Georgia has one of the most complex trial court systems in the nation, with at least 6 distinct trial courts (Superior, Probate, State, Magistrate, Municipal, and Juvenile). Now voters will decide on a 7th: Business Court.
HR 993 would amend the state’s constitution to create a Business Court. The plan, as amended, would still allow Superior Courts to create their own business court divisions.
Moreover, unlike the state’s other courts which are mostly elected, Business Court judges would be appointed by the Governor. Moreover, unlike any other state, confirmation would be done not by a single chamber (e.g. Senate) or both legislative chambers (as in Connecticut and Tennessee) but by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A bill to increase funding for Kansas public schools that passed the House will not move in the Senate until both chambers approved a bill to strip to Kansas judiciary of jurisdiction to hear K-12 funding disputes.
First, some background.
As mentioned on this blog over the years the Kansas Supreme Court has issued several decisions finding the legislature’s system and amounts for public education were unconstitutional under a provision that
The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.
Dozens of constitutional amendments detailed here have been filed over the last decade to strip the Kansas courts of jurisdiction to hear cases under this provision and to allow the legislature to set whatever funding levels and funding sources it wished.
The Kansas Supreme Court has given the legislature until April 30 to come up with a constitutional funding formula.
The House, in response, today passed HB 2445 to provide additional funding.
Senate leadership, however, has announced no funding bill will be taken up in the Senate until a constitutional amendment (HCR 5029 or something similar) is approved by the House and Senate and sent to voters. Moreover, local media reports if the amendment fails to pass the House, Senate leaders will simply not take up the funding bill at all.
That amendment would amend the constitution to read
As all political power is inherent in the people, the legislature shall make determine suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state. The determination of the total amount of funding that constitutes suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state is exclusively a legislative power, and shall be made as provided by law. Such power is committed to the legislature under article 2 of this constitution and shall be shown due respect by the other branches of government. No court, or other tribunal, established by this constitution or otherwise by law shall alter, amend, repeal or otherwise abrogate such power, nor shall such power be exercised by, either directly or indirectly, by any such court or other tribunal.
A bill approved last week by the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee and set for a full Senate vote soon effectively merges several bills into one with potential major ramifications for the courts.
SB 1396 as it presently reads includes
- A new section of law regarding the role and responsibility of sheriffs to provide court security and the authority of chief judges in this area. The language appears to be similar if not identical to portions of HB 7089 discussed here.
- Increases the civil jurisdiction for the state’s County Courts from $15,000 to $50,000 effective 2020.
- Authorizes a Supreme Court justice who resides outside of Tallahassee to maintain his or her headquarters in a district court of appeal courthouse, a county courthouse, or other appropriate facility in the justice’s district and be reimbursed for travel and subsistence while in Tallahassee.
- The addition of judges to certain Circuits
This last item may prove a sticking point. Under the state’s constitution the supreme court “certifies” the number of judges needed in each Circuit Court or County Court. If the legislature wants to alter the supreme court’s numbers up or down, it must have “a finding of two-thirds of the membership of both houses of the legislature.”
A plan discussed here to require the Iowa Supreme Court have a 5/7 supermajority to declare laws unconstitutional cleared the Senate yesterday.
News reports quote the lead author of SF 2282 as claiming the proposal is not targeting the current court but that “It’s just too much power to give to four judges to make fundamental changes in our law.” Proponents also liken it to a legislature overriding a governor’s veto by 2/3rds, however that provision in the is found in the Iowa constitution, not a statute.
As noted before, there are two states with similar supermajority requirements (Nebraska and North Dakota) but those are due to constitutional provisions, not statutes.
SF 2153 now goes to the House.
There are two states that have two separate courts of last resort: Oklahoma and Texas. Both have a court of last resort for civil matters (Supreme Court) and one for criminal (Court of Criminal Appeals). Texas has debated and attempted for 20 years to merge their courts, now Oklahoma appears to be trying to do the same.
HJR 1051 as filed and approved by the House Rules Committee yesterday would abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals within one year of approval by voters. All “duties, powers, cases, records, property, and personnel” EXCEPT judges would transfer to the Supreme Court. It appears the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals would simply have their existing offices and terms ended.
The last and only time in recent history an effort like this was attempted in 2012 (discussed here).
There has been a single attempt in the last 20 years to merge the two courts. SJR 83 of 2012 would have abolished the constitutional references to the Court of Criminal Appeals. This was part of a package of bills, including SJR 84 of 2012 which would have stripped the newly combined Supreme Court of the power to strike down any law as unconstitutional, instead allowing an “Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review” created by the legislature itself to determine whether its laws were constitutional.
As discussed here, a constitutional amendment to strip state courts of power in K-12 funding lawsuits have not advanced out of the Senate Education Committee.
SJR 4 contains three key sections.
- The legislature alone is to decide funding levels and to “rationally determine” what those levels are.
- The legislature alone is to equitably allocate funding among the school districts in order to have adequate, thorough and efficient schools.
- The judiciary may declare a system of public school funding in violation of the constitution, but cannot order the legislature to take any action to generate revenue, through taxation or otherwise in order to fulfill its duties to fully fund the public school system.
Although not technically a legislative entity, Florida’s Constitutional Revision Commission is, like the legislature, allowed to submit constitutional amendments onto the ballot affecting the courts. While there were 103 CRC proposals, these have been narrowed to Proposals Under Active Consideration as of today. Those affecting the courts include
- Proposal 6: Requires any state court or administrative law judge to interpret a state statute or rule de novo, independent of an agency’s interpretation, in any litigation proceedings between a private party and an administrative agency.
- Proposal 39: Among other things, prohibits a justice or judge from personally representing another person for compensation before the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of state government, other than practicing law before a judicial tribunal, for a period of six years following vacation of office.
- Proposal 41: Allows judges to serve until age 75. Currently judges must retire at 70, but can serve out their current term if they already served at least 1/2 of it when they hit 70.
- Proposal 47: Provides a person must be a member of a U.S. state or territory for 10 years to be eligible for a trial court judgeship (Circuit or County Courts).
- Proposal 55: Requires the legislature to provide funding sufficient to offset the Clerks costs in providing services in criminal and other court cases in which the parties do not pay fees and costs.
Gone are any proposals regarding changes to judicial selection.