Archive for March, 2011

KS House: Effort to end merit selection for court of appeals added onto bill dealing with recalling retired judges back into service

March 31st, 2011

I noted several weeks ago the effort to end merit selection for the Kansas Court of Appeals (see here and here). That bill, HB 2101 was approved by the full House February 25 and has been pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee since March 3.

An utterly unrelated bill, SB 83, was introduced in February. SB 83 removes timing provisions requiring that a retired judge seeking to be temporarily recalled back to service enter into a written agreement for such employment with the Kansas Supreme Court either before retirement or else within 5 years after retirement and within 30 days before the judge’s retirement anniversary. SB 83 was introduced at the request of the state’s supreme court and sailed through the Senate on a 39-0 vote on February 24.

The House, however, had other ideas for the bill. An amendment added in the House Committee on Judiciary required any agreements be signed by the chief justice, or the chief justice’s designee, with the approval of a majority of the justices of the supreme court.

On the House floor, however, an amendment was offered on March 23 that added the language of HB 2101 to SB 83. The Democratic House Minority Leader asked for a ruling on whether the amendment was germane to the bill. The amendment was ruled germane (see House Journal pages 695-697 here) and the bill passed on a 66-57 vote (the original HB 2101 vote was 66-53).

The Senate declined to concur with the House amendment(s) and both chambers appointed a conference committee on March 28 and 29.

Issue 5:13 is out

March 31st, 2011

Issue 5:13 (March 25) is here.

  • Tennessee bills would “restrict judicial activism” by requiring courts use only the “original meaning” of the state and federal constitutions
  • Bills to strip courts of jurisdiction in school funding cases advance in Kansas and New Hampshire
  • Maryland’s legislature rejects bills to require more attorney-judges in Maryland’s Orphans Courts and nonpartisan elections for clerks of court
  • Florida bills would structure various court trust funds
  • Arkansas moves one step closer to merging all remaining city courts into district courts
  • Connecticut and Indiana omnibus bills would make numerous changes change state’s judiciaries
  • Task force on veterans and the courts advances in Maryland’s Senate
  • Montana’s Senate rejects bill to allow court decisions to be overridden

Bills to require senate confirmation of judicial nominees finding more approval in state senates than in state houses

March 28th, 2011

A big trend in recent weeks, and for that matter years, has been to target for elimination of merit selection systems for selecting judges (see here). A related often parallel set of bills seek to interject Senate confirmation of whomever the governor, working off the list of names given by a nominating commission, appoints. These efforts are proving as or more effective in gaining legislative approval that attempts to outright end merit selection. However, somewhat interestingly, most such bills are thus far being introduced and active in state senates with less interest shown by the lower chambers, who would have no role in any such confirmation process.

Earlier today, for example, the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee approved SJR 1664 which, while maintaining the state’s existing merit selection system for appellate judges, would add to the state’s constitution a requirement those chosen for the supreme court only be approved by the state’s senate as well. Interestingly, unlike other similar bills (some discussed below), there is no authorization for the Senate to bring itself into session in case a confirmation is needed. However the state’s constitution does allow for special sessions to be called by the governor and “convened as provided by law”.  Presumably this later provision would be used if the constitutional amendment itself were approved by Florida voters.

Similar to Florida’s SJR 1664, Oklahoma’s SB 621 would require senate confirmation, but does not include a provision allowing the senate to convene itself for those purposes. The state’s constitution allows the entire legislature to be called back in by two-thirds of both chambers, but it is not clear of that means two-thirds of the senate can call just itself back in. SB 621 was approved by the Senate on March 8.

Arizona SCR 1040 massively restructures, but does not formally end, the merit selection system in the state. Included is a provision requiring senate confirmation. The senate president or a majority of senators are explicitly authorized to convene the chamber for the confirmation. Moreover, there is a built in presumption and default of confirmation: the senate must explicitly reject the appointee within 60 days or the person takes judicial office “as if the appointee had been confirmed. ” The bill also ends retention elections and puts in place a system of reappointment and reconfirmation, again with the same 60-days-to-reject rule. SCR 1040 was also approved by the Senate on March 8.

Finally, Pennsylvania is once again considering changing to a merit selection system for its appellate courts with a senate confirmation provision. SB 842 would be the implementing statutes for the constitutional amendment in SB 843, if approved. As for senate reconvening, the state’s constitution is already mostly prepared. The state’s governor may fill a judicial vacancy caused by death, resignation, etc. and the senate must confirm when it comes back into session (if recessed or adjourned) within a certain number of days or else the appointment is deemed confirmed. The same provisions would be duplicated for cases involving an appellate merit selection system.

Not only would there be a presumption or default of confirmation, but should the senate reject three nominations made for a specific vacancy, the nominating commission itself, without interference by the governor or the senate, would pick a fourth person who would automatically take office (no appointment or confirmation necessary). The two Pennsylvania bills were introduced March 15 and are pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As I noted at the start, senate-confirmation bills are often dead-letters in the various houses/lower chambers in the states. Bills going nowhere so far include Arizona HCR 2020, Iowa HB 429 and HJR 12, Kansas HCR 5015, and Oklahoma HJR 1009. All include senate confirmation in addition to, or in lieu of, merit selection.  In addition, a Rhode Island House bill (HB 5675) would transfer the existing power to confirm from the Senate to the House.

That said, some senate-confirmation bills are finding house approval.

Kansas HB 2101 ends merit selection system for the state’s court of appeals judges and instead creates a governor appoints/senate confirms system. The senate president could call the senate into session for the confirmation process. The bill was approved by the full House February 25.

A similar Florida House bill (HJR 1097) would outright end merit selection for appellate judges and make use of senate confirmation only was approved by the House Judiciary Committee’s Civil Justice Subcommittee on March 17.

Week Ahead: 3-28-11

March 28th, 2011

Legislatures Going Out of Session

South Dakota 3/28/2011
Idaho 3/31/2011 (Estimated)
Mississippi 4/1/2011 (Estimated)
Maryland 4/1/2011 (Estimated)

Issue 5:12 is out

March 25th, 2011

Issue 5:12 (March 18) is here.

Several bills would require Maryland Orphans’ Court judges be attorneys in select counties

March 24th, 2011

Last year, Maryland voters approved a constitutional amendment to require that, for the city of Baltimore only, Orphans’ Court judges be attorneys (HB 417 of 2010). The effort to expand the use of attorney-judges has resulted in four additional bills introduced this year.

HB 930 and HB 1165 would require Orphans’ Court judges in Baltimore County (which is different and distinct from the independent city of Baltimore) be attorneys. Interestingly, while HB 930 is in the House Judiciary Committee, while HB 1165 is in the House Rules Committee.

On the Senate side, SB 832, which was limited to Baltimore County only, was withdrawn by its  sponsor on March 21. Instead, SB 281, which includes Baltimore and Prince George’s counties was approved unanimously by the Senate on March 8 and is set for a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee March 30.

Pennsylvania’s House (again) considers impeaching Court of Common Pleas Judge Willis W. Berry, Jr.

March 24th, 2011

I noted last year a push in the Pennsylvania House to impeach Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Judge Willis W. Berry, Jr.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Judge Willis W. Berry, Jr.  has served in that office in 1996 and had, prior too taking office, purchased over a dozen properties in Philadelphia. The properties were in poor condition and the judge was cited over 70 times. According to the state’s Court of Judicial Discipline, Judge Berry made use of his office and judicial secretary for a decade to “assist him in the day-to-day operations concerning his properties.” The Court of Judicial Discipline suspended him for four months without pay and he was encouraged to resign by the Philadelphia Bar. Instead, Berry returned to work on January 4 [2010].

HR 603 appoints a sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Judge Berry’s actions and determine whether they rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

HR 603 of 2010 never even reached the hearing stage. Many of the same sponsors have reintroduced the resolution again as HR 124 of 2011.

This latest resolution is currently pending before the House Judiciary Committee.

Missouri bill would allow judges more power to name clerks of court

March 24th, 2011

In most states, the same practice used in one location/circuit/district/county to select the clerk of court is used in all other such geographic areas. Missouri, however, is one of a few exceptions to this rule, and a new bill would make it even more, er, exceptional.

Section 483.015(1), RSMo establishes the general rule: circuit clerks are be elected by the qualified voters of each county.

483.105(3) allows for what amounts to a county opt-out. An amendment to a county charter can allow for either a) the appointment of a court administrator to perform the duties of a circuit clerk or b) the appointment of a circuit clerk. Similarly, 483.105(2) establishes that the court administrator for Jackson County and the director of judicial administration and the circuit clerk of St. Louis County shall be selected as provided in their various charters. Finally, 483.105(4) provides the circuit clerk in the sixth judicial circuit (Platte County) and in the seventh judicial circuit (Clay County) are appointed and removed by a majority of the circuit judges and associate circuit judges of the circuit.

Into this mix comes HB 884 of 2011. It effectively expands the appointment-by-judges provisions of 483.105(4) to the twenty-second and twenty-eighth circuits, plus Scott County (only) in the thirty-third judicial circuit.

The bill is currently pending in the House without a committee assignment.

Week Ahead: 3-21-11

March 21st, 2011

Legislatures Going Out of Session

Kentucky 3/22/2011

Issue 5:11 is out

March 17th, 2011

Issue 5:11 (March 11) is here.