|
DELEGATE RALEY: Chairman Mudd,
is it your intention that there would be at
least more than one nominating commission
or regional nominating commission? What
is the intention of the Committee.
DELEGATE MUDD: It was the thought
of the Committee that there would cer-
tainly be more than one nominating com-
mission and we used the word commissions,
as the Chair pointed out. It was not our
expectation that there would be a nominat-
ing commission for every political sub-
division.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Delegate
Mudd, referring to section 5.14, you say
that the list should contain no fewer than
two or more than five eligible persons.
Would you indulge me by giving me the
benefit of the Committee's thinking on how
you arrived at that figure of as few as
two?
DELEGATE MUDD: To accommodate
Delegate Grant's Garrett County.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett,
can I ask you further whether or not in
your consideration it would be possible for
the governor to return the list even if it
came from Garrett County to ask for a
larger number of nominees? May he return
the list?
DELEGATE MUDD: It is not so pro-
vided but I would certainly assume such
procedure might be necessary if the com-
mission sent up a list of two names and
something happened to both nominees be-
fore either had been appointed. It would
be an empty list and there would have to
be some corrective procedures. However, it
is not contemplated that the governor could
deviate from the list or not separate the
list except in some unforeseen circumstance.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: But you think
he could return the list to the nominating
committee?
DELEGATE MUDD: There is no reason
that occurs to me at the moment except if
the list were determined not to be a list
such as if both nominees were dead or
something of that nature before he made
the appointment.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Chair
can paraphrase the question of what Dele-
gate Bennett is getting at which is
whether the governor could return the list
^^^^^l^H^^H^H^HH^HH^H
|
if he did not like it and was not satisfied
with it? Is that your question?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Partly it.
DELEGATE MUDD: The answer to
that is absolutely not and if he did not ex-
ercise his power of appointment from the
list, it is within the power of the chief
judge to make the appointment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: As I under-
stand it, as it operates in the City of St.
Louis and Kansas City under the so-called
Missouri Plan, the governor is able to re-
turn the list when there are not a sufficient
number of candidates on it. If we are fol-
lowing that plan, I should think he could
return it.
THE CHAIRMAN: What do you mean
by not sufficient number, not sufficient to
fill the vacancy?
DELEGATE BENNETT: No, not more
than two. He can return it if there is not
a minimum number.
DELEGATE MUDD: Delegate Bennett,
may I amplify my answer to your first
question. Our minimum of two actually was
geared to not bring about an impossible
situation in a small area where there were
very few lawyers. I illustrated it by Gar-
rett County. If there are only six members
of the bar, it would seem at the time of a
vacancy there, impractical to require a list
of not less than five.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Yes, sir, but
on the other hand, if it were Montgomery
County with, 2200 lawyers in it, and the
nominating committee sent up a list of
only two candidates, it would seem to me
within reason that the governor could re-
turn it and ask for a larger number of
candidates.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is your
question?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Is that
possible?
DELEGATE MUDD: No, sir, we think
two to five will be the best of the best.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: This is the
question to Chairman Mudd but I would
like to make a brief statement first.
I am in general sympathy with the pro-
gram; I rather like it. However, there is a
|
