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

842 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Nov. 15]

The intermediate appellate court shall be
composed of no fewer than five judges, it
being recognized that the legislature in its
wisdom may find it necessary to enlarge
and expand the jurisdiction of their court
beyond that now delegated to it.

The jurisdiction of the superior court as
well as that of the district court is such
as is prescribed by law, but it must be
uniform at both of these courts within the
trial level.

With respect to section 5.08 and 5.10
dealing with composition of the superior
court and composition of the district court,
may I call your attention to the addition
made by the Committee Recommendation
to add this language in both instances;
namely, functional divisions may be estab-
lished in any county as prescribed by rule.

In the view of the majority of the Com-
mittee, this is flexibility that well may be
needed to accommodate the four-tier court
structure to the needs of a particular
jurisdiction.

In our view, such a functional division
might be a juvenile court. Such a func-
tional division by rule might likewise con-
tinue the distinction they now have in
Baltimore City at the court of limited
jurisdiction where the municipal court I
believe handles the criminal jurisdiction
and the people's court the civil jurisdiction.

Section 5.11 of this area deals with the
appointment of commissioners and the gen-
eral duties assigned to commissioners is
comparable to that now performed by the
committing magistrates.

The draft section proposed by the Com-
mittee Recommendation is that these com-
missioners shall exercise the powers pre-
scribed by rule and be appointed by the
judge of the district court.

The next subject matter in the Recom-
mendation is that covered by section 5.12
through 5.24 dealing with selection and
tenure. In this regard may I remind you
of my previous statement that in the view
of the Committee this section is detailed.

It provides that the manner prescribed
in this Recommendation applies to selection
and tenure of judges at all levels, that is,
the highest court, intermediate appellate
court, superior court and the district court.

The draft of these sections follows sub-
stantially the draft of the Study Com-
mission.

With respect to eligibility, however, we
have added the requirement that a nominee

to be eligible for appointment shall have
been a citizen for five years rather than,
as the Commission study recommended,
only that he be a citizen at the time of
appointment.

In the appellate court's nominating sec-
tion the only change recommended by the
Majority Report is that one of the judges
of the Court of Appeals and not the chief
judges be a member of the nominating
commission.

With respect to the trial court's nomi-
nating commission, the number and compo-
sition, and terms of their office shall be
prescribed by law, composed of an equal
number of lay and lawyer members and
one judge. Substantially it is the same as
the commission draft.

In section 5.19 dealing with the judicial
member of the nominating commission,
there has been a slight change in the Com-
mittee Recommendation and that is that
the judicial member of the appellate court
nominating commission shall be appointed
by the Court of Appeals. Previously by
commission draft it was provided as pre-
scribed by law.

Section 5.20, providing the rules govern-
ing nominating commissioner, has been
made somewhat more restrictive than the
draft proposed by the Study Commission.
A non-judicial member of the Commission
may not hold any public office in the Com-
mittee Recommendation as distinguished
from state or local office in the Commission
draft. Also, our recommendation is that a
non-judicial member of the nominating
commission shall not be eligible to hold a
judicial office for two years immediately
following his service on the Commission
and he shall not be eligible to hold any
other public office for profit for one year
immediately following his service.

Section 5.21, dealing with terms of office,
except for changes in style and drafing is
substantially the same as the recommenda-
tion of the Study Commission.

Section 5.24, the last section dealing with
this subject matter, restriction of non-
judicial activities, have been enlarged in
the Committee Recommendation. The lan-
guage which we have added is that no re-
tired judge while engaging in the practice
of law or running for elective office or
holding any public office of profit shall be
paid any pension for his judicial services.

The next subject matter covered in the
Committee Recommendation is that dealing
with removal and retirement of judges and

 

 

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 842   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