Vallario shows his hand on electing judges
A package of sex offender legislation was delayed on day in House floor at the request of Republican Leader Tony O’Donnell – but that didn’t prevent delegates from starting to debate the issue which, curiously, led to a revelation about the probable fate of Attorney General Doug Gansler’s bid to curtail competitive elections for circuit court judges.
In the floor exchange this morning, one delegate worried that the language in a proposed sex offender bill allowed judges too much discretion over sentencing and supervision.
House Judiciary Chairman Joseph F. Vallario shot back.
“Judges will be responsible for their decisions,” Vallario hollered on the floor. “That is why we elect them. We have elected them for the last 200 years and hopefully we will continue.”
The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has not yet voted on the measure, SB 833. The House version, HB 1385, also not had a committee vote.
In the floor exchange this morning, one delegate worried that the language in a proposed sex offender bill allowed judges too much discretion over sentencing and supervision.
House Judiciary Chairman Joseph F. Vallario shot back.
“Judges will be responsible for their decisions,” Vallario hollered on the floor. “That is why we elect them. We have elected them for the last 200 years and hopefully we will continue.”
The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has not yet voted on the measure, SB 833. The House version, HB 1385, also not had a committee vote.
Comments
Everyone has known for years that Vallario's agenda is voting the interest of the defense bar to the exlusion of the interests of the citizens of Maryland. Why would anyone expect that to change?
Posted by: City Redux | March 16, 2010 4:02 PM
I don't often agree with Vallario, but if he does in fact support continued election of trial court judges then I approve of his position on the issue. The more directly accountable the judiciary are to We the People, the better it is for our democratic republic. It is a phony argument to suggest that appointment of judges is not a political process, since appointment of judges by a governor and confirmation of their appointment by a state senate are about as political as a process can be. It's also faulty thinking that the issue of electing judges should be unpopular because Joe Vallario is thought to be unpopular -- electing of judges should not suffer from guilt-by-association.
Posted by: Observer | March 17, 2010 3:45 PM