitution to use the phrase "have
been authorized to practice law" instead of
"a member of the Bar/' could we change
"citizen of the State" to read "a qualified
voter" as we have done in this section?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would as-
sume not. That would be a substantive
change so the Style Committee could not
do it.
Are there any further questions ?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 9 to Committee Recom-
mendation EB-2.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 9. A vote No is a vote against.
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 113 votes in the affirmative
and none in the negative, the motion car-
ries. The amendment is adopted.
|
