Wisconsin legislators are once again considering the question of whether or not municipal court judges in the state should be required to be attorneys.
AB 33 filed in January 2017 and SB 294 filed in mid-June both provide that a person may not qualify for election or appointment as a municipal court judge unless he or she is an attorney licensed to practice in Wisconsin and a member in good standing of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
The is the latest effort to mandate that municipal court judges be attorneys. In the 2011/2012 session, AB 101 was heard in committee be failed to advance; Gavel to Gavel coverage of that effort and hearing can be found here. The identical SB 318 was never even taken up on committee.
There the matter lay for almost 4 years until AB 230 of 2015/2016. It too was never taken up in committee.
Michigan’s House and Senate approved yesterday (June 15) creation of a commission to examine how Michigan’s trial courts are funded.
HB 4613 as approved by both chambers would create the Trial Court Funding Commission. The Commission comes in light of People v. Cunningham, a July 2014 Michigan Supreme Court decision holding that a section of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide courts with the independent authority to impose costs upon criminal defendants. Those costs helped pay for trial courts in the state.
The Commission shall
(a) Review and recommend changes to the trial court funding system.
(b) Review and recommend changes to the methods by which the courts impose and allocate fees and costs.
(c) Suggest statutory changes necessary to effectuate recommended changes.
(d) Prepare a final report to the governor and legislative leaders “not later than 2 years after the effective date of this act.”
HB 4613 now goes to the governor for approval.
I have this in the latest edition of Judicature.
Guns in court: States are easing restrictions on firearms in courthouses and courtrooms
The article looks at location bans (“courthouse”, “exclusive use”, etc.) and personnel exemptions (e.g. judges, law enforcement in general, law enforcement assigned to court security). It also examines the legislative efforts to expand courthouse/courtroom carry.
A set of bills up for a hearing next week in the Michigan Senate’s Judiciary Committee would require that judges/courts that want to operate special problem solving dockets would have to be certified by the state court administrator’s office.
SB 435 (drug courts), SB 436 (DWI/sobriety courts), SB 437 (mental health courts), and SB 438 (veterans courts) provide that existing or new problem solving courts/dockets must be certified (“The state court administrative office shall establish the procedure for certification.”) or will be shut down starting January 1, 2018.
The bills are “tie-barred”, meaning for one to pass, they must all pass.
The hearing is set for June 13.
A plan to eliminate Maine’s Judicial Compensation Commission has cleared the legislature.
Under HP 1006 the Judicial Compensation Commission would end; the existing State Compensation Commission would make recommendations for judicial salaries plus recommendations for the salary of the state’s governors.
An amendment added during the legislative process provides the Chief Justice and other judicial staff are still permitted to make recommendations regarding judicial compensation.
HP 1006 will now go to the governor for approval.
A bill that would implement portions of the Texas Judicial Council review of security in the state has cleared the legislature and already been signed by the governor.
SB 42, originally discussed here, is named after Travis County District Judge Julie Kocurek who was the victim of an attempted assassination in 2015.
SB 42 makes numerous changes to laws related to court security, including
Certified Court Security Officers Requirement
- Prohibits a person from serving as a court security officer unless the person holds a court security certification issued by a training program approved by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE).
- Requires TCOLE create model court security curriculum in consultation with the Office of Court Administration (OCA).
- Grants person providing court security 1 year to obtain certification from date officer beings providing court security; currently serving officers have until September 1, 2019.
- Requires the sheriff, constable, law enforcement agency, or other entity that provides security for a court to verify that each court security officer holds the required certification.
Court Security Committees (CSCs)
- Requires the presiding judge, municipal judge, or local administrative judge (as applicable) of every court create a CSC and sets their composition.
- Requires the CSCs establish the policies and procedures necessary to provide adequate security to the court(s).
- Authorizes a CSC to recommend to county commissioners the uses of resources and expenditures of money for courthouse security, but prohibits a CSC from directing the assignment of those resources or the expenditure of those funds.
- Creates a $5 fee on filings to go toward the existing Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund.
- Requires that the Court of Criminal Appeals (the state’s court of last resort in criminal cases) grant legal funds to statewide professional associations and other entities that provide training to individuals responsible for providing court security.
- Requires the legislature appropriate from the Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund money to the Court of Criminal Appeals to provide for, among certain programs, court security training programs for individuals responsible for providing court security.
Court Incident Reporting
- Provides the sheriff or other law enforcement agency or entity that provides security for a court shall provide to the Office of Court Administration a written report regarding any court/courthouse security incident. A 2007 law currently places that responsibility on the local administrative judges.
Office of Court Administration, Judicial Security Division
- Requires OCA establish a judicial security division to provide guidance to state court personnel on improving security for each court.
- Requires the Director of OCA to notify county registrars, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC), and any other state agency OCA determines should be notified of the judges, judges’ spouses, and related family members whose personal information must be kept from public records, as provided under Government Code 552.117.
Public Release/Availability of Personal Information on Judges
- Defines “state judge” for purposes of non-release of personal information about “state judges”.
- Include a current or former federal judge or state judge or a spouse of a current or former federal judge or state judge or a current or former district attorney, criminal district attorney, or county attorney whose jurisdiction includes any criminal law or child protective services matter, as persons whose information is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 (Availability of Public Information) if it is information that relates to certain personal information.
- Allow judges to remove for themselves and their spouses their home addresses and other personal information from public records required to file for office, including information held by
- the Texas Ethics Commission
- local county registrars (related to voter registration)
- local county clerks
- tax appraisal records
- driver’s licenses, and in lieu of personal address use courthouse address
Protection For Judges
- Authorizes any commissioned peace officer, including a commissioned officer of the Department of Public Safety, to provide personal security to a state judge at any location, regardless of the location of the law enforcement agency or department that employs or commissions the peace officer.
I previously mentioned Oklahoma HR 1004 that addresses abortion laws in the state and, in effect, directed the state’s judiciary to stay out of the subject. That resolution has now passed the House.
HR 1004 as adopted by voice vote starts by rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with abortion, citing specifically Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It then calls on state public officials, including judges and justices specifically, to “exercise their authority as appropriate in their respective jurisdictions to stop the murder of innocent unborn children by abortion.”
The next paragraph, however, is specifically directed at state judges.
THAT Oklahoma judges and specifically justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court are directed not to interfere with this Legislature’ s right to clarify Oklahoma criminal law regarding abortion per Section 36 of Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution.
That particular section of the state’s constitution deals with the legislature’s power.
The authority of the Legislature shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, and any specific grant of authority in this Constitution, upon any subject whatsoever, shall not work a restriction, limitation, or exclusion of such authority upon the same or any other subject or subjects whatsoever.
The resolution appears to target two decisions by the Oklahoma Supreme Court from late 2016:
- In October 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a 2015 law (SB 642 of 2015) that dealt with restrictions on abortions (parental consent for minors, tissue preservation, inspection of clinics, and legal liability of abortion providers). That decision was 9-0.
- In December 2016 the court again ruled 9-0 that a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges (SB 1848 of 2014) was also unconstitutional.