Archive for February, 2011

Oklahoma: Fast track to ending merit selection in state?

February 28th, 2011

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 of. 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

February 28th, 2011

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

Week Ahead: 2-28-11

February 28th, 2011

Legislatures Coming Into Session

Alabama 3/1/2011

Legislatures Going Out of Session

Wyoming 3/1/2011 (estimated)

Citing Heller, Illinois legislators consider explicitly permitting judges to carry concealed firearms into courthouses

February 25th, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which specifically found an individual right to keep and bear arms, has lead to a massive review of state statutes as they pertain to firearms. Illinois is no exception: it was the case of McDonald v. Chicago that applied Heller to the states via the 14th Amendment. For judges on a more personal level, however, Heller and McDonald may mean more discretion in carrying their own firearms into their courts.

At present, Illinois law and rules of court are relatively silent on whether judges explicitly may (or may not) bring firearms into courthouses or courtroom. The only apparently relevant statute is 720 ILCS 5/24-1. Sections (a) and (b) define the offense of unlawful use of weapons and provide for sentences depending on the particular actions. (a)(4)-(9) in particular deal with the carrying of firearms.

Section 720 ILCS 5/24-1(c) however provides enhanced sentences for carrying a firearm in public places, such as parks and courthouses (defined as “any building that is used by the Circuit, Appellate, or Supreme Court of this State for the conduct of official business.”). Illinois, unlike most states, does not provide elsewhere that such courthouse restrictions do not apply to judges.

HB 1403 and SB 2150, however, would modify the restrictions. Concealed firearms permits would not allow a person to carry into “Any courthouse solely occupied by the Circuit, Appellate, or Supreme Court or a courtroom of any of those courts, or court proceeding.” However “nothing in this Section shall preclude a judge, or State’s Attorney holding a concealed firearms permit, from carrying a concealed firearm within a courthouse.” (emphasis added)

Surrounding states take slightly different tacks with respect to courthouse carrying.

Missouri (§ 571.107 R.S.Mo.) bans firearms generally (and in the same section specifically exempts judges from the ban) in “Any courthouse solely occupied by the circuit, appellate or supreme court, or any courtrooms, administrative offices, libraries or other rooms of any such court whether or not such court solely occupies the building in question…The.. supreme court… may by rule..prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed firearms by endorsement holders in that portion of a building owned, leased or controlled by that unit of government.”

Kentucky’s (KRS § 237.110) has a similar clause banning generally the carrying of a firearm  in “Any courthouse, solely occupied by the Court of Justice courtroom, or court proceeding.” but then (KRS § 237.020) exempts active, retired, and senior status justices and judges with a handgun permit. In fact, Kentucky active, retired, and senior staus judges with a permit may carry “at all times and at all locations within the Commonwealth of Kentucky” exception detention facilities, which specifically “does not include courtrooms, facilities, or other premises used by the Court of Justice or administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts.”

Illinois HB 1403 is in the House Agriculture & Conservation Committee while SB 2150 is currently in the Senate Assignments Committee awaiting designation to a subject matter committee.

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

February 25th, 2011

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.

Issue 5:8 is out

February 24th, 2011

Issue 5:8 (February 18) is here.

Georgia House (again) considers “informing” Chief Justice Georgia is not a “democracy”

February 24th, 2011

Last year in her first state of the judiciary address, Chief Justice Carol Hunstein referred to Georgia as a “democracy”. As I noted at the time, this did not sit well with some members of the Georgia House, who prepared a resolution to “inform” the Chief Justice the state was a republic, not a democracy (see post here). The resolution went nowhere, legislatively speaking.

Undaunted, Chief Justice Hunstein gave her 2011 state of the judiciary and made use of the term “democracy” five times (see post here). Equally undaunted, the Georgia House is considering “informing” her via HR 340 of 2011.

WHEREAS, most synonymous with majority rule, democracy was condemned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, who closely studied the history of both democracies and republics before drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution…

WHEREAS, in 1928, the War Department of the United States defined democracy in Training Manual No. 2000-25 as a “government of the masses” which “[r]esults in mobocracy,” communistic attitudes to property rights, “demagogism,…agitation, discontent,  [and] anarchy.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that the members of this body recognize the difference between a democracy and a republic and inform Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein that the State of Georgia is a republic and not a democracy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the House of Representatives is authorized and directed to transmit appropriate copies of this resolution to Georgia Supreme Court Chief  Justice Carol W. Hunstein, all Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court, and all Judges of the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Presumably the decision to forward the resolution (if adopted) to the justices of the supreme court and court of appeals is because they were invited to attend the state of the judiciary address (HR 19 of 2011) and heard the reference to “democracy.”

The resolution is currently pending in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

GA State of the Judiciary: “Our courts are like the emergency room of society. We must take all cases the law requires.”

February 23rd, 2011

The National Center for State Courts has an archive of 2011, 2010, and previous years State of the Judiciary addresses located here.

The Georgia State of the Judiciary address was delivered by Chief Justice Carol Hunstein on February 16. Under the terms of HR 19, the legislature met in joint session and invited any and all members of the supreme court and court of appeals to attend the speech.

Chief Justice Hunstein’s speech last year caused a minor legislative kerfuffle when, in referencing the United States, she described it as a “democracy” prompting a resolution “informing” her that the U.S. was a republic and not a democracy (that resolution went nowhere and no resolution was introduced against the governor’s reference to the U.S. as a “democracy” in his 2010 state of the state address). This year, she mentioned “democracy” five time in her speech.

Other than the “democracy” references, highlights of the Chief Justice’s speech (full text here) included:

This traditional invitation from the legislative branch to the Chief Justice underscores your interest in Georgia’s judicial system and the respect we hold for each other as separate, co-equal branches of government. At this important milestone in our new year, I welcome this opportunity to share with you today the judiciary’s accomplishments of the last year, the challenges we face, and our plans for a bright and solid future in fulfilling our duty to uphold the Constitutions of this state and our country and guarantee justice to all Georgians through fair and impartial courts.

The fall-out from the recent recession has created challenges of historic proportions. We who are government leaders sense we have entered a new era…Keeping our citizens safe is one of government’s fundamental obligations. Indeed our Georgia Constitution requires the government to protect the public safety. The courts play a crucial role in doing so.

Today, Georgia stands on the brink of making significant reform in how it sentences criminal offenders. A national wave of sentencing reform is sweeping the country, and it holds bright promise for Georgia…We are looking at alternatives to incarceration for certain offenders with two goals in mind – to improve the public safety, and to save taxpayer dollars. Georgia’s judges need more discretion in the courtroom to ensure that the sentence fits the crime.

One of our greatest successes has been our specialty courts. If we hope to save precious taxpayer dollars while protecting the public safety, the criminal justice system must change the way it has historically handled offenders with drug and alcohol addictions and mental illness…A recent report by the Georgia Department of Audits found that drug courts in this state have resulted in lower sentencing costs and lower recidivism rates. The report found that drug courts cost up to 80 percent less than the average daily cost of other traditional sentencing options.


Veterans courts, like drug and mental health courts, address our veterans and soldiers who have risked their lives in battle and come back with addictions and mental health issues that lead them into homelessness and crime…That state audit I mentioned identified 4,000 individuals who were sitting in state prison in August 2009, who potentially could have been diverted to drug court. If only 20 percent of those eligible prisoners had entered drug court, the state would have saved as much as $8 million.


Another type of specialty court we hope to pilot this year is domestic violence courts…Ladies and Gentlemen, these courts save lives, reunite families, protect the public and save money. Our goal should be to spread them to every judicial circuit of our state. As former Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich recently said to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “If I can be safer and it’s less expensive and we have citizens who are now dedicated, productive taxpaying citizens – which part of that is bad?”

Another promise for the future is a new way of compiling lists of citizens who are eligible to serve on juries. This effort has been seven years in the making and is led by my colleague, Justice Hugh Thompson. The purpose of this change is to protect everyone’s constitutional rights to equal protection and a jury of his or her peers.

Just as our juries must reflect the populace, so should our judges. Our citizens’ confidence in the courts depends on their assurance that they will receive equal justice. This is an area that needs improvement, as around the country, the diversity of judges lags far behind the population. I urge the newly appointed Judicial Nominating Commission to seek out the most highly qualified jurists, while keeping in mind the importance of having a judiciary that reflects the population.

In addressing the State of our Judiciary, I would be remiss to fail to mention that this past year marked an unprecedented number of investigations into the misconduct of a number of our judges. Since 2008, the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s investigations have resulted in the resignation or removal of 22 judges. However, I consider this a sign that the JQC, a constitutionally mandated agency under the new leadership of Jeff Davis, is aggressively pursuing its duty to identify those judges who have proven themselves unqualified to serve. The good news is that with 1800 Georgia judges, the vast majority are well qualified and fulfill their constitutional duties with the utmost integrity. The JQC is an important agency that must be fully funded to do its work.

Despite budget cuts, we have the duty to protect access to justice for all. We have the duty to uphold the Constitutions of our state and nation and the laws that you pass. We have the duty to protect individuals’ rights. The courts are one leg in the stool of our democracy that provides an essential balance in our government. Once again this year, I emphasize that the entire judicial branch receives less than 1 percent of the entire state budget. At the same time, last year we generated more than $544 million in fees, with nearly $90 million of that returned to the state general fund.

Our courts are like the emergency room of society. We must take all cases the law requires. Not surprisingly, in tough economic times, caseloads have increased in most classes of courts.

Let me be clear about the tipping point. Our state and U.S. Constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial. That means that if there are not enough judges to clear the backlog, people charged with some of the most heinous crimes will walk free – not by judicial discretion but as a matter of law.

Backlogs and delays also add to the cost of doing business in Georgia. A recent study by the Washington Economics Group of Georgia’s courts shows just how dire the effects of underfunded courts are on our economy. The study concluded that delays in resolving civil cases due to budget cuts have had adverse impacts on business proceedings throughout Georgia and affect this state’s ability to create and retain jobs and to attract and expand industries.

In closing, I invite you – as representatives of the people of this state – to familiarize yourselves with your local courts and with the appellate and Supreme Court. Your local judges would welcome your interest. I would welcome your interest. I believe you would be proud of what you saw. So please visit. And watch democracy unfold.

MT State of the Judiciary: “clearly our courts must adapt to these changing times.”

February 23rd, 2011

The National Center for State Courts has an archive of 2011, 2010, and previous years State of the Judiciary addresses located here.

The Montana State of the Judiciary address was delivered by Chief Justice Mike McGrath on February 10. Although the journal for that day is not yet available, audio of the event indications there was no formal resolution adopted. Instead, motions were made in both the house and senate to meet in joint session and, once in session, to appoint a committee to escort all the justices of the supreme court into the house chamber (audio here).

Highlights of the Chief Justice’s speech (full text here) included:

Many people come to court because their lives are in crisis…They come because they know they have rights. They know that there are laws that will protect them. They know they will get an answer to their problem. And they know they will be treated fairly, by an independent judge—not a person beholden to money interests or partisanship or social status. Rather a judge who will listen to their grievance and make a decision based on the merits of each individual case…Those 1,000 people per day that end up in our courts know that our Justice System is based on the rule of law and not individual whim. Our disputes are resolved within an orderly system that provides all parties the opportunity to be heard, and is based upon law.

In an effort to be more accountable, the Judicial Branch has undertaken a series of performance measures. At the Supreme Court, a number of new case processing measures have been implemented. Last session, I told you that the Court is very much aware of concerns about backlogged cases. Significant improvements have been made—I can now tell you that our caseload is current…District Court performance standards are now being developed. Surveys of court users are completed and formulas have been adapted to accurately measure case loads and case timeliness.

We have done a good job of managing our resources; we have found the waste. Additional budget reductions will fall on the backs of the overworked local judiciary and inevitably result in delay and court backlogs. Of course the losers under that scenario are your constituents, especially small business and working people. We have learned that backlogged courts are bad for business. We are trying hard to remedy that problem. However, we do have ways that the Judiciary can help with future budgets.

Drug courts and Treatment courts in general can and do save taxpayer dollars. And the last two sessions, Legislators had the foresight to fund a small portion of these programs.Treatment courts are a strain on judges’ time and energy. However, they are very rewarding as well. They do see good things happen in a courtroom—not a common occurrence in our courts…Nationally, it has been proven that Treatment courts are by far the most effective thing we can do to address drug abuse and the problems that go with it.

We also propose to continue our Court Help Program, to assist individual Montana citizens with court service areas, places where you can get proper forms and assistance with the court process without unnecessary expense. Not all legal matters need attorneys. There are many ways we can simplify the process and provide people with helpful solutions. Most people cannot afford an attorney—so they come to court without. Fully 30% of our Court’s cases are presented with at least one party not represented by an attorney.

Finally, we hope to be able to introduce some new efficiencies at the Water Court thanks to suggestions from the Legislative Audit Committee. Started in 1979, the task is to quantify every water right, in every drainage, in the state of Montana—all 220,000 claims—a monumental task.

The way our citizens approach the court system is changing dramatically; clearly our courts must adapt to these changing times. Thanks to you, last session, for providing some funding for these important programs. I hope they will be able to continue. We believe our proposals will help to ensure that the small business owner, the man injured through no fault of his own, the mom, the defendant wrongly accused, and the child crying in the crib get their opportunity to resolve their crises. We also hope that by making the court system more efficient and responsive to the public’s needs, we can avoid coming to you in a future session asking for more Judges.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law advance in Arizona and die in Mississippi and South Dakota

February 22nd, 2011

Readers may recall that I have examined efforts to prohibit state courts from using or referencing sharia or international law (see here and here). Last week some of these bills began to move through the legislative process, so an update seemed in order: » Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law advance in Arizona and die in Mississippi and South Dakota