|
section. Yet on line 32 where the same term
might have been used, you used a different
term.
I take it there was a deliberate intention
to have a different meaning.
THE CHAIRMAN: May I paraphrase
the question? Delegate Mudd, I think Dele-
gate Chabot is asking whether the Com-
mittee intended to apply a different rule
in line 39 of section 5.24, by using the
term "elective office" than would be applied
elsewhere where the term "office of profit"
is used.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, I think we
did.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions, Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, sir. With
regard to section 5.25, the Court of Ap-
peals is given the power to either remove
or to censure, but the Commission on Ju-
dicial Disabilities is given the power only
to recommend a removal.
Was there some reason why the commis-
sion ought not be given the power to rec-
ommend merely a censure?
DELEGATE MUDD: We debated that
matter quite some time, Delegate Chabot,
and had a great deal of difficulty with the
power to censure. We ended up with draft-
ing in that manner because we thought it
was a rather difficult and impractical re-
sult to have a committee on disabilities
make no other recommendations to the
Court of Appeals than a recommendation
of censure.
We thought it was a better accommoda-
tion of the over-all situation for the case
not to go to the Court of Appeals unless
in the opinion of the Committee on Judicial
Disability the error was serious enough to
warrant retirement or removal. However
if the Court of Appeals felt to the con-
trary, they might censure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a fur-
ther question, Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Yes, I have one
more, sir. With regard to section 5.17, in
response to Delegate Sickles, you indicated
that by rule those lawyers who would be
eligible to be the lawyer members of the
nominating commissions might be limited
to those engaged in the practice of law as
distinguished from those who were pres-
ently engaged in other occupations.
Would it also be possible by rule to limit
the category of lawyer electors to those
|
I
who are members of the Maryland State
Bar Association?
DELEGATE MUDD: It would be pos-
sible, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot, do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE CHABOT: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the Committee Chairman?
DELEGATE KOSS: Chairman Mudd,
with reference to 5.13, you used the word
"resident." Was it the Committee's inten-
tion that the use of the word resident be
interpreted as resident for purposes of
voting?
The reason I ask that is that under
Suffrage and Elections S&E-2, the General
Assembly has the broad mandate to define
residence for the purpose of voting. I just
wanted to make clear whether the term
resident, as applied in that section, would
also be used here or what the Committee
intention was.
DELEGATE MUDD: All I can say is
the Committee did debate the choice of the
word "resident", "citizen", and also "do-
miciliary." We finally decided upon the
word "resident" as being most descriptive
and most restrictive, I think, in our
language.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: May I ask what the
restriction was the Committee intended?
DELEGATE MUDD: "Actual residence
in." You would be a voter if you said vot-
ing resident, you could actually have a
voting residence here and live for the
greater part of the time elsewhere.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Well, I have great
sympathy for Delegate Grant in Garrett
County. I wonder if a lawyer for twenty
years who maintained a summer home and
spent four months a year on Deep Creek
Lake would be considered a resident?
THE CHAIRMAN: So do I have sym-
pathy for him. Delegate Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, I have been going over some of the
material previously furnished to all of us
and specifically I am on this telephone con-
versation. I am trying to pin down one of
your previous statements made earlier to-
day. You said this is the plan basically
used in Missouri. Is this correct?
|
