Earlier this week the Alabama Senate approved SB 90 to provide for the creation of a Judicial Resources Allocation Commission. The bill, as approved by that chamber, is a follow-up to similar legislation introduced over the last several sessions discussed here, here, and here. Media reports here. Key provisions of the bill include:
Based on a review and ranking system (see below) the Commission by 2/3rds vote could move a vacant judgeship from one circuit/district to another without having to rely on legislative approval. The movement of a judgeship by the Commission would be limited in several ways
- The move can only occur where the judgeship is vacant by death, resignation, mandatory retirement, forced removal, or similar case.
- The circuit/district that loses a judgeship cannot as a result drop to the bottom 10 on the circuit or county ranking list (see below).
- Every county is entitled to at least one District Judge.
- No circuit can lose more than 1 judgeship in any 2-year period.
- No change can be made until 3 years of data are available after the revision of criminal case-count factors in the Judicial Weighted Caseload Study (see below).
The Commission would include the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as chair. Prior versions introduced in the House did not include the Chief Justice.
- the Chief Justice (chair)
- the governor’s legal advisor
- the Attorney General
- 3 Circuit Judges picked by their association’s president
- 3 District Judges picked by their association’s president
- 2 attorneys picked by the president of the Alabama Bar
- 1 attorney picked by the president of the Alabama Lawyers Association
The Commission would conduct an annual review and rank each district or circuit on the need to increase or decrease judgeships based on 5 criteria
- A Judicial Weighted Caseload Study as adopted by the Supreme Court
- The population of the district or circuit
- The “judicial duties” in the district or circuit, including whether there are specialized divisions
- Uniformity in the calculation of how civil, criminal, and domestic cases are accounted for between circuits; versions introduced in prior sessions did not include this provision
- Any other information the commission deems relevant
Addressing lack of uniformity in criminal data/case counts
In addition to the requirement for uniformity in the calculation of how civil, criminal, and domestic cases are accounted for between circuits, data/calculations are specifically called out especially in those areas that count each separate criminal charge against a criminal defendant as a separate criminal case. Under SB 90 the Alabama Supreme Court must “revise the factors considered in the Judicial Weighted Caseload Study to uniformly, fairly, and accurately account for criminal cases by counts brought against a defendant.”
SB 90 now goes to the House.