|
would have been a loss for a responsible
judiciary and a defeat of good government.
You could say the minority is arguing
for a more responsive, a more public bench,
one which will continue as a coordinate
branch of government subject to checks by
the other two major branches as well as
periodic public check. Does this mean per-
haps that the minority represents a vision-
ary ultraliberal point?
If retaining some rights in the citizens
for their elected representatives to matters
pertaining to the judicial branch is liberal,
then we accept the appellation. Certainly
the majority is dedicated to those matters,
to those alleged progressive principles of a
strong independent judiciary.
This of course is not surprising for the
majority of twelve is composed of eleven
lawyers and the spouse of one.
The background of the minority is some-
what more diffuse, two of us are attorneys,
one a labor leader, one a legal secretary,
one a school teacher, two are members of
the legislature. We are, I believe, a repre-
sentative body certainly, no better than the
majority but I submit of concurrent juris-
diction.
We likewise wish the judiciary to be
representative of the best legal thought in
the State, but that alone is not enough.
While being people with outstanding inde-
pendent-thinking public servants, the ju-
diciary must also be responsive to the needs
of the citizens. Those of us supporting the
Minority Report of this Committee were
motivated by desire to see even greater im-
provement in our state judicial system than
some of our colleagues on the majority. The
improvements we seek are directed pri-
marily, but certainly not exclusively to-
ward insuring that this branch will oper-
ate in concert with established principles
of government.
Because I am confident that you have at
least perused our Minority Report and
since we will later discuss each amend-
ment to the report of the majority, in
detail, I will limit my remarks to those
matters we consider to be of the greatest
import, together with a very brief philos-
ophy behind our position.
First, let us look at selection of judges.
Although a four-tier system of state
courts is anticipated, a matter we partially
support, you should view this as a dual
arrangement. That is, we will have trial
courts and appellate courts. Certainly this
division is extremely important for, first,
|
the overwhelming majority of citizens in-
volved in either civil or criminal trials are
concerned only with trial courts. The ju-
dicial process at this level is a very per-
sonal one and the judicial officers of the
courts must be acutely conscious of the
human element in justice not only from
the standpoint of plaintiff and defendant,
but also with respect to the jury when one
is involved.
Judges of the court at the trial level are
very much public officers. They are involved
daily with the citizens and they should be
responsible to the citizens. This does not
mean trial court judges should allow opin-
ions to affect their decisions, I mean public
opinions. An extended term of office as we
propose in the Minority Report would in-
sure against this prospect and judges
elected thereunder will continue to apply
the law and not concern themselves with
popularity polls.
Our proposal means, however, that the
judges should not consider themselves com-
pletely detached from the general public.
Clearly appellate court functions differ from
trial courts. On the appellate level interpre-
tation of the law is the essential point of
dispute. Naturally the public may well be
concerned with the outcome. Indeed, report-
ing of cases decided at this level tends to
be more complete than at the trial level.
Still these are must less public courts
simply because it is lawyer versus lawyer
or issue versus issue with no witnesses and
no jury.
Attributes called for in a trial judge are
not identical with judges serving on an
appellate level, although indeed many out-
standing appellate court judges have carried
their highly desirable judicial trial court
traits to our appellate courts.
The relationship between citizen and
judge likewise is quite different. We feel
the selection process employed in filling
judicial vacancies at these two different
levels should also be different. We endorse
the use of judicial nominating commis-
sions for judges of appellate courts. That
is, the proposed Court of Appeals and the
intermediate appellate court, although we
strongly recommend that such commissions
not include a judge as a member.
There are some extremely important rea-
sons why we would rather see judges at
the trial court level selected in essentially
the same manner as is presently employed.
For one, we wish to have the public par-
ticipate actively in the selection of trial
judges. By first having the governor ap-
|
