|
There being 47 votes in the affirmative
and 64 in the negative, the motion is lost,
and the amendment is rejected.
Are there any other amendments to sec-
tion 5.15? The Chair hears none.
Are there any amendments to section
5.16? The Chair hears none.
Are there any amendments to section
5.17? The Chair hears none.
Are there any amendments to section
5.18? The Chair hears none.
Are there any amendments to section
5.19?
Delegate Willis.
DELEGATE WILLIS: I have one for
5.20, Mr. President.
.T|HE PRESIDENT: Any amendments to
section 5.19?
Delegate Willis, is your amendment
printed ?
DELEGATE WILLIS: I have not seen
it. I took it over about an hour and a half
ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Pages please dis-
tribute amendment M. "M" for Mary. This
shall be amendment No. 9.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 9
to Committee Recommendation JB-1, as
amended by Report No. S&D-8, by Delegate
Willis :
On page 7, section 5.20, Restrictions on
Members of Nominating Commissions, in
line 3 strike out the words ".two years" and
insert in lieu thereof the words "one year";
and in line 4 place a period after the word
"commission" and strike out the remainder
of this line and all of lines 5 and 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
proposed by Delegate Willis. Is there a
second?
(The amendment was duly seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment
having been seconded, the Chair recognizes
Delegate Willis.
DELEGATE WILLIS: This is a very
simple amendment. I do not want to take
a lot of time. In reading this I get the
feeling that a great many good people who
serve on nominating; commissions will not
be able to serve their governments, whether
they be local, state, national or municipal,
|
in any way, at least a year after they get
oif of the commission.
I think that it immobilizes a lot of good
talent that we need these days in govern-
ment, and I do not think that it would be
necessary to hold out a judicial candidate
for two years, either.
It would seem to me that the judges who
elect these judicial commission members
by secret ballot could put on this commis-
sion the very best candidates for judge-
ships in their areas, and in a sense im-
mobilize them for maybe as much as six
years from receiving an appointment to a
judicial position.
Therefore I think this is too restrictive.
I do not recall any good arguments given
for it when we had this on the floor before.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Beatrice
Miller, do you have a question?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: State your inquiry.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Can this
question be divided?
THE PRESIDENT: I think so. Do you
desire to have it divided?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I do, Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT: If the question is
divided, the Committee on Style would have
to rephrase it. I think that could be done.
The division being called for, the Chair
will divide the question. I submit as the
first question the amendment embraced in
the first four lines, and the second question
the amendment embraced in the last three
lines, 5, G and 7.
Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. President, I
rise to speak in opposition to both parts of
this amendment as divided. I appreciate
the spirit which apparently prompted
Delegate Willis to propose this amendment,
and I do not know that the exact restric-
tions of this amendment were debated to
any extent in the Committee of the Whole.
Now I wish to assure the proponent of this
amendment that this matter was debated at
considerable length in the Committee, and
we were mindful in proposing these re-
strictions that in some areas, at least,
service on this nominating commission
within the restrictions set out in section
|
