|
between the expiration of the term and the
next general election following not earlier
than one year thereafter to fill the then
existing vacancy.
The basic difficulty, as our Committee
saw it, with this process at the list level
is the number of lists furnished. We do
not have a unified bar association as yet
in the State of Maryland. We have well
over 5,000 lawyers, a State Bar Associa-
tion, county bar associations, city bar as-
sociations and then as indicated, associa-
tions of lawyers who have a common in-
terest, such as perhaps plaintiff's lawyers,
defendants' lawyers, and those dealing par-
ticularly in some field such as insurance or
workmen's compensation. It is conceivable
that under the present system the chief
executive may receive for his guidance in
appointing a judge many lists which do
not carry the names of the same suggested
appointees.
The system in substance, or the essen-
tials of the system proposed by your Com-
mittee on the Judicial Branch are these:
number one, gubernatorial appointment
limited to a list of nominees submitted by a
nominating commission, the personnel of
which are detailed in our recommendation.
Number two, the appointee runs against
his record after a probationary term, and
again after a ten-year term in office, our
proposal being to reduce the term of the
appointed elected judge from 15 to 10
years.
Number three, a poll of the lawyers in
the area involved is required to be held on
the question of retention of the judge who
is about to stand for election, and the re-
sults are made public for the benefit of
the voters.
Another most important part of our Rec-
ommendation in this subject matter is the
so-called California plan, which we recom-
mend by way of a commission which is
empowered to investigate complaints of ju-
dicial conduct and disability, with hearing
by the highest court on issues of removal,
censure and retirement.
The system we recommend, ladies and
gentlemen of the Convention, is identified
as the merit plan for the selection of
judges. It is sometimes called the Missouri
plan, for the reason that it had its birth
there more than twenty-five years ago. In
Maryland this plan has sometimes been
called the Niles Plan. More appropriately
I feel it should be called the merit plan
|
for the selection of lawyers, as advocated
by Judge Xiles in the State of Maryland.
This plan proposed by your Committee is
not an experiment. It is not the brainchild
of the Committee on the Judicial Branch.
It is what has best been characterized as
a merit system for the selection and tenure
of judges, and we prefer to call it that.
It has been in operation effectively and
on the basis of testimony before our Com-
mittee with very effective results for im-
provement of the judicial processes in 13
states in the union.
The basis of our recommendation is not
for Maryland to wait until more than half
of the states have adopted such a plan, and
then proceeded on the proof that it has
worked in more than half of the states, or
at least half of the states. Our recom-
mendation is more progressive than that.
It is based on the proof abundant before
our Committee that this is an effective and
improved plan, as demonstrated within
those states having used it, and therefore
it behooves Maryland as a progressive state
to be in the forefront of adopting a better
plan for the selection and tenure of judges.
Briefly, we think of this plan in terms
that it will enable the job to seek the man,
rather than the reverse, and that it should
enable Maryland to obtain the best of the
best lawyers for our judiciary, and it is
in that spirit, after careful consideration
and a wealth of debate within our Com-
mittee, that this part of our proposal has
been brought to this Convention, with our
favorable recommendation.
We feel it is most significant that the
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL for
the month of November carried a comment
on judicial reform, and we thought it was
so timely and pertinent that we had the
article, by the president of this association,
Earl F. Morris, duplicated, and I think
yesterday or the day before a copy was put
on the desk of each delegate.
I cannot resist calling to your attention
the salient facts obtained in that comment
by Earl F. Morris. He says in part, after
making a careful study throughout the
country of the situation involved in the
administration of justice, as follows: "If
we agree that the reason for the existence
of our courts is to administer justice, it is
clear that this should be done in the most
effective way possible."
Now, the first of those which he recom-
mends is this: "Justices of the peace courts
|
