|
DELEGATE BE ALL: Where does the
other one come from?
DELEGATE MUDD: He is the judge.
DELEGATE BEALL: The chief judge
of the Court of Appeals?
DELEGATE MUDD: One appointed by
the Court of Appeals.
DELEGATE BEALL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
delegates? Delegate Blair.
DELEGATE BLAIR: Delegate Mudd,
on page 6, section 5.21, term of office of
judge, line 24 and line 45, that particular
provision disturbs me. Does it not appear
that this provision would foster the elec-
tioneering by a judge or currying of favor
by a judge for his return to office.
DELEGATE MUDD: You mean among
the lawyers?
DELEGATE BLAIR: Yes, among law-
yers.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, we think he
will do that by being a good judge.
DELEGATE BLAIR: Independent of
his being a good judge, it seems that that
particular provision puts the lawyer on a
spot. I do not think the provision is a good
one because of the fact that —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Blair, this
is not the time for debate. If you have a
question, you may put it.
DELEGATE BLAIR: Did your Com-
mittee consider this in the sense that it was
possibly a bad provision to put in.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, there was
some considerable discussion of this in our
Committee and it is objectionable to several
of the witnesses who appeared before us. I
would say primarily the objection came
from judges, not the lawyers.
The idea is that this secret poll of law-
yers without being identified is construc-
tive information that can be published for
the benefit of the voters in evaluating an
incumbent judge. We feel it is a service
to the voters that the lawyers who should
know the most about an incumbent judge
can through secret ballot make available
information and guidance for the public
to help them exercise their vote for an in-
cumbent judge. That is the purpose.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Delegate Agnes Smith.
|
DELEGATE A. W. SMITH: Delegate
Mudd, in section 5.20, line 18 you refer to
an office in a political party. Would you
define that, please.
DELEGATE MUDD: You mean the lan-
guage, "a nonjudicial member of a com-
mission may not hold any public office for
profit or office in a political party while a
member of a commission"?
DELEGATE A. W. SMITH: Yes.
DELEGATE MUDD: You want me to
define what?
THE CHAIRMAN: What is an office in
a political party, I think, is her question.
DELEGATE MUDD: If he is a member
of the central committee or treasurer of
the political party. That is the type of office
we had in mind.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Delegate
Mudd, in section 5.14, beginning with line
45, there is the provision that if the gover-
nor fails to appoint one of the nominees
within sixty days after receiving the list,
his power to make the appointment shall
end and the chief judge of the Court of
Appeals shall appoint one of the nominees.
Did your Committee consider whether
this was a violation of the doctrine of sepa-
ration of powers? Is it not unusual for a
judge to appoint a judge?
DELEGATE MUDD: No. As a matter
of fact, as I think I mentioned in connec-
tion with the appointment of commis-
sioners, in Illinois, I believe, it is the judges
of the trial tier who appoint the judges
sitting at the next tier, but I think, Dele-
gate Mitchell, the possibility of this coming
to pass under the mechanics of this pro-
posal would be most remote.
The governor will have from two to five
names from which to select and it is really
not in there in my judgment to give the
judge the power of appointment, but just
to provide some manner of filling the va-
cancy in the event the governor did not
exercise the appointive power.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Why put it
in at all? After all, although it has to be
done, there are a lot of unconstitutional
things done, sometimes, even by judges. It
would seem to me it is better not to put
that in at all because I think it is highly
irregular for a judge to appoint a judge.
|
