Sun article, 6 October 1996

The Sun

LETTERS
LETTERS

by The Baltimore Sun

October 6, 1996 Page(s): 4B
Edition: HOWARD SUN
Section: METRO
Length: 1484 words
Biographee: COLUMN, LETTER

Record Number: BSUN475343

________________________________________________________________________________

`Reasonable' judicial changes aren't; voter fraud and judicial contributions

My good friend Lee Rudolph, writing recently (Letters to the editor, Sept. 4, "Shouldn't matter how judges chosen"), urges two seemingly reasonable approaches to judging judges.

First, he suggests a judge who is reversed on appeal more often than some preset number ought to be summarily removed. Second, he exhorts that judges be subject to recall petitions. In both, Mr. Rudolph misunderstands the purpose of judges in a three-part government.

The judiciary is not there to enforce current popular notions about individuals, groups or values. Executives and legislatures provide those functions, both branches subject to the political winds.

Judges represent the intellectual arm of government. They are the part that resolutely seeks the meanings of the word strings that make our laws, and of the precedent cases decided earlier. Judges also embody society's interests and values over the long term.

Dismissing a judge whose decisions are often reversed on 2-1 decisions of appeals courts serves neither mission. Indeed, a judge frequently reversed on appeal may be foretelling what the appellate courts will be thinking a few years down the road. Nor does it make sense to allow a recall petition to gratify temporary extra-legal prejudices of the majority. Were Mr. Rudolph's proposals in place, the passions of the 1960s would have seen the dismissal of the judges who, for example, enforced the rights of African Americans and of ill-informed defendants. That would have included most of the now-revered Justices of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Rudolph points to an age-old question of how to judge judges.

Sadly, his solutions would do more harm than good.

Philip L. Marcus

Ellicott City
----------

Election Day is rapidly approaching. It is hoped that no honest Maryland voter will stay home because of the apparent voter fraud in the state in 1994. If most honest voters show up to vote, it will be more difficult for the fraudulent to do whatever they do.

The judge handling gubernatorial candidate Ellen Sauerbrey's voter fraud suit in January 1995 made two decisions that virtually ensured that the suit would be unsuccessful.

The first was to not allow a panel of judges to share in the decision-making. The second was to give the Sauerbrey team an inadequate amount of time to prove voter fraud even though it has taken decades for voter fraud to reach its current state in Maryland.

Even within the short time allotted, the Sauerbrey team was able to prove serious "irregularities" at some voter precincts and at least one precinct was found to be illegally established. It appears nothing will ever be done to the perpetrators.

All judges, from Circuit Court to federal to the Supreme Court, should have to answer to the voting public every four years. If a judge in charge of a voter fraud suit knew that he or she would eventually have to answer to voters, voter fraud would eventually disappear. Also, judges who emphasize the "rights" of criminals while ignoring the rights of victims should also live in dread of being held accountable to honest voters.

Ronald Farabee

Columbia
----------

I read with interest the Sept. 22 article regarding the judicial race ("Judicial contest snarls party ties"). I was perplexed by the comments of Joan Athen.

Ms. Athen, a Republican, apparently has based her decision regarding whom to support on the various candidates' contributions to the Republican Party. It is astonishing, then, that she is supporting Gov. Parris N. Glendening's appointed judges.

A quick check of the voter registration records revealed that Diane Leasure, the Glendening appointee, abandoned the Republican Party and changed her party affiliation to Democrat when Mr. Glendening's gubernatorial campaign got under way. Later, she held a fund-raiser for Mr. Glendening, and later was appointed to the Circuit Court.

The Democrats believe that Mr. Glendening is a liability to their party. And Ms. Athen supports a Glendening appointee who abandoned the Republican Party and raised money for Mr. Glendening? Go figure.

Peg Browning

Ellicott City

The writer is with the Howard County Republican Central Committee.

Pub Date: 10/06/96