|
1
|
predominantly, but 1 soy some consideration ought to be
|
|
2
|
given to geographical considerations.
|
|
3
|
MR. ENEY: Look at Section 4(b) , on Page A,
|
|
4
|
and as applied to the Circuit Court. Is that the kind of
|
|
5
|
a system leaving the power to the districts, setting up
|
|
6
|
the guidelines?
|
|
7
|
JUDGE CARTER: The distinction between the two
|
|
8
|
as I read the whole article is your nominating committee
|
|
9
|
is composed of people from that district, which is not
|
|
10
|
going to be --
|
|
11
|
MR. EHEY: Not the appellate.
|
|
12
|
JUDGE CARTER: You said 4?
|
|
13
|
MR. ENEY: Section 4. I merely suggest that
|
|
14
|
you consider whether the districting provisions in
|
|
15
|
Section 4(b) with respect to the Circuit Court, if applied
|
|
16
|
to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, would meet
|
|
17
|
the .point that you are making.
|
|
18
|
JUDGE CARTER: Yes, I think it would. If there
|
|
19
|
is some addition to that, that a districting of represen-
|
|
20
|
tation on a court, some sort of maybe general language
|
|
21
|
ought to be written in the Article, embodying the theory
|
