|
THE CHAIRMAN: I understood that
but I did not know whether there was some
implication that it was prohibited in the
light of the last part of the section. Dele-
gate Sollins.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: I understand it
is not prohibited but I was curious why the
Committee did not put it in as a consti-
tutional revision.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the record will
be straight, let me state it more clearly.
I think the question really is why did the
Committee not consider requiring in the
constitution that the election of lawyer
members of the commission be by secret
ballot. Is that the question, Delegate Sol-
lins?
DELEGATE SOLLINS: That is correct.
DELEGATE MUDD: The answer is it
could be prescribed by rule but we did not
consider it to the best of my recollection
as necessary to be put into the constitu-
tion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Delegate
Mudd, referring your attention to page 6,
line 45, "taking after poll by secret ballot."
What is meant by the term "secret ballot,"
Mr. Mudd? Does that contemplate the bal-
lot will be signed or unsigned?
DELEGATE MUDD: Our Committee
intended, Delegate Macdonald, that the bal-
lot would not be identified with the party
who voted and that that probably could be
accomplished by a ballot being returned in
a blank envelope without identifying the
sender or the party who exercised the vote.
That is the extent to which we discussed
it in our Committee, as I recollect.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdonald,
do you have a further question?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Thank
you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Referring back
to Mr. Sollins' question on residence, how
long do you think it might be for an at-
torney to be able to become familiar with
the culture and so on in the county? How
long should he reside there? As I under-
stand it, there have been some judges who
have moved in order to get an appoint-
ment. I think this is a nice idea, but I won-
dered how long a residence was required.
DELEGATE MUDD: He must be a resi-
dent of the state five years prior to appoint-
|
ment, but a resident of the district or
county only at the time of appointment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Blair.
DELEGATE BLAIR: Mr. Chairman,
can you tell me how a lay commission can
evaluate the judicial qualifications of a
candidate for judge?
DELEGATE MUDD: Well, I feel in an-
swer to that question, Delegate Blair, that
it is an extremely difficult matter to evalu-
ate the talents of a lawyer as a judge. In
the view of the Committee there are capa-
ble laymen who by virtue of knowledge of
people in the community or exposure to the
court processes could have a very valuable
opinion and a worthwhile opinion in evalu-
ating the judicial temperament, community
interest, and talents that go to make up a
good judge.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Blair.
DELEGATE BLAIR: This is acting on
the basis of hearsay, isn't it?
DELEGATE MUDD: What about those
who want the right to exercise the vote?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Blair, do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE BLAIR: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Mr. Chairman, I
am sorry but on this nominating commit-
tee I just am not quite clear. Let's use a
specific example. Charles County, your
county, will have a superior court judge
when Judge Digges retires. The nominating
committee will be set by law, as I under-
stand it. But will the nominating commit-
tee be from Charles County or will it be
from a district of St. Mary's, Charles, and
Talbot or from the State, or is it as it will
be set by law?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley,
proceed.
DELEGATE RALEY: There is nothing
that actually precludes there being just
one superior court nominating commission
for the State, is that correct?
DELEGATE MUDD: It might appear
that we drafted this section after some
votes on other sections and specifically
eliminated any guide lines to the legisla-
ture. They have absolute control of the
situation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
|
