Now that a majority of women legislators have called for the removal of Baltimore County Circuit Judge Robert Cahill, it's clear that his light sentence and sympathetic remarks for a man convicted of killing his wife have become a political issue.
You don't have to be a defender of Judge Cahill to worry about subjecting the judicial system to political pressures. On the other hand, you don't have to be a legal scholar to understand how the Cahill matter highlights the need for more public accountability for Maryland judges.
There are several problems here. The most immediate is that the Judicial Disabilities Commission, the constitutional mechanism for disciplining judges, is out of date and ineffective. And no wonder: It has only a part-time staff and a token budget.
A case in point: It took the commission 17 long months to issue a private reprimand in an earlier controversy centering on another Baltimore County Circuit Court judge. That case involved Judge Thomas Bollinger's decision to grant probation before judgment to a convicted rapist, as well as the judge's comments quarreling with the state law that treats the circumstances as a serious crime.
Judge Bollinger offended enough people to spark public demonstrations, but the only reason the public learned that the commission took any action at all was that the judge agreed to make last month's reprimand public, along with his response.
The irony in all this is that Maryland has taken pains to shield its judges from the buffeting winds of politics. The lesson in the Bollinger and Cahill affairs is that the system needs revisions.
Ignoring the controversies or dismissing them as temper tantrums by angry feminists will only increase political pressures on the judiciary. After all, the courts belong to the people, not to incumbent judges or the bar association.
Controversy or not, a year which brings a new governor and legislature is a good time for a thorough examination of the state's judicial system -- how judges are selected, how they are trained and evaluated, how they are held accountable for their performance. The Bollinger and Cahill cases raise important questions about balancing the need to protect judges from frivolous complaints and the need to reassure the public that judges in their courtrooms are not free-standing fiefdoms, but rather part of a system dedicated to justice for all.
Maryland tries to strike a healthy balance between the extremes of a highly politicized judiciary that stands for election every four years or so and one that never has to face the voters at all. Infrequent elections -- every 15 years for circuit court judges (after initially standing in the first election after their appointment) -- are supplemented by a disciplinary process centered in the Judicial Disabilities Commission.
Clearly, though, the world has changed since the commission was established in 1966 by constitutional amendment. The Maryland judiciary likewise faces bigger caseloads arising from a more complex society.
Many people question the slow pace of diversifying the makeup of the bench. Except in Baltimore, women and minorities are a distinct minority among Maryland judges. Is diversity coming too slowly? Maybe there's a better way for selecting judicial nominees.
Governor-elect Glendening has a golden opportunity. Instead of re-authorizing the current system of judicial nominating committees for the full four years of his term, he could authorize them for a shorter period, say nine months or a year, pending a full review of the process.
Meanwhile, we should also examine what we want in our judges. The term "judicial temperament" can mean different things to different people. What exactly should it mean in Maryland in the 1990s?
Beyond the selection process, it's time to stop assuming that the act of donning a judicial robe automatically imbues a man or women with an easy familiarity with the subtleties of dispensing justice while also according citizens the same dignity judges themselves deserve and demand. Even judges, who rarely get to observe each other's courtroom work, could benefit from some well-structured performance evaluations.
And then, of course, there's the matter of discipline and accountability. To its credit, the Court of Appeals' Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure is now looking into the commission. Substantial changes could require a constitutional amendment, as well as the support of the governor and legislature for a meaningful budget.
That's a start. In the long run, the anger provoked by Judges Cahill and Bollinger may be the catalyst for a healthy and overdue examination of Maryland's courts. People of every persuasion can be grateful for that.
Sara Engram is editorial-page director of The Evening Sun.