Readers may recall that in 2010 I did a feature on the massive changes being proposed to retirement systems for judges and court staff. (Click here for a review). This year is starting off on exactly the same footing in Maryland, whose public-employee retirement system was poorly reviewed by the Pew Center on the States and whose plight is near dire. Maryland’s SB 6 of 2011 provides that, on or after July 1, 2011, an individual not already a member of the Judges’ Retirement System may not join. Instead, all judges previously eligible for the Judges’ Retirement System would be placed into the state’s Optional Retirement Program. The same would apply to those who would otherwise be eligible for most of the state’s pension systems. The bill is currently in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.
In 2010, the Virginia state legislature imposed a judicial hiring freeze, declining to fill any newly created vacancies created due to judges retiring, resigning, or otherwise leaving the bench. The council of the state’s mandatory bar (Virginia State Bar), itself an agency of the Virginia Supreme Court, passed a February 2010 resolution urging funding for the vacancies. Nevertheless, the freeze was approved.
In December 2010 the president of the VSB sent a letter to all bar members urging they indicate to their state legislators the impact the freeze was having in Virginia’s courts.
According to the Virginia Lawyer Weekly’s blog, the pressure initially appeared to have succeeded in getting additional funding for judgeships in 2011. However, the Governor’s plan for funding those positions includes use of $5 million in mandatory bar dues. Existing state law directs the bar dues go to a State Bar Fund to pay for the Bar itself and its functions.
The incoming chair of the House Courts of Justice Committee indicated to Virginia Lawyers Weekly he thought this was a direct response by the Governor to VSB’s efforts at advocacy against the hiring freeze plan.
Are state bar dues nationally subject to this sort of general appropriation movement? Virginia’s state appropriations bill (HB 30 of 2010) at pages 25-26 go into detail with respect to state bar funding. Contrast this to South Dakota’s appropriations bill (SB 196 of 2010) which lists State Bar of South Dakota appropriations as “Informational” only.
Legislatures Coming Into Session
North Dakota 1/4/2011
Rhode Island 1/4/2011
New Hampshire 1/5/2011
New York 1/5/2011
With the next legislative year expected to be the worst yet for operating expenses and long term debt, state legislators are scrambling to address increasing homelessness (from foreclosures or otherwise) and ways to pay for courts. One proposal, filed earlier this month in Kentucky as SB 26 would combine the two in an interesting fashion by adding a new statute (KRS 186.531(1)(f)(3)(a)) to read:
The cost of operators’ licenses and permits shall be as follows…fee for an identification card for a person who does not have a fixed, permanent address shall be four dollars ($4), two dollars ($2) of which shall be used to cover the Transportation Cabinet’s cost of equipment and supplies, and two dollars ($2) of which shall be an administrative fee of the circuit clerk for issuing the card that shall be deposited by the Administrative Office of the Courts into a trust and agency account for the circuit clerks and used for the purposes of hiring additional deputy clerks and providing salary adjustment to deputy clerks. (emphasis added)
The prefiled bill has yet to be referred to a committee.
Issue 4:25 (December 24) is here.
As 2010 winds down, a review of the over 1000 pieces of legislation tracked by Gavel to Gavel this year seems in order. The bills and resolutions presented in this special edition represent just a sample of the legislation that advanced through the legislatures this year. To search the entire Gavel to Gavel database, click here.
Signed, sealed and delivered is more than a Stevie Wonder song, it represents the attestation of an action or record of a court dating back centuries. Technology, however, has outpaced the days of wax and impressions. For that reason, several state legislatures have had to go back and change the laws of their states to allow their courts more latitude. Legislatures in Oklahoma (HB 2253 of 2004), Iowa (HB 579 of 2009), and Michigan (SB 720 of 2010) all authorized all courts in their state to e-seal. Texas in 2007 (SB 229) gave its district court the authority to create a seal electronically, thus allowing the courts to transfer, store, and locate documents with greater efficiency.
This year, Nevada enters into the e-seal fray. SB 6 authorizes the electronic reproduction of the seal of a court (current law requires either impressing the seal on the document or impressing the seal on a substance attached to the document). The bill is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Cross-posted at Court Technology Bulletin blog