# Question 2: Temporary Appointments on the Commission on Judicial Disabilities (constitutional amendment)
**In one sentence:** This amendment would let the Commission on Judicial Disabilities keep working when a member can't serve (is recused, is disqualified, or their term ends) by allowing a temporary substitute or a term extension, instead of leaving the seat empty.

## What a FOR vote does
A FOR vote changes the state constitution (Article IV) so that temporary appointments are allowed. If a member is recused (steps aside from a case, like a judge who can't hear a case they are connected to), is disqualified, or a member's term ends without a replacement, the Commission Chair may bring back a former member for a temporary job, or the Governor — at the Chair's request — may appoint a temporary substitute or extend a current member's term until a permanent replacement is named [1][2][3].

## What an AGAINST vote does
An AGAINST vote keeps the current rules. The Commission's membership stays as it is today, and temporary appointments are not allowed when a member is recused, disqualified, or a term ends [1][2][3].

## Strongest case FOR
- A back-up method for filling gaps lets the Commission keep investigating complaints against judges and helps prevent backlogs, since the normal appointment process is often slow [3].
- The change is narrow: the Chair could only recall someone who already went through the approval process, and any extension would still be subject to the maximum 10-year service limit [3].
- The Commission "plays an important role in promoting public confidence in, and preserving, the integrity and independence of the judiciary" [5], so keeping it staffed supports that mission.

## Strongest case AGAINST
- Giving a commission the power to recommend that a judge be removed from office should require action by the governor and the state Senate, not an unelected commission chair filling a vacancy [3].
- The amendment has no deadline by which an appointment must occur, so a "temporary" appointment could last a long time, letting the governor avoid Senate confirmation through "temporary" picks [3].
- If the Senate refused to consider a replacement, a temporary appointment could last as long as a permanent term [3].

## If you care most about...
- **Keeping the Commission able to act on judge complaints without delay** -> FOR fits, because it fills gaps before they become backlogs [3].
- **Making judges' removals a bigger Senate decision** -> AGAINST fits, because temporary picks would bypass the usual Senate role [3].
- **Preventing long "temporary" appointments that outlast their intent** -> AGAINST fits, because there is no deadline on how long a temporary appointment lasts [3].
- **Limiting change to people who already passed the approval process** -> FOR fits, because the Chair may only recall a former member [3].

## Who supports and who opposes
Not found in sources checked. (Source [4] shows the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee reported the bill favorably and Senator Smith testified in favor, but no named organizations or officials taking sides on the ballot question itself.)

## What we could not verify
- We could not confirm from the packet alone the Commission's exact composition (3 judges, 3 Maryland-licensed lawyers, 5 residents who are neither) or its four-year terms and term limits; these appeared in a state summary not in the packet.
- We could not verify any named organization or official taking a FOR or AGAINST position on the ballot question.

## Confidence
Medium — the official ballot text and the FOR/AGAINST arguments come straight from the state and Maryland Matters, but a few supporting details about the Commission's membership weren't verifiable within the packet.

## Sources
[1] Ballot questions for the November 3, 2026 election — Maryland Board of Elections — https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/ballot_questions.html
[2] SB0933 — Maryland General Assembly (Legislative Services) — https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/sb0933?ys=2026RS
[3] Question 2: Temporary appointments on the Commission on Judicial Disabilities — Maryland Matters Voter Guide — https://marylandmatters.org/voter-guides/ballot-measures/question-2-temporary-appointments-on-the-commission-on-judicial-disabilities/
[4] SB0933 Witness Signup — Maryland General Assembly (Legislative Services) — https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/WitnessSignup/SB0933?ys=2026RS
[5] Commission on Judicial Disabilities — Maryland Courts — https://www.mdcourts.gov/cjd
[6] Commission on Judicial Disabilities — Maryland Courts — https://www.courts.state.md.us/cjd

One thing for your review pass: I did **not** use the "11-member" / term-limit details from the official State summary, because that summary text is embedded in your prompt, not in a source I could open — so I moved those specific membership facts into "What we could not verify" rather than cite them to a source that isn't in the packet. If the official DLS summary PDF is a citable source, I can fold those details back into "What a FOR vote does" and lift them out of the "could not verify" section — just say the word.