Unable to change merit selection for Supreme Court, Iowa legislators look to end it for Court of Appeals

I mentioned last week a statutory effort to end merit selection for the Kansas Court of Appeals. I noted at the time that these intermediate appellate courts, because they are often created by statute, are also able to have their selection methods changed by statute alone (vs. a constitutional amendment).This week, it is Iowa, likely in partial response to anger and angst over the state’s supreme court ruling in favor of same sex marriage several years ago.

The Iowa Constitution guarantees merit selection for that court (and the lower, District Court), and efforts have been introduced to end that system (HJR 12 and SJR 13). Such efforts would require two consecutive legislatures to approve it (majority vote only), plus approval at the ballot box. Thus, a change in the system would take years and a great deal of effort. The Court of Appeals, because it relies on a mere statute (Iowa Code 46.12 and 46.14A) can have its selection system changed in a matter of weeks during a single legislative session.

Enter HB 429 of 2011 which would end merit selection for the court and replace it with gubernatorial nomination and senate confirmation. Like the Kansas proposal, it would not do away with retention elections, however.

The bill is currently pending before the House Judiciary Committee.

Oklahoma: Fast track to ending merit selection in state?

It was not just Kansas acting to end merit selection last week. Oklahoma’s Senate Judiciary Committee approved SJR 36 fo 2011, which would end the state’s judicial nominating commission for appellate courts and allow the state’s governor to appoint any qualified person subject to  senate confirmation (additional coverage here, h/t Gavel Grab). As introduced, the judges so appointed would still be subject to retention election rather than re-confirmation or a contested election.

Today, the House Rules Committee announced it would take up its version (HJR 1009) March 2, possibly an indication the bill will bypass the subject matter jurisdiction committee (House Judiciary) altogether. Whereas the Senate version simply does away with any role for the state’s judicial nominating commission (JNC), the House version maintains the commission but makes their selections in effect, advisory. The governor “may appoint a person who is not one of the nominees to fill the vacancy.” Moreover, the House version retains a provision allowing the state’s chief justice to make the selection if the governor fails to do so for 60 days (the senate version jettisons this). Regardless of who picks, the individual chosen would be subject to senate confirmation and later retention elections.

This quick action may seem like a fast track, but it has been several years in building. 3 years ago SJR 36 of 2008 as introduced read very similar to SJR 36 of 2011, eliminating the judicial nominating commission outright and putting in place senate confirmation.  The House, however, heavily modified the bill. Their version would have kept the judicial nominating commission for the appellate courts and required vacancies (due to death, resignation, etc.) in the state’s trial and worker’s compensation court be subject to senate confirmation. Moreover, the House version read “Any appointment by the Governor to fill a Judicial Office shall be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.” (emphasis added) However, as noted above if the governor failed to make a nomination within 60 days, the chief justice would make the appointment and, as written in the House amendment, without the need for senate confirmation.  It is unclear if this was a glitch in drafting or by design. Regardless, the Senate rejected the House amendment and while a conference committee was appointed, time ran out before they could reach a compromise.

In 2009 it came back as HJR 1041. As introduced, it read almost exactly like SJR 36 the year before (senate confirmation for all judicial vacancies). What passed, however, was pared down again by the House to just senate confirmation for worker’s compensation court judges only (in OK, the worker’s compensation court is a court within the judiciary, not an executive branch agency).

HJR 1041 of 2009 was adopted and all ready to go for the 2010 ballot. It was withdrawn from the ballot in favor of  HJR 1041 of 2010. That bill (which became State Question 752) let the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate add 1 member to the JNC and put in a provision that non-attorney members of the JNC  could not have attorneys in their family. That was approved on the November 2010 ballot.

This created a problem: what to do with the JNC members in non-attorney designated seats who had lawyers in their family? In mid-February the state’s supreme court ruled they could stay.

Utah House moves bills to keep state’s retention elections and modify state’s judicial performance evaluation system

Last week I noted the Kansas House had voted to end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals. This week’s changes are in Utah, where today that state’s House rejected efforts to delay the transition of the state’s justice courts to retention elections. HB 392 as introduced, would have delayed the use of judicial retention elections for justice court judges until the 2018 general election. Under current law, such retention elections will go into effect upon the expiration of a justice court judge’s current term of office. Moreover, justice court judges would have been subject to the state’s judicial performance evaluation program starting in 2014.

As amended, however, HB 392 (Substitute) allows justice court judges to be evaluated for the 2012, 2014, and 2016 retention elections under two different standards.

  • Justice court judges who are employed part-time on July 1, 2012 are to be evaluated by the criteria established before the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission was established
  • Justice court judges who are employed full-time on July 1, 2012 are to be evaluated by the criteria established when the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission was created in 2008

HB 392 (Substitute) was approved on a 69-0 earlier today.

Also today the House Judicial Committee approved, SB 212 (Substitute). It passed the Senate last week on a 25-0 vote and was approved by the House committee today on a 10-0 vote.

In its present form, the bill

  • allows the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to vote in a closed meeting on whether or not to recommend that the voters retain a judge
  • requires that any record of an individual commissioner’s vote be a protected record not subject to public inspection under the state’s Government Records Access and Management Act
  • removes litigants from the judicial performance evaluation survey
  • allows survey respondents to supplement responses to survey questions with written comments;
  • establishes that the judicial performance evaluation survey is to be reported in three categories: legal ability, judicial temperament and integrity, and administrative abilities
  • establishes a clear minimum performance standard of at least 65% in each survey category
  • allows only a judge who is the subject of an unfavorable retention recommendation to meet with the commission about its recommendation
  • allows the judicial performance evaluation commission to only report public discipline that a judge has received

Additionally, the bill changes the four survey “topics” into  three “categories” through the merger of judicial temperament and integrity and, as noted above, requires a 65% rating or better in each category (the existing standard is an average score of at least a 3.0 [on a 5 point scale] on at least 80% of the questions).

Proposed survey “categories”

legal ability

  1. demonstration of understanding of the substantive law and any relevant rules of procedure and evidence;
  2. attentiveness to factual and legal issues before the court
  3. adherence to precedent and ability to clearly explain departures from precedent
  4. grasp of the practical impact on the parties of the judge’s rulings, including the
  5. effect of delay and increased litigation expense
  6. (new) ability to write clear judicial opinions
  7. (new) ability to clearly explain the legal basis for judicial opinions

judicial temperament and integrity

  1. demonstration of courtesy toward attorneys, court staff, and others in the judge’s court; maintenance of decorum in the courtroom
  2. demonstration of judicial demeanor and personal attributes that promote public trust and confidence in the judicial system
  3. preparedness for oral argument
  4. avoidance of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety
  5. display of fairness and impartiality toward all parties
  6. (modified language) ability to clearly communicate, including the ability to explain the basis for written rulings, court procedures, and decisions

administrative performance

  1. management of workload
  2. sharing proportionally the workload within the court or district
  3. issuance of opinions and orders without unnecessary delay

Kansas: House votes to end merit selection for Court of Appeals

Unlike most state supreme courts, whose selection methods are typically placed into the state constitution, intermediate appellate courts (such as the Kansas Court of Appeals) are creations of statute, including their selection method.

After several attempts to push for constitutional amendments to alter the state’s Supreme Court merit selection system failed, opponents of the selection system instead focused on the state’s Court of Appeals, resulting in passage in the House today of HB 2101 on a 66-53 vote. Under the bill, instead of a judicial nominating commission selecting three names to forward to the governor for selection, the governor would be free to chose anyone otherwise meeting the basic eligibility (such as 10 years practice in law) subject to senate confirmation.

In the original version of the bill, the person confirmed would serve for life, however Article 15 of the state constitution prohibits terms of more than four years unless the constitution itself sets another term (for example, the same constitution gives the supreme court six year terms). As a result, the bill was amended to put retention elections back in.

Initial reports indicate the 66-53 was bipartisan with 48 Republicans joining 18 Democrats to approve the bill and 20 Republicans voting in opposition along with 33 Democrats.

MT: Merit selection bill dies by tie vote in committee

Despite last year’s defeat of merit selection in Nevada, several states are actively considering putting it on their ballots. The first to a vote this year was in Montana, where SB 175 was considered by that state’s Senate Judiciary Committee over the last several weeks. In a January 27 hearing (audio here, minutes here) proponents noted the influx of money and partisan politics in judicial races and noted the need for fair and impartial courts. Some committee members, however, expressed concern that by having a partisan-elected governor select from a commission created by a partisan-elected legislature, politics would seep back in. One senator recommended having the supreme court chose.

Several senators expressed concern over the nominating commission composition. SB 175 provides only that the commissioners “shall be state residents and may not hold office in any political party. A majority of the commissioners shall be lay members who are neither attorneys nor elected officeholders.” Proponents argued that details of commission composition and selection should be left out of the constitition, citing a Montana tradition of not “legislating in the constitution.”

When a committee vote was finally held on February 4 (audio here) several committee members that voted against stated their worries about taking away the vote of Montana residents, that no Native American would ever be able to become a judge, and that the politics of judicial selection would simply go behind closed doors. All committee members present, however, did express their concerns over over-politicization of judicial election/selection, with some openly calling for a discussion on public financing. When brought to a vote, the bill died on a 6-6 tie with all five Democrats, plus the Republican committee chair voting No. However, several of the Yes votes were expressed with the caveat that they were voting to advance the bill to the floor and/or a fuller debate and might very well vote against the final bill.

IA: Judicial overhaul bill, vetoed in 2010, resubmitted in 2011

With ongoing efforts in Iowa to  impeach the remaining 4 justices on the state’s supreme court (details here), a more administrative judicial struggle is winding its way back through the legislature

In 2010, SB 2343 was approve by the legislature. The bill had several elements, including:

  • Filling vacancies – Grants authority to the chief justice to delay the nomination of a supreme court justice, court of appeals judge, district judge, district associate judge, associate juvenile judge, or associate probate judge magistrate for budgetary reasons up to one year. Grants authority to delay nomination for magistrates with certain limits.
  • Terms – Specifies that a senior judge, upon attaining the age of 78, may serve a one-year term and a succeeding one-year term at the discretion of the supreme court. Currently, a senior judge, upon attaining the age of 78, may serve a two-year term at the discretion of the supreme court.
  • Judicial allocation – Authorizes chief justice to apportion a trial judge vacancy to another judicial election district upon finding a substantial disparity exists in the allocation of judgeships and judicial workload between judicial election districts and a majority of the judicial council approves the apportionment. Requires state court administrator apportion magistrates throughout the state using a case-related workload formula in addition to the other criteria already listed in statute. Permits the chief judge to assign a magistrate to hold court outside of the magistrate’s county of appointment for the orderly administration of justice.
  • Residence – Requires district associate judge reside *in the judicial election district* in which he or she serves (currently must reside in county). Allows a magistrate to be a resident of a county contiguous to the county of appointment during the magistrate’s term of office.

Then-Governor Chester Culver vetoed the bill. In his veto letter, Governor Culver cited two portions of the bill he disapproved of:

  1. a requirement that only one district judicial nominating commission member may be appointed from each county unless there are fewer counties than commissioners and
  2. the sections allowing the Chief Justice to delay the appointment of judges for up to one year.

In 2011, with Terry Branstad now set to be sworn in as Governor next week, the bill is being redrafted and set for reintroduction (current draft is D. 1281). Governor Culver’s first objection (judicial nominating commission member allocation) is removed however  the second (chief justice may delay filling judicial vacancies) is in the current draft. Additionally, a section that was dropped from the original has been re-added.

  • Selection – Permits chief judge of judicial district to appoint clerk of court and remove clerk for cause after consultation with other judges (currently, clerk is appointed and removed by a majority vote of all district judges in district)

It is unclear if the new bill will face a legislature as-receptive as the one in 2010 and/or a governor less veto-prone

WA: Another try at public financing supreme court races

In 2010, public financing for supreme court races appeared to be on its way to reality when it ran aground a procedural hurdle. The 2010 version would pay for the financing via a $3 fee on civil case filings, something that Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, as President of the Senate, ruled was a tax. Tax increases in Washington require a two-thirds majority of the legislature (fees require a simple majority, h/t Spokesman Review)

Despite not being able to achieve the two-thirds vote in 2010, the bill is back (SB 5010) and being sponsored by Senator-elect Scott White who, while a member of the 2010 House, sponsored the same public financing bill in that chamber.