The candidates for Circuit Court Judge in St. Mary's County were offered space in this week's editions for providing an essay on why voters should select them to be circuit court judge.   The following responses were received and provided for the benefit of our readers:

Judge Candidate George Sparling

Judges need to be chosen based on ability, not politics, in full view of the public.  I believe that St. Mary’s County citizens, all of them, are best qualified to choose their judges.  The most recent appointment of a temporary judge in St. Mary’s County was made from a list of names resulting from closed meetings and secret voting by a committee,  two-thirds of which were appointed by the governor.  Even worse, only four of the twelve committee members live and vote in St. Mary’s County.  That is no way to choose a judge.

Judicial elections need to change to nonpartisan with full voting rights for independents.  The current temporary judge opposed this change for personal political advantage.  I do not agree with this.  I believe that a choice of candidates and voting rights for all are essential to a health democracy. St. Mary’s County needs judges who will put the public interest above their own interest.  It is beyond my comprehension that someone running for judge could oppose the right to vote. 

St. Mary’s County cannot afford to take a chance in this election.  St. Mary’s County needs experienced Circuit Court judges with a proven record of the ability and courage to make tough decisions in court when public safety and individual rights are on the line.  St. Mary’s County needs judges who will give all citizens a fair day in court, regardless of social and economic status.

I guarantee fair treatment and equal justice for men, women, minorities and every citizen, based on my record as State’s Attorney and 33 years of trial experience.

There simply is no substitute for experience. I have tried over 100 Circuit Court civil and criminal trials, including at least 70 jury trials,  representing all members of society.  I am the only judicial candidate who has been an elected State’s Attorney, a job far different from deputy of assistant State’s attorney.  The State’s Attorney has to make decisions as difficult as those a judge makes.  I had four years of making those decisions.  As a prosecutor, I also tried cases, including more than 50 jury trials.  I will work as hard as a judge as I did as State’s Attorney. (The temporary appointed judge in his ten years as a prosecutor apparently failed to try a single jury case on his own.)  

St. Mary’s County needs experienced judges who know how to protect the public by managing Circuit Court dockets, making trials move quickly without mistakes and appeals, and by making tough and decisive calls.  While I was State’s Attorney my office had a 90% conviction rate in felony cases and recorded the shortest time between indictment and trial of any of the 24 Maryland State’s Attorneys.  Justice delayed is justice denied, to both the defendant and the public.  I will work as hard as a judge as I did as State’s Attorney to make sure cases move through our courts efficiently and competently. 

St. Mary’s County also needs judges who will make sure that defendants, victims and the public know that a judge means what he or she says when a sentence is imposed in a criminal case. I believe in “Truth-in Sentencing.”

St. Mary’s County deserves the best that the local bar can offer.  I am the only judicial candidate who has received the highest rating for legal ability from the nation’s leading law directory. I served as Special Counsel to the St. Mary’s County Ethics Commission, and was appointed by Circuit Court judges as special prosecutor, trustee, receiver, independent counsel and administrator of an estate. I have been found qualified to serve as Circuit Court judge by the Maryland State Bar Association and St. Mary’s County Bar Association and by judicial nominating commissions.

St. Mary’s County needs experienced Circuit Court judges able to make court cases less drawn out, costly, and stressful in courtrooms free from fear and embarrassment. I am approved  as a court mediator with over 100 hours of training. I will encourage the use of mediation and the training of mediators to achieve voluntary resolutions early in the judicial process to save legal fees for the parties and to use courtroom time most efficiently.  I will make the courtroom more “user friendly” for citizens, and insure that courts operate for the public good, not for judges’ convenience.  

St. Mary’s County needs experienced Circuit Court judges willing to provide an opportunity for individuals and families, especially the disadvantaged, to overcome problems that often bring them into the criminal, juvenile and family courts. I will work to identify programs and locate funding to help people help themselves.

I will conduct public business in full view of the public, without deals between judges and lawyers made outside the courtroom.

     The prospect of serving as Circuit Court judge is humbling.  It would be an expression of the trust of thousands of St. Mary’s Countians that believe, as I do, in a system of justice for all.

Judge Candidate Shane Mattingly

I’ve spent my entire career helping the working men and women of St. Mary’s County with their problems, injuries and disputes.  Whether it’s been assisting people with something as basic as drafting a will, defending a speeding ticket, guiding someone through a difficult divorce or protecting a small business owner against a frivolous lawsuit, I’ve tried my best each day and in every case to listen to people’s problems and help them reach a resolution which respects their dignity and right to be heard.  Everyone deserves a fair shake.

My service as a community leader and problem solver has mirrored my efforts as a lawyer.  With special emphasis on the rights of women and children who are the victims of domestic abuse, I have always tried to give freely of my time and resources to insure that those too small or weak to defend themselves always have the help and protection they deserve.  Of note, I was a two-term chairman of the St. Mary’s County Chapter of the American Red Cross, Board Member of the St. Mary’s County Women’s Center and Southern Maryland Family Advocacy Center, and past chairman of the Leonardtown Lions Club.

Of course, besides listening to me blow my own horn, how can voters feel assured that I’m qualified to be a judge?  In addition to the reasons listed above, I am the only current candidate who submitted himself to the scrutiny of the Maryland State Bar Association during this past nominating process and received their highest recommendation.  Also, the Women’s State Bar Association gave me an endorsement of “well qualified”.  Lastly, my peers in the St. Mary’s County Bar Association have twice elected me President of their association.

I have run a campaign with an eye to the future, proposing several new ways that the court system can better serve the citizens of St. Mary’s County.  First, I support the idea of a special, dedicated docket for domestic violence cases.  We’ve seen what happens when these cases don’t get the attention they deserve.  Victims of domestic violence deserve better.  Second, I’m interested in exploring the idea of an adult diversionary drug court in which first time, non-violent offenders would have the opportunity to address and effectively deal with their addictions.  We must do what we can to help those who reach out and desire to be productive citizens.

These goals are attainable and it is disappointing that given the availability of resources within the court system that new and innovative ways to deal with problems haven’t been proposed and implemented.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers.  I’ve always viewed myself as a regular person with my own set of strengths and weaknesses and I recognize that I would bring those same set of strengths and weaknesses with me to the bench.  But I’ve always been persistent, I don’t give up.  Being in the system as long as I have, I know that regular working men and women need someone to stand by them, listen to their concerns and make a fair decision.  I will strive each and every day to make those fair decisions, always keeping in mind that the individual appearing before me deserves my respect and a right to be heard.

Judge Candidate Mike Stamm

Did not respond

Judicial Elections: Historic Background

The Maryland judiciary consists of a court of appeals, a court of special appeals, a circuit court, and various trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Under Maryland’s constitution, judges are appointed by the governor and, except for circuit court judges, must be confirmed by the senate. Since 1970, Maryland governors have adopted executive orders creating judicial nominating commissions to recommend candidates for appointment. Appellate judges keep their seats through retention elections, but circuit court judges run in contested, nonpartisan elections.

Circuit court judges are usually unopposed for reelection. For example, before 2002, there had been no opposition to incumbent circuit judges in Montgomery County since 1986 and no contested general election races since 1958. In 2002, the committee to retain sitting judges was formed to support the reelection of the six incumbent judges on the ballot in Montgomery County. The committee distributed a campaign brochure that included photographs and biographies of the sitting judges, along with a statement of what the committee termed the “sitting judge principle.” The judges’ reelection and the sitting judge principle was endorsed by the central committees of the Republican and Democratic Parties of Maryland, the Maryland State Bar Association, and the AFL-CIO. The committee conducted similar campaigns when Montgomery County circuit court judges were opposed in 1970, 1974, 1984, and 1986. The 2002 effort was successful—all six incumbent judges kept their seats.

History of Judicial Selection Reform

ALTERING SELECTION

 METHODS  Maryland’s constitution prescribes judicial term lengths and an appointive process for selecting judges. Judicial nominating commissions to recommend candidates for appointment are created by executive order. Altering judicial term lengths or establishing a permanent merit selection process would require amending the constitution. Constitutional amendments may be proposed with the approval of three fifths of the members of each house of the general assembly and must then be ratified by a majority of voters.

FORMAL CHANGES

SINCE INCEPTION

1776

All judges appointed for life by the governor with consent of the executive council.

1837

Executive council abolished. Judicial appointments require senate confirmation.

1851

All judges elected by the people to ten-year terms.

1864

Term lengths increased from ten to fifteen years.

1966

Court of special appeals created.

1968

Merit selection amendment rejected by the voters.

1970

Governor Mandel established judicial nominating commissions to propose nominees for appointment to the state’s courts. Since 1970, every governor has issued a similar executive order.

1971

District court created by consolidation of system of trial magistrates, people’s courts, and municipal courts.

1976

Term lengths of appellate judges reduced from fifteen to ten years.

Judicial Campaigns and Elections

CAMPAIGN CONDUCT
According to Canon 5 of Maryland’s code of judicial conduct, judicial candidates shall not make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office; announce their views on disputed legal or political issues; or misrepresent their identity, qualifications, or other fact. Judges are not barred from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions or publicly stated support, but they are required to file public reports regarding campaign funds.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING
Individuals and PACs may contribute no more than $4,000 to a single candidate, and a total of $10,000 to all candidates, during a four-year election cycle.

Source: The American Judicature Society. The AJS  works to maintain the independence and integrity of the courts and increase public understanding of the justice system.

 t