|
The reason that that language appears
in 5.10 and not in 5.08 is because as 5.10
is drafted and will be left to the legisla-
ture, a district court judge will not neces-
sarily be resident in each county of the
State. The requirement is that at least one
judge reside in each district. That is why
the Committee felt that there should be
a requirement that each district court
judge, as spelled ou in section 5.10, sit
regularly in each county in that district.
We did not feel that the same language
should be placed in section 5.08 because
section 5.08 does provide that there be at
least one superior court judge resident in
each county. For that reason I urge th?
defeat of the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question? The Clerk will sound the
quorum bell.
The question arises on adoption of
Amendment No. 9 to Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 9. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any
delegate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The clerk will record the vote.
There being 39 votes in the affirmative,
80 in the negative, the motion is lost. The
amendment is rejected.
The chief page will please distribute
amendment marked C. Please mark this
Amendment No. 10. The Clerk will read
the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 10
to Committee Recommendation No. JB-1 by
Delegate Bennett: On page 3 section 5.08
titled Composition of Superior Courts line
14, after period add: "The rule may pro-
vide that a judge assigned to a functional
division shall serve on a non-rotational
basis."
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was sec-
onded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Byrnes
seconds.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Bennett
to speak to the amendment.
|
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chair-
man, this is a simple declaration of policy
contained in the constitution that would
authorize it, or recognize rather, that these
specialized funcional courts require special
abilities, special training, and that it is
good sense and good wisdom to assign
wherever possible a judge on a non-rota-
tional basis. That could be done by rule,
it is entirely within the discretion of the
court.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I would
like to speak in behalf of that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
nlent?
Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I
am in sympathy with the thought of Dele-
gate Bennett, but it does seem to me this is
obviously an unnecessary addition to sec-
tion 5.08.
It is nothing more than a suggestion to
the court that it may provide, what is
available without such suggestion, for a
judge on a nonrotational basis. To me it
is adding something unnecessary to the
section.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Rybczynski to speak to the
amendment.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, what is occurring here in this sec-
tion is, we are acting as a giant legisla-
ture and I think we should face up to that.
As to this section, I would like to go
just as quickly as I can within this three
minutes into a little background on why
I think this is necessary.
As the jurisdiction expands and as the
case load expands, we will have the su-
perior court being broken down into prob-
ably the same traditional lines we have
now, criminal section or division, equity
division, and law division. This in turn, as
the jurisdiction grows, breaks down again
into criminal designed for major criminal
cases, criminal involving youth court and
criminal involving the juvenile.
I strongly suggest to you. Mr. Chairman,
that at this time it will bo important tor
|
