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 840   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

840 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 15]

report to this Convention rather than par-
tial reports covering component parts of
the article.

The compelling reason for the one re-
port is the interdependence of the com-
ponent parts of the article. Divisions by
subject matter cannot properly be evalu-
ated except in relation to the final recom-
mendation of the Committee in other areas.

For instance, if the legislature in some
area should provide for a multi-county dis-
trict court, as it is allowed to do by sec-
tion 5.10, its operation and function cannot
be properly evaluated except in relation to
Section 5.30, which requires a clerk of the
district court in each county.

As I have indicated, during recent years
much thought and effort has been devoted
to improvement of the judicial system of
Maryland.

Judges, lawyers and laymen are agreed
that improvement is necessary to meet the
changing circumstances and new condi-
tions which generate an ever-expanding
caseload.

In some areas improvement cannot be
accomplished without reform and reform
requires a break with tradition. There
probably cannot be a model judiciary arti-
cle until we first have the model state to
adopt it.

The recommended judiciary article does
not in some instances follow the desired
general approach in drafting that we might
prefer, and as is contained in the U. S.
Constitution. On the other hand, it avoids
the completely detailed approach of Arti-
cle IV of the present Maryland Constitu-
tion.

The majority view of my Committee
could not be presented to this Convention
by the simple framework for an improved,
unified and uniform judicial system with-
out mandating some reform and guidelines.

At the same time, flexibility is not re-
stricted. The legislature has the power to
prescribe the jurisdiction of the several
courts and to provide the judicial man-
power. Likewise, power is reserved to the
court to provide for functional divisions,
to adopt rules of practice and procedure
and temporary assignment of judges, to
provide added flexibilities in accommodating
the needs within the unified court structure.

In the reform area is the recommenda-
tion that the State assume full and com-
plete financial responsibility for the proper
administration of justice. This is a de-

parture from the existing system by which
this responsibility is shared with the polit-
ical subdivisions.

It may have been practical at other times
for state and local governments to share
financial responsibility for the courts, but
the concept of a unified judicial system
for the State requires that the State as-
sume the full 'financial burden; otherwise,
improvements would be stifled and expan-
sion of facilities prevented.

In that part of the recommendation deal-
ing with selection and tenure of judges the
Committee has departed from the general
constitutional approach and embodied in
its proposed Article V the essential char-
acteristics of the Missouri plan, sometimes
referred to as the American Bar Associa-
tion or merit plan and in Maryland as the
Niles plan.

At the close of the 1966 session of the
General Assembly, it had pending before
it proposals by the Maryland State Bar
Association and the Maryland Judicial Se-
lection Council for amending the Maryland
constitution with regard to the method of
selecting judges.

Some of these proposals twere embodied
in the bill which passed the House of Dele-
gates but was not passed in the Senate.
Instead the Senate sent the bill back to
its Committee on Judicial Proceedings in
order that it might be referred to the Con-
stitutional Convention Committee for its
study and consideration.

Therefore, in considering this phase of
its work your Constitutional Convention
Committee on the Judicial Branch had be-
fore it House Bill No. 418 with its legis-
lative history as well as the benefits of ex-
tensive work of the Study Commission and
others in the field of selection and tenure
of judges.

It was the legislative history of House
Bill No. 418 and the testimony before our
Committee of responsible legislative leaders
which suggested that the Committee's rec-
ommendation in this field of selection and
tenure embody the essentials rather than
the conventional approach in constitutional
drafting if overall improvement in the ad-
ministration of justice for Maryland is to
be achieved as our Committee deems it
should.

In the matter of removal and retirement
of judges the committee recommendation
again includes the essential details of the
plan.

 

 

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 840   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  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives