|
THE PRESIDENT: Any further ques-
tion of the sponsor of the amendment?
The Chair recognizes Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. President and
ladies and gentlemen of the Convention:
It is my recollection that an amendment
of the same substance or similar to this
was proposed in the Committee of the
Whole, and it was not successful. It was
rejected, or it was withdrawn. We agree
that there is an extremely remote possi-
bility that the nominating commission may
not furnish the list as this article contem-
plates, but we feel that this is an unneces-
sary addition to section 5.15, number one,
because of the extremely remote possi-
bility that the governor will not have a
list from which point, as is contemplated.
More particularly we feel that this does
open up the field to appointments in the
manner that is now allowed, and which we
feel the committee recommendation, as
heretofore adopted, is designed to avoid
and in that respect improve the method of
selecting judges.
Accordingly, the Committee will oppose
this amendment, and I urge the delegates
to vote against it.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. President
and ladies and gentlemen : This is a clarifi-
cation amendment, and one that I ask you
to consider in light of the fact that we now
have an even number of individuals, law-
yers and non-lawyers, serving on the nomi-
nating commission.
This action was not taken until we met
in the Committee of the Whole. It was in
the Committee of the Whole that we de-
leted the judicial member of the nomi-
nating commission.
Now, all this amendment proposes to do
is to sort of spur the nominating commis-
sion on to do the job that he has been
appointed or, in the case of attorneys,
elected to do. Currently we believe that the
governor may not appoint from the list,
and we provided in section 5.15 a phrase
that the chief judge shall make appoint-
ments. It seems to me perfectly consistent
to take steps to protect the possibility of
the nominating commission either reaching
an impasse, or not doing the job it is
appointed to do.
We feel perfectly confident that if the
nominating commission does that, the gov-
|
ernor will be able to appoint outside the
list after the lapse of 60 days and the
nominating commission will get down to
business and will submit the list.
You tell me what is going to happen if
they do not. We have not provided for the
nominating commission reaching an im-
passe, or for the nominating commission
not submitting a list to the governor. I
suggest we take care of it by way of this
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Schneider.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: This would
not spur the nominating commission on.
This would cause it perhaps to pass the
buck to the governor. If the governor were
of the nature that he wanted to pack the
committee, he could just pack the lay mem-
bers in there. He could balance it off so
they could not get a vote out of the com-
mittee on a nomination, and then they
would have to throw the appointment back
to him.
This would also depend upon procedures
adopted by the nominating committee. If
they required a majority vote or three-
fifths vote, and some of the members could
not show up, and the committee could
therefore not appoint a nominee. The gov-
ernor would then be given the nomination,
thus defeating the whole Niles plan. So I
would suggest defeat of the motion, and
I would urge defeat of this amendment. If
Mr. Johnson worries about an even Com-
mittee, perhaps we could worry about that
and change the makeup of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further ques-
tions?
Is there any further discussion?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 8 to Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1 as amended by Report
S&D-8. A vote Aye is a vote in favor of
Amendment No. 8. A vote No is a vote
against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted?
Does any delegate desire to change his
vote?
(There was no respon'se.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
|
