judge from each county i believe this means the judge that one resident judge should serve that county present situation authority from there i'm sorry what is your story for that know that's what that means what whatever that means that goes on not sure if that section sixteen yeah when it says the supreme court has authority to temporarily transfer a judge outside his that doesn't mean transferring the judge out of where he normally sets me and has no meaning if it doesn't say that he might as well say an illinois judge sitting in illinois can be right so that means he should serve accurately well and help us address my question who decides well there are fourteen circuit judges and eleven associates judges and interpret the constitution to require judge vincent to serve the substantial amount of time a substantial amount of time in pike county right yes and by substantial you know i said majority of the time in my first grade i don't think that's an important distinction i think each case should be decided on its own and in this case judge for instance sitting four days out of five another county since he's been a judge i think exceeds that required by the resident i but i support from the constitutional convention right indicating that you want to interpret it that way on to conceding that the cline language of the constitution itself does not say that me why this court should impose sanctions on you under rule three seventy five for the grounds this appeal is still stupid and groundless is to marketing for this judge i don't see how provided mr miller all right in maintaining that plan do you recognize the geographics that you're trying to achieve representation balance of representation throughout the downstate counties is that an objective  primary of representation is not a primary objective it's a side of it's a psych result of it but that's not the primary reason it's there it's to give each county its own judge there's other parts of th for me why it's frivolous i don't understand it nobody's explained it to me i mean there's other parts of the constitutional convention debates and talk about this this two days out of five years it's too much i don't know that's a different case i'm saying this case just says constitutionally it doesn't matter what the rules of past practices the and the meaning of that in light of the material from the constitutional convention debates that say that doesn't lead to should just be represented that the judge shouldn't just represent the county circuit if that were the case me but he shouldn't be transferred because of his own conflict situation that's can act when they don't have anything from the courts to say them what the constitution means on this issue  best you're asking for an interpretation on the constitution and whether or not this is appropriate you have worse you're raising an issue that is clear from the statutory language and the language in the constitution that it's i'm talking about in terms of being able to serve in other places and not being limited form of jordie at the time i have to be in pike county the main objective for one judge who one penalty if that's not the main objective surely you agree the language says that that's not the primary object what is the primary object does it state that the primary objective is that you have a residence or a jet spending the majority of his or her time in their county do they talk about that is the language to that set me to talk about that elsewhere i raises the question and the debates so show what page twenty three fifty two the debates bottom of the second c good afternoon to me please the court christina hansen assistant attorney general on behalf of judgments  he doesn't allege that judge vinson failed to meet the eligibility requirements of the office that he holds and he doesn't allege that judgment and has engaged in any misconduct he only allegation here is that because of a because a conflict of interest has prompted the chief judge to assign him to other courthouses but then the sixty day or so circuit that he's holding has that he is ineligible for office essentially that he's holding his office in violation of the constitution and that claim lacks merit is clear that that a judge is not required to sit in the county from which he was elected at all times there's nothing in the constitution supporting petitioners claim section seven be provided it's while it's but he's correct that section b provides that there should be at least one judge from each circuit section b section seven b also makes clear that it's one judicial  circuit and pursuant to section seven see the chief judge has general administrative authority over the entire circuit and the chief circuit judges within the chief judges she circuit judges administrative authority to assign judges within each judicial circuit rather relates to the supreme court's authority to assign to assign judges temper and a temporary basis to any court and so that does not support to petitioners argument petitioner relied on the constitutional debates and argued that that under thiis the court should be looking at the constitutional debate i just wanted to point out that that  presenting a very narrow rule to the general requirement that you don't look beyond the clear language of the constitution that narrow rule of law is when there is a draft language point that informs that the question at issue in the case that's not the case here that the language that petitioner discusses from the constitutional convention that the primary objective of one circuit judge from each county is is not meant is not primarily meant to be representative doesn't address the particular issue it doesn't address whether where each judge which courthouse each judge is required to sit in whether it's or circuit they go on to state that the reason that that was maintained in the constitution was because that's roughly the way it was done before there were certain changes made to that to the structure of the circuit court but roughly there was a judge that's roughly the way it was done before and the framers intended for the constitution intended for the structure of the judiciary to have flexibility and and that's why it was a mess otherwise required by law there would be one there would be one judge and each county but it was and it ministry of authority there was significantly more administrative authority granted to the supreme court and  beginning i'm not talking about all times that's not what i'm saying i'm saying four days out of five is too much as it relates to me reference through how much time reserves of those who go well i think it's implied in the language that there is a certainly want to judges elected in a circuit in a county certainly he does represent a circuit i mean that's that's has to be that way a minute so that's what that means it's not primar view in which the language or less otherwise provided by law is being debated that's the flexibility they're talking about giving the the legislature flexibility to change the one county one judge requiring a majority  position to bail and that language was included in the constitution that's the flexibility the legislature can change that one judge one county provision but they haven't in the forty five years since the constitution was  the flexibility they're talking about not flexibility of that supreme court to administer the courts in a way that a judge goes more than temporarily from his home district to some other court  and this hansen said this administration that's according to the needs of each chord i think if you read those debates they talk about any transfers being driven by the needs of the court would normally be sitting in pike county but can't because he's the uncle of the state's attorney that's the judges this need that the courts are accommodating that's backwards and then again i have to emphasize temporarily this temporary mean temporary is four days out of five forever i don't well then ok it's temporary but i don't think that's what the word temporary means pointedly about what's this language name what's this language one judge one county what's that mean and the answer is it's not supposed to be represented and keep saying it not primarily again it's going to be their very nature because if you elect i can only judge in a circuit by the very nature of the thing that county is going to that judge is going to represent that county in the circuit and it goes beyond that that's not the primary objective to represent just be a representative this is of more is more going to object to that than the one county one judge rule