# Question 2: Temporary Appointments on the Commission on Judicial Disabilities (constitutional amendment)

**In one sentence:** This question decides whether to allow temporary replacements on the state commission that investigates complaints against judges when members cannot serve or their terms end without replacements. [1][3]

## What a FOR vote does
Allows temporary substitutes when a member steps aside from a case, is barred from taking part, or finishes a term without a replacement. [1]

The Commission Chair could recall a former member. At the Chair’s request, the Governor could appoint a temporary substitute or extend a current member’s term until a permanent replacement is appointed. Anyone recalled or appointed must meet the Constitution’s eligibility rules. [1]

## What an AGAINST vote does
Keeps current membership rules: temporary appointments would not be allowed for these situations. [1]

## Strongest case FOR
- **A possible argument:** Temporary replacements could help the Commission keep handling complaints when members cannot participate, supporting its work overseeing judges. This is a potential benefit, not a verified prediction about delays. [1][3]
- **A possible argument:** The change balances flexibility with basic safeguards: substitutes must meet constitutional eligibility rules, and the Governor could use these powers only at the Chair’s request. [1]

## Strongest case AGAINST
- **A possible argument:** Voters may prefer not to give the Chair and Governor these additional ways to choose who serves on a body that investigates judges. [1][3]
- **A possible argument:** Voters who value firm term endings may object to allowing a current member to remain until a permanent replacement is appointed. [1]

## If you care most about...
- **Keeping seats filled** -> FOR fits, because it allows temporary service when members cannot participate or replacements are pending. [1]
- **Eligibility safeguards alongside flexibility** -> FOR fits, because recalled and newly appointed members must meet constitutional requirements. [1]
- **Limiting appointment powers** -> AGAINST fits, because it does not add the proposed powers for the Chair and Governor. [1]
- **Avoiding term extensions** -> AGAINST fits, because it rejects the proposed authority to extend a member’s service while awaiting a replacement. [1]

## Who supports and who opposes
**Legislative support:** Senator Smith sponsored SB 933. It passed the Senate 41–0 and the House 134–0; those are legislative votes, not proof of campaign endorsements. [2]

**Named campaign supporters or opponents:** Not found in sources checked.

## What we could not verify
Measured effects on complaint delays, how often substitutes would be needed, and named campaign opponents: Not found in sources checked.

## Confidence
**High** on what each vote does: the State Board of Elections states both outcomes directly. Arguments above are labeled as possible reasoning, not attributed advocacy. [1]

## Sources
[1] Ballot Questions for the November 3, 2026 Election — Maryland State Board of Elections — https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/ballot_questions.html

[2] SB 933: Judiciary Department – Commission on Judicial Disabilities – Temporary Appointment — Maryland General Assembly — https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/sb0933?ys=2026RS

[3] Commission on Judicial Disabilities — Maryland Judiciary — https://www.courts.state.md.us/cjd