|
Also, I would like to call attention to the
model article of the American Bar Asso-
ciation, which recommends a unified court
system, but does not use the word specif-
ically, unified. We of the minority are in
favor of a unified court system. We feel,
however, that the use of the word "exclu-
sively" puts a limit on the flexibility.
Secondly, may we look to the experience
of others. Not one state constitution uses
the term "exclusively" in its document.
There are 38 state constitutions containing
a provision to the effect that the General
Assembly may provide for the establish-
ment of various courts.
Now, it is true that eleven of these state
constitutions provide general power; that
is, there is no limit as to the type of court,
be it limited jurisdiction, or regional juris-
diction or whatever it might.
I would also like to point out that there
are only four constitutions which limit the
type of courts to those provided within the
constitution itself.
Further, I would like to point out that
only five state constitutions remain silent
on the question of the establishment of
other courts.
Thirdly, I would like to point out that
only three state constitutions do not specify
any court structure whatsoever, and hence
provide a great deal of flexibility, perhaps
too great.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Siewierski,
you have a little less than a half-minute.
DELEGATE SIEWIERSKI: I will now
come to the third decision-making process,
the supplemental arrangement, and ask you
to consider the problems that will come
about from too much restriction. I ask you
to consider that the requirements of one
restriction do not result in control of other
courts, and finally ask you to consider the
minority's amendment and provide for a
unified but flexible court system.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing
Delegate Mudd, the Chair would like to
acknowledge the presence in the gallery of
the rostrum of twenty-five students from
Kenwood Senior High School in Baltimore
County, and in the rear gallery fifty-five
students from St. Michaels Elementary
School in St. Michaels. We are delighted to
have you with us.
(Applause.)
The Chair recognizes Delegate Mudd to
speak against the amendment.
|
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. President, I
rise to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment. I am opposed to section 5.01. The
amendment proposes to eliminate from the
majority recommendation the word "ex-
clusively".
Admittedly the word "exclusively" is not
in the present Constitution. However, un-
der the existing court structure in opera-
tion in Maryland, the constitutional court
structure, the courts have in every instance
except one been accomplished by constitu-
tional amendment, as would be permitted
under the same flexibility of the language
proposed by the majority report.
It is the view of the majority that the
unified court system proposed can only be
as strong as the weakest link in the chain.
If the amendment is adopted, which al-
lows other courts that may be provided by
law to be created at the will of the legis-
lature, it is inevitable, it seems to the ma-
jority, that such authority could impair
the unified, possibly uniform jurisdiction
of the court structure proposed.
Only by a constitutional amendment,
adopted by this State, to provide for a spe-
cial Court of Appeals has Maryland here-
tofore allowed its legislature to provide by
law for other courts, and in that instance
the allowance to the legislature providing
for other courts was only at the appellate
level. Accordingly, the use of the word "ex-
clusive" in the proposed draft does nothing
more than emphasize the system as it has
prevailed in Maryland under our hundred-
year-old Constitution, and we respectfully
suggest that the inclusion in the constitu-
tion of an affirmative grant of power to the
legislature to provide for unified courts
could operate to the great prejudice and
disorganization of the proposed new type of
court. We respectfully suggest that the rec-
ommendation of the Committee is the pro-
tection that we need to preserve the unified,
uniform court structure under the four-
tier idea, which is the most progressive
thinking in the legal word today regarding
court structure.
It is not inconsistent with the ABA model
approach to the judiciary article, and we,
therefore, respectfully urge a vote against
the proposed amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I will call upon
Delegate Gleason and allot three minutes
to Delegate Gleason.
|
