Question 2

[Lorizael]

An amendment to the Maryland Constitution regarding the Judiciary. For the life of me, I cannot understand the language, or if I can understand the language, the point, of this amendment.

I would like the opinion of an informed Maryland resident or a law expert or, if at all possible, a combination of the two as to what this means.

"Under current law ... the State Constitution grants, with some exceptions, a party the right to appeal the determination of a legal question in a circuit court trial to a three-judge panel, called a court in banc. The decision of the court in banc is considered final and conclusive for the party that requested the review. However, the party that did not request the in banc review may appeal the decision of the circuit court in banc to the State's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Because the Court of Appeals hears cases granting certiorari, this appeal is discretionary, not automatic or direct.

"This constitutional amendment will allow a party that did not request an in banc review of a circuit court decision to appeal an adverse ruling of the court in banc directly to the State's intermediate appellate court, the Court of Special Appeals. This constitutional amendment also establishes that three judges of a circuit court constitute a court in banc, repeals the authority of the circuit courts to determine the procedure for an appeal to a court in banc and instead establishes that the Maryland Rules shall provide the procedure for such an appeal, and eliminates obsolete provisions pertaining to writs of error."

Phew.

Uh.

Thanks.

Also, Steele or Cardin?

[Zkribbler]

Court of Appeals [usually called a Supreme Court, but not in MD)
Court of Special Appeals
Circuit Court 3-judge panel [en banc]
Circuit Court [trial court]

Above is a ranking of MD's courts, highest on top.

There's a trial in the circuit court. One side is unhappy. It appeals. The appeal goes up to a bank of 3-judges. If they rule against the party who appealed, that's the end of the case. Under current law, if the 3 judges rule for the party who appealed, then the other side may ask the Court of Appeals to look at it, but that court doesn't have to if it doesn't want to.

This new law grants the party who did not file the original to have an extra remedy. If it loses the appeal to the 3-judge panel, it can appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, who must hear that appeal.

The second part of this law revokes the authority of the circuit court to establish the procedures for an appeal to the 3-court panel. Instead this authority goes to whoever it is writes the Rules of the Court there. The proposed law doesn't say who this entitity is but my guess is that it's either the Court of Appeals or at least one or more key justices from it.

****************
My best guess is that this proposal is designed to relieve congestion in the Court of Appeals but shoving some of their work off to a new Court of Special Appeals.

[Lorizael]

Wow. Thanks.

[KrazyHorse]

The first part seems straightforward. Just not sure about the second part.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.lwvmd.org/vg/ballotQs.html

Origin of this Ballot Question - In the 2006 session, the General Assembly passed HB 84 - Circuit Court In Banc Decisions. Because enactment of this bill requires an amendment to Article IV of the Maryland constitution, voters must approve this change for it to become law.



Present Practice - The Maryland constitution provides that a person involved in a trial in the circuit court (the main trial level court that sits in each county) may appeal any ruling to a group of three judges of the circuit court (called "in banc review"). The decision of that panel of three judges is binding on the person who filed the appeal, but the other side has a right to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel to the Court of Appeals, the highest state court.



Proposed Change - The main purpose of this amendment is to recognize that Maryland now has a mid-level appellate court, the Court of Special Appeals. Trial court decisions would first be reviewed by that court before going to the highest state court, the Court of Appeals. It also provides that statewide procedural rules, the "Maryland Rules," will govern circuit court in banc reviews (three-judge panels), rather than allowing each circuit to make its own rules. The amendment revises outdated language to clarify that a person has a right to seek review from a three-judge panel only if the trial or proceeding did not already have three judges involved. As most trials are conducted by a single judge, a multi-judge panel would be rare. Further, the amendment deletes references to "writs of error," that are no longer used in Maryland courts.



WHAT WILL MY VOTE DO?

A vote FOR the Constitutional Amendment would allow an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals to be made when a circuit court in banc review of three judges decides against a case. It would also provide uniform procedures throughout the state because procedures for filing and considering appeals to three-judge panels will be governed by the Maryland Rules.



A vote AGAINST the Constitutional Amendment would not allow an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals and each circuit court will continue to make regulations concerning these appeals.