Archive for June, 2011

Legislation expanding e-filing introduced at request of NY’s top administrative judge moving rapidly through legislature

June 22nd, 2011

I noted as a special focus of Issue 5:21 of the e-newsletter the huge amount of legislative interest and activity on e-filing. At almost the same time of that edition, NY’s Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau was delivering her report urging legislation be adopted to expand the use of e-filing in the state’s courts. The report, eFiling in the New York State Courts: Report of the Chief Administrative Judge to the Governor, the Chief Judge, and the State Legislature, was created in fulfillment of a legislative request for information on the state’s existing system and its status. The report included draft legislative language that has now been introduced as AB 8368 and SB 5635.

A bit of background is in order (from the author’s memo attached to the legislation introduced):

E-filing was first authorized by the Legislature as a pilot project 12 years ago for select civil cases in Supreme Court in certain counties. [The general jurisdiction trial court in New York is called the Supreme Court -BR]. Over the next decade the Legislature revisited the experiment several times, expanded case categories and venues in which e-filing could be used on a voluntary basis, and repeatedly extended sunsets for the program. In 2009, on the program’s 10th anniversary, the Legislature made the voluntary e-filing program permanent while, for the first time, authorizing a pilot program in mandatory e-filing in certain case types and venues, subject to automatic opt-outs for pro se litigants and for attorneys without the equipment or technical wherewithal to participate in the program. [AB 8956 & SB 6003 of 2009]. Based partly on successful experience with the 2009 statute, in 2010 the Legislature further expanded mandatory e-filing to additional classes of civil proceedings in certain counties. [AB 10987 & SB 7806 of 2010].

To date, the Legislature has authorized mandatory e-filing in commercial cases over $100,000 in New York and Westchester Counties; in tort cases in Westchester County; and in any class or classes of civil cases (other than CPLR Article 78 proceedings, Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 cases, matrimonial actions and Election Law proceedings) in Supreme Court in Livingston, Monroe, Rockland and Tompkins Counties. In practice, and in accordance with this authorization, mandatory e-filing is now operational in New York, Westchester and Rockland Counties.

AB 8368/SB5635 would expand mandatory e-filing in Supreme Court civil cases and introduce it in both the Surrogate’s Court and the New York City Civil Court. The bills would also allow exploration of introduction of e-filing in criminal and Family Courts.

AB 8368 was filed June 14 and made it through committee and a full floor vote by June 20, less than a week after introduction. It is now in the Senate Rules Committee while the Senate counterpart (SB 5635) is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Delaware: Legislature approves bill providing for consistent statutory language for judicial law clerks

June 21st, 2011

While there are often bills introduced to limit or expand the number of law clerks to judges, it is not often that I come across a bill that relates to their definition. Delaware, however, has two such bills this year.

HB 56 & HB 64 would insert into each statute section related to each level of court (Supreme, Chancery, Superior, Family, and Common Pleas) in the state the following uniform language:

Law clerks hold major, non-tenured advisory positions for the [judges/justices of the specific court].  The [name of court] may appoint and remove at pleasure such judicial law clerks as shall be necessary for the proper operation of the Court.

Currently, the statute sections for each court level either say nothing as to law clerks or use different language. For example, the Court of Chancery (10 Del. Code. § 329) has:

(a) The Court of Chancery may appoint and remove at pleasure such law clerks as shall be necessary for the proper operation of the Court, not to exceed 2 law clerks in New Castle County, one law clerk in Kent County and one law clerk in Sussex County.

(b) Each law clerk shall receive such compensation as shall from time to time be determined by the Chancellor. Special arrangements may be made as to part-time law clerks where the Court finds it expedient to do so.

But the Superior Court (10 Del. Code. § 523) has:

(a) [Repealed.]

(b) Each law clerk shall receive such compensation as shall from time to time be determined by the President Judge. Special arrangements may be made as to part-time law clerks where the Court finds it expedient to do so.

HB 56 was stricken shortly after introduction. HB 64 met with unanimous approval at all stages of its progress and is current awaiting action by the Governor.

Florida: So when is HJR 7111 appearing on the ballot? And why does it matter?

June 20th, 2011

I noted several weeks ago the potential machinations behind the voting on the heavily amended Florida HJR 7111. A recap: the bill originally was going to split the Florida Supreme Court in two, put the Democratically-appointed justices in the new criminal division, and allow GOP-appointed justices control over the civil division.

What is making it onto the ballot instead are bits and pieces of HJR 7111: Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices (after merit selection by governor), restrictions on Supreme Court’s rule making authority, etc. (details here).

At the time I projected a possible appearance on the January 2012 Republican presidential primary ballot and that such a move was successfully achieved in the recent past. While a bill for a January 2012 vote was not formally introduced in the regular 2011 session before it adjourned, a Democratic amendment to HJR 7111 to explicitly require the bill appear on the November 2012 ballot was rejected on a party line vote.

Making things even more “curiouser and curiouser” now is a bill (HB 1355), signed into law last month. Because Florida is under the Voting Rights Act, the law was submitted to the Justice Department for “preclearance” earlier this month. Instead of keeping the current primary date of the last Tuesday in January and rejecting several proposals to change it to some other date specific, HB 1355 (details)

  • sets up an earliest (first Tuesday in January) and latest (first Tuesday in March) date and
  • creates a “Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee” to set the date on or before October 1, 2011

Under Article XI, Section 5 of the state’s constitution, constitutional amendments are to go on the ballot “at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution…is filed with the custodian of state records.” However, the same provision allows for a quicker election for a single constitutional amendment via a special election if agreed to by three-fourths of each house (the 90 day rule still applies, however).

The legislature comes into regular session January 10, 2012. Even if they somehow adopted and got the governor to sign a special-election-for-HJR 7111 bill, it would still be beyond the last possible Presidential Primary Date (January 10, 2012 + 90 days = April 9, 2012).

Thus, to get HJR 7111 onto the GOP primary ballot would probably mean a special session of the legislature adopting a special-election-for-HJR 7111 bill sometime between October 5 and December 7, 2011. Those dates are not unheard of: the Florida legislature called itself into special session December 3-8 of 2009, was called into session by the Governor  July 20, 2010, and called itself back in just after its normal organizational session for a special session November 16, 2010.

Alaska State of the Judiciary: Learning to get comfortable with the term “cost-effective”

June 20th, 2011

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

Chief Justice Walter L. Carpeneti gave  the Alaska State of the Judiciary on March 9. Under the Legislature’s Uniform Rule 51, a joint session may be called by agreement of the presiding officers of both houses or by either house by motion adopted by a majority vote of the full membership of the house. Such an invitation appears to have been extended by the presiding officers, as there is no record of a separate resolution.

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

I have served as Alaska’s Chief Justice for nearly two years, and from where I stand I believe our mutual commitment to a justice system that is fair, efficient and effective is stronger than ever. So while I’m here to report on where we have been and where we are going, I’m also here to thank you—for your support, for your dedication, and, most of all, for your enduring vision of a government that gives true meaning to the promise of justice for all.

When I spoke before you last year, I emphasized the theme of inter-branch cooperation and collaboration—the need for all three branches to work together to solve the problems facing Alaska’s citizens, and the many benefits gained when we do so. The past year has only underscored the value of working together, as we have successfully navigated a number of difficult challenges through common effort…I have to admit that it has taken me a while to get comfortable with using the term “cost-effective” in the justice context, because I’ve associated it with cost benefit analysis in the business world…In our justice system, we are learning that many of the cases that fill our court dockets — on both the criminal and civil side — can benefit from a similar principle: We need to reserve the most intense (and costly) services for the most intense cases, and to fully explore alternative, less intensive problem-solving solutions for cases that don’t demand full-throttle attention.

In criminal cases, the Criminal Justice Working Group continues to take the lead in examining ways to ensure the highest and best use of limited resources across the agencies and institutions involved in the criminal justice system. The Efficiencies Committee of the working group has made remarkable progress in addressing a perennial vexing problem that I mentioned to you last year: delay in criminal proceedings. We have all heard the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied,” and we can all appreciate the far-reaching costs of delay, not only to those who stand accused and their families, but to victims and their families, witnesses, the attorneys and agencies involved, and the court system itself. So it’s very exciting to learn that the committee initiatives I mentioned to you last year appear to be bearing fruit. First, a pilot project to facilitate the exchange of discovery in criminal cases is being instituted here in Juneau. Once in place, the project will enable law enforcement agencies to provide discovery to defense attorneys electronically, through a server based in the Department of Law…Second, the committee began a pilot project in Kenai to implement a shorter pre-sentence report, which gives judges the information they need to sentence criminal defendants..And third, over the past year the committee successfully addressed a long-standing problem at the Anchorage jail: the limited opportunities for defense attorneys to meet with their clients in advance of court proceedings…With these advances now under way, the Efficiencies Committee is beginning to address several other key challenges.

The Criminal Justice Working Group’s second major group, the Prevention- Recidivism Committee, chaired by Commissioner of Corrections Joe Schmidt, also had a productive and promising year…But I think the good news is that there are promising new approaches to criminal justice that are achieving goals once thought impossible. Today, we’re learning that jails and long jail terms — the most expensive tools in our corrections toolkit — can be focused on those offenders for whom other mechanisms to ensure public safety and accountability won’t work. For other offenders, we’re learning that alternative sentencing and corrections policies and practices, based on sound research and solid evidence, are effectively reducing crime rates at much lower cost.

As public officials who study the criminal justice system, members of the Criminal Justice Working Group know there is no one-size-fits-all response to the problems we confront. Offenders are all different, and communities are all different. But both our own experience and the national research give us new hope that we can slow down the revolving doors of our jails, and that this change can be lasting. We have a long way to go, but we are more confident than ever that we are heading in the right direction, with two new major initiatives now underway.

In July 2010, a pilot program was commenced in Anchorage to more effectively monitor probationers with substance abuse and addiction problems…Using the coercive power of the courts to hold probationers responsible for even the most minor violations helps keep them on the path to recovery and ultimately makes them better prepared to succeed on their own…Also new this year was the formation of the Reentry Task Force, a group charged with exploring ways to better ensure the successful reintegration of offenders back into their communities…Both the [pilot] program and the Reentry Task Force reflect the recognition that Alaskans are not well served by a justice system that returns offenders to their communities with little hope or likelihood that they will succeed, and with every likelihood that they will again commit harmful acts of crime.

Over 8200 family law cases were filed statewide in the last year alone. Of these about 67% involved at least one party without a lawyer. The commitment of judicial resources to these disputes is enormous, especially when couples have no legal counsel to help them navigate what is inevitably an emotional and stressful process. So against this backdrop, two new projects of the court’s Family Law Self-Help Center offer to not only provide improved information and assistance to self-represented litigants, but to significantly increase the number of cases that settle before trial, alleviating the strain contested proceedings place on court resources. First, the center will soon be making is popular Hearing and Trial Preparation Course available online through YouTube…A second promising initiative of the Family Law Self-Help Center is the new Volunteer Lawyer Assisted Early Resolution Project.

The court system’s Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Program has been tremendously successful in helping families reach amicable settlements. But today, as it celebrates its tenth anniversary, it is becoming a victim of its own success. In recent years, referrals to the program have risen dramatically, causing a 250% cost increase that exceeds available federal grant funding.

If there is a common theme to our recent family law efforts, it is one of matching family cases with the appropriate level of judicial intervention.

Apart from the improvements we are pursuing in both the criminal and civil areas, I’m delighted to report to you recent achievements in the technology arena that serve the goal of cost-effective justice. About ten years ago, the court system began the very tough job of implementing a statewide computerized case management system…Today, all 44 court locations statewide are connected to the network through CourtView, which has revolutionized not only the way courts communicate with each other, but the way courts communicate with the public. For the first time since Statehood, case information is available online to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

I would like to close these remarks with a note about a topic that in recent years has become, I believe, central to our democracy: the need to foster civic education and engagement in America — not just for the adults who face the responsibilities of citizenship today, but for the young people who will carry them forward into the future.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the three branches of government can do little of lasting benefit working alone. This is as true with civic education as it is with justice delivery. Ensuring a strong future for this great country and great state of ours is a goal that we must pursue together. Thomas Jefferson said that “the qualifications for self-government are not innate . . . . [T]hey are the results of habit and long training.” As we work together to advance cost-effective justice, we must remember that the greatest guarantee of a strong future for all three branches of government is a citizenry that understands and embraces the fundamental principles of democracy.

Week Ahead: 6-20-11

June 20th, 2011

Legislatures Going Out of Session

Louisiana 6/23/2011

Virginia’s legislature remains stalled on picking justices for state Supreme Court

June 17th, 2011

Virginia is one of only two states (the other is South Carolina) in which the legislature appoints the justices of the state’s court of last resort. Even in states that give a role to the legislature, that role is to confirm selections made by a governor (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Utah, and Vermont).

Virginia’s General Assembly, however, has since 2007 been split with the House controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. As a result, of the five justices currently serving on the court, three were chosen by a governor for their initial terms (the state’s constitution allows the governor to fill vacancies while the General Assembly is not in session.)

The court is currently two shy of a full complement of justices: former Chief Justice Leroy Roundtree Hassell, Sr. died and former justice Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr. reached the mandatory retirement age of 70, both in February  2011.

The result has been a political standoff . The Washington Post (h/t Gavel Grab) last week noted the negotiating position of the two sides, namely, that each party gets to pick one justice. The judges considered mostly likely for those spots already sit on the Court of Appeals, meaning that the General Assembly would then have to pick replacements. According to the Post, it is those picks that are causing the most trouble. Meanwhile, Governor Bob McDonnell’s office is preparing to solicit applications for the Supreme Court slots should the General Assembly adjourn.

Issue 5:24 is out

June 16th, 2011

Issue 5:24 (June 10) is here.

  • Maine will not shift traffic infractions from the courts to the executive branch
  • Ohio moves to consolidate all court fees/costs references and cross-references for easier access
  • Changes to judicial/court employee retirement plans advance in Alabama, California, Louisiana, and North Carolina
  • Multiple Louisiana bills ask state’s Supreme Court to examine state courts’ caseloads and workloads, jurisdictions, and overall court structure
  • Michigan’s Senate asks its Supreme Court for an advisory opinion

More and more murky as to whether or not North Carolina judicial elections will return to partisan elections

June 16th, 2011

I mentioned two weeks ago the efforts to a) end the state’s public financing of judicial elections and b) a parallel effort to revert the state’s judicial elections from nonpartisan back to partisan ones. While it looked likely partisan elections were on the way back, the situation is now much less clear.

HB 452, originally written to end public financing, was committee-amended into a return of partisan elections, similar to HB 64. HB 452 was approved by the full House on June 7.

Meanwhile, the Senate version of HB 64 (SB 67) advanced through the Senate on June 8. However, the House Committee on Elections took SB 67 and added on the “Faithful Presidential Electors Act”, requiring those who are sent to the Electoral College to vote only for the President/Vice-Presidential candidate chosen by the state. It also added on contribution limitations on contributions from State vendors and a whole host of other items related to elections, including (according to the Fayetteville Observer)

  • Ends public financing for Council of State elections
  • Cuts a week out of the early voting calendar, ends Sunday voting and repeals same-day voter registration
  • Ends straight-ticket voting
  • Lets corporations make donations directly to party “headquarters funds,” which can be used for a variety of purposes

Damon Circosta, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, told the Raleigh News & Observer the amendments “[S]howed up with no notice…The first time that anybody outside of a small group of Republican legislators saw it was in a committee meeting.”

SB 67, with the litany of amendments, initially failed in the House Elections Committee because the committee chair miscounted the number of Republicans in the room when he called the vote. The error was fixed yesterday when the committee voted to approve the bill and it has been placed on the calendar for today (June 16).

South Carolina constitutional amendment would allow trial court judges to buy lotto tickets; appellate judges would still be banned

June 16th, 2011

Last year, I noted a quirk in the South Carolina Constitution:

Article XVII, Section 8 of the South Carolina constitution states “It shall be unlawful for any person holding an office of honor, trust, or profit to engage in gambling or betting on games of chance; and any such officer, upon conviction thereof, shall become thereby disqualified from the further exercise of the functions of his office, and the office of said person shall become vacant, as in the case of resignation or death.”

A 2010 constitutional amendment (HB 3943) would have lifted the prohibition on “gambling or betting” for lotteries conducted by the state for most officer holders, including trial court judges, but specifically not including “judges sitting on the State Supreme Court or the South Carolina Court of Appeals.”

On the last day of the 2011 session, the amendment was re-introduced as HB 4357 of 2011. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. Because South Carolina allows bills to be carried over, the bill will be available for action in the 2012 session.

West Virginia Interim Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary meeting throughout week

June 15th, 2011

The West Virginia Legislature’s June interim meetings are being held this week, including the Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees (A, B, and C).

On the agendas this week is staff presentation of study topics. Among the items for the full committee and its subcommittees during the interim:

SB 444 Relating to protection of nonfamily or nonhousehold members from violations of personal safety
HB 2755 Relating to mentally ill persons
SCR 48 Need to clarify law relating to disposition of deceased person’s remains
SCR 79 Need for authorizing executive director of Public Defender Services control over public defender corporations
SCR 94 Making pseudoephedrine and ephedrine available only by prescription
HCR 100 Need for legislation to clarify the law relating to the right of disposition of a deceased person’s remains
HCR 126 Need for criminal penalties for utilizing computers, mobile telephones and electronic devices to transmit obscene, anonymous and harassing communications
HCR 131 Captive cervid farming as an agricultural enterprise and the impact of transferring regulatory authority of captive cervids
HCR 150 Study relating to bullying in the public schools of West Virginia
Study on succession of elected officials generally
Study on voting by mail and same day registration
Study of Legislative Rulemaking process
Study on family law and adoption generally
Study on federal requirements for municipal wastewater treatment systems
Study on Prison Overcrowding
Study on Substance Abuse Generally
New Jersey Bullying Law