|
prohibiting federal office as well, if that
answers your question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: But I assume
that in the last sentence in that section,
we are not intending in this constitution
to prohibit the federal government from
thereafter appointing such a person to
some federal public office of profit.
DELEGATE MUDD: For one year, yes.
DELEGATE CHABOT: We are trying
to prohibit the federal government from
appointing such a person?
DELEGATE MUDD: Well, we say, shall
not be eligible to hold any other public
office for profit for one year immediately
following his service.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, the
question may be misunderstood. I think
Delegate Chabot's question was whether
the Committee intended by that sentence
to impose a limitation upon the federal
government in the appointment of persons
to federal offices.
DELEGATE MUDD: I do not see how
we could impose a limitation or restriction
on the federal level, no.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: So as a prac-
tical matter public office for profit, on line
23, refers only to public offices in this
state, but public office for profit on lines 17
and 18 refers to federal as well as state
and local public offices?
DELEGATE MUDD: That was our in-
tention.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Chairman Mudd,
referring to section 5.16, I always like to
know why these things are, and I am of
course reading it and I can see many prob-
lems with it, particularly with regard to
judges being on the nominating commis-
sion. Would you tell me the thinking of
your Committee and why your study and
research led you to that conclusion?
DELEGATE MUDD: Well, very spe-
cifically, this, Delegate Raley, that in our
view a judge is oftentimes, by virtue of
his exposure to the talent or lack of talent
of the members of the bar, particularly
well equipped to evaluate the potential of
a candidate for service on the bench. We
|
feel that the benefit of a judge's view, con-
current with that of laym embers and law-
yers, would round out the most beneficial
information that could be collected as to
the qualifications of those eligible.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Would you also
tell me why in 5.21 you are going to have
this procedure of a secret poll of the law-
yers, a kind of election apparently where
a judge is required to stand for reelection
or stand for election. What is the reason-
ing behind that, and has this been used or
tried before?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, it has been
used in other states, and the reason for
the secrecy is in the taking of the poll,
but the results of the poll are published.
I take it the secrecy intended there is that
the lawyers' votes will not necessarily be
divulged or recorded. It will be a ballot
presumably without a name on it. To that
extent it will reflect the secret vote of a
lawyer who is polled.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: No, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
I am going to preface my questioning first
by saying that you may very well accuse
me of speaking emotionally, or any other
way, but I don't call it emotion; I call it
the truth.
We are here to strengthen the judiciary,
the legislative and the executive branches.
That is why we are here, and nobody cares
about the people.
Now, my question, Mr. President. Under
our present system, where the people have
the right to review their judgments, that
privilege is now being taken away from
them. Why, Mr. Chairman, are you taking
away from the people the right to say who
their judges will be?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: We are not taking
away from the people; they can vote Yea
or Nay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: They cannot
under the present proposal, which is the
same proposal they had in Russia where
you have one man on the ballot. I am not
arguing with you.
|
