|
DELEGATE MUDD: What is your
question, sir?
DELEGATE MALKUS: I am going to
finish my remark and then I will ask you
my question. You cannot be somebody with
nobody. That is exactly what you are pro-
posing. Now, my question to you is this :
if we have a sitting judge and in the eyes
of the people there is someone who is much
better qualified to serve them as judge,
why should that person not have the oppor-
tunity to run against the incumbent judge?
DELEGATE MUDD: The answer to
your first question is you can beat an in-
cumbent with a nobody, because it has
been done in other states.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second, Dele-
gate Malkus. He had only answered your
first question.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, the answer
to your second question would be if the in-
cumbent is removed, because of his record,
then the better qualified person who could
not run against him in a live election would
be eligible for appointment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Did I under-
stand you to say that he would be eligible?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
DELEGATE MALKUS: I saw you nod
in affirmance. Would that mean, of course,
that this other man would then be selected
as judge?
DELEGATE MUDD: Not necessarily.
He would be eligible for appointment and
if he was the best of the best, I am con-
fident he would be on the list.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: My last ques-
tion. Do you or do you not think that the
people are qualified to decide who their
judges should be?
DELEGATE MUDD: Under this method,
they are better qualified to vote at that
time than under the present system we
have, in my judgment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a fur-
ther question?
DELEGATE MALKUS: His answer,
Mr. President, I cannot understand it.
THE CHAIRMAN: You can debate his
answer later. Do you have another ques-
tion now?
|
DELEGATE MALKUS: I would like to
ask him the question again.
THE CHAIRMAN: Rephrase your ques-
tion.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Do you not
think that in the event that there are sev-
eral attorneys in an area that would like
to be judge, that after the appointment is
made, if they do not succeed, that the people
in a democracy should have the right to
say which of those attorneys should be
their judge?
DELEGATE MUDD: I can only answer
the question this way, Senator Malkus.
If a judge appointed to a vacancy at the
time he must run for election is then sub-
jected to live opposition from two competing
lawyers, in my personal opinion, and I
think it is the feeling of a majority of the
Committee, that sort of political campaign
subjects those aspiring to the office includ-
ing the incumbent to the type of exposure
and competition at the polls which is un-
becoming the judiciary and in our view
militates against the best administration
of justice.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
I said I was not going to ask any more
questions but when the Chair talks like
he does about politics, then I am going to
have to ask him several other questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may be per-
mitted to ask him a question. Proceed, Dele-
gate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Thank you, sir.
Is there any more politics anywhere in the
State of Maryland than exists in the Mary-
land Bar Association and among lawyers
of Maryland?
DELEGATE MUDD: The testimony be-
fore our Committee from a distinguished
witness was that there was more in the
Methodist Church than in the Bar Associa-
tion.
(Laughter.)
I have forgotten who the witness was.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Answering
what he has just said, I made that state-
ment.
(Laughter.)
I do not believe I made it exactly that
way. I did not say there was more in the
|
