Archive for July, 2011

West Virginia Interim Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary meets August 1-3

July 29th, 2011

The West Virginia Legislature’s August interim meetings are being held next week, including the Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary and  its three subcommittees. Topics to be discussed include:

August 1

Subcommittee B: Presentations on SCR 48 (Study Need to Clarify Law Relating to Disposition of Deceased Person’s Remains) and SB 184 ( disposition of the remains of a deceased military service member who dies while serving in the United States armed forces.)

Subcommittee C: Draft legislation relating to gubernatorial succession

August 2

Subcommittee A: Prison overcrowding

Subcommittee C: Draft legislation relating to the rule-making process

August 3

Full Committee: Reports of the subcommittees

Issue 5:30 is out with a focus on 2011 laws directed to/at Chief Justices

July 28th, 2011

Issue 5:30 (July 22) is here.

  • Focus Trend: Laws directed to/at Chief Justices
  • Wisconsin legislators move to amend state’s constitution to end practice of making longest serving justice of the Supreme Court the Chief Justice

Virginia’s legislative stalemate over 2 vacancies on supreme court to end Friday

July 28th, 2011

I mentioned in June the exceptional delay in the filling of two seats on Virginia’s Supreme Court, tied directly to an inability of the legislature to pick replacements (Virginia and South Carolina are the only two states where selection of the justices of the state supreme court is handled by legislative appointment).

According to reports this morning in the Washington Post and elsewhere, the General Assembly will come back into special session tomorrow to fill the seats. Indications are it was a letter from Gov. Bob McDonnell sent last week that broke the log jam. The letter detailed the delays and hardships on the court due to the failure to appoint and, according the Virginia Lawyers Weekly‘s blog, included some harsh language for the legislature.

McDonnell told the legislative leaders the General Assembly needs to appoint justices and judges or get out of the way so that he can do so. Under state law, the governor appoints judges in the first instance when the legislature is unable or unwilling to do so – but he can make the appointments only if the legislature is out of session.

A big thank you to LexisNexis for providing the legislative tracking that has made Gavel to Gavel happen

July 27th, 2011

Earlier this year I conducted a reader survey of the e-newsletter, including a box for people to ask me questions. One of the top questions people wanted to know was  “How does Gavel to Gavel receive information about what is going on in the states?”

Thanks to a generous agreement with LexisNexis, each Friday (since July 2006) I run automated searches through their Total Research System for all pieces of legislation active in the prior week that include the words judge, judicial/judiciary, court, or variations on the words. They have been exceptionally generous in the use of their system and I wanted to take the opportunity of the anniversary  to say: thanks.

Special Edition: 2012 Ballot and the Courts

July 27th, 2011

While a great deal of focus is already being drawn to the 2012 presidential elections, next year is set to be an incredibly busy year for ballot items related to state courts.

This special edition of Gavel to Gavel released today looks at those items as well as those currently circulating for signatures.

Arkansas increases penalties on filing false liens on judges and court personnel

July 26th, 2011

Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon for litigants to retaliate against the judges and court staff in their case by filing liens or similar documents against personal property and assets. I blogged about the practice earlier this year. This potentially means years of credit and legal woes. In 2011, Arkansas’ legislature adopted HB 1045 to increase from a misdemeanor to a felony the filing of such documents. The following video shows the House activity on the bill (there was no Senate audio or video that I could find).

Louisiana State of the Judiciary: good stewards of the taxpayer monies allocated; improvements to juvenile justice system

July 26th, 2011

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

The last 2011 State of the Judiciary delivered to a legislature was the speech delivered May 3 by Chief Justice Catherine D.Kimball. The day before (May 2), the House and Senate adopted SCR 13, inviting the Chief Justice to give the address.

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

It has been two years since my last visit to this chamber. Over these last years, there have been many challenges, both professional and personal. For a short time there, I wasn’t so sure I’d make it back to talk to you again. [a reference to her January January 2010 stroke -BR] However, I am happy to report that I have been back at the helm of the state judiciary for over a year now. I was touched by the outpouring of support that I received from across the state during my recovery from the stroke. Thank you all for your support, words of encouragement, and prayers.

I believe that the respect you show us is indicative of the mutual understanding and recognition that our two branches – the Legislature and the Judiciary – are separate, co-equal, and independent branches of our government, as designed by our founding fathers. Independence of the judiciary is essential in a democracy. Even though the state judiciary’s budget is only ½ of 1 percent of the total state budget, adequate funding of our branch of government guarantees an independent judiciary by enabling us to discharge our constitutionally mandated duties and responsibilities of resolving disputes and adjudicating cases

I believe we have been good stewards of the taxpayer monies allocated to the state judiciary. Regarding our adjudicative responsibilities, in 2010, a total of approximately 844,460 cases were filed at all levels of court combined – district, appellate and Supreme…At the suggestion of the National Center for State Courts that performed a review of our case management operations, we have begun to utilize video conferencing to reduce the travel expenses of some of our Justices, and to enable Justices to participate in conferences when they are unable to travel to New Orleans for some reason.

We implemented a hiring freeze last year, filling only the most crucial positions. We estimate that the freezing of these positions, while inconvenient and not popular, may result in significant savings over time…We have also spent many hours and resources designing, developing and implementing an Enterprise Resource Planning system which will result in an integrated computer-based system to manage financial resources, materials, payroll, and human resources. This ERP will revolutionize the way we conduct our internal business at the court, and will result in substantial savings and increased efficiencies for years to come. After months of hard work, we are halfway through our ERP rollout, and we expect to be completely online in just a few months.

In January, we created the Louisiana Judicial Leadership Institute, designed to serve as an organizational enrichment tool to assist in developing a judge’s leadership skills, to increase awareness of leadership and management issues and challenges, and to provide a network of court leaders across the state who are actively involved in improving leadership skills and court operations. The Institute will consist of five sessions over an eight month period in various cities across the state. The inaugural class, composed of judges from across the state and from all levels of the state judiciary, participated in the first session in March, and I was pleased that we received rave reviews.

Both Louisiana and nationally, we have seen an increase in the number of pro-se or self-represented litigants using the court system, as a result of a weakening economy and rising litigation costs. We joined with the Louisiana State Bar Association to form a committee to explore methods of assisting those self-represented litigants in navigating the legal system….Justice Jeannette Knoll chaired the Supreme Court Committee to Study Post-Conviction Procedures, whose purpose was to conduct a comprehensive review and study of the laws, processes and procedures relevant to Louisiana post-conviction proceedings, in a collaborative method to determine the cause, if any, of delays or practices unfair to the either party…A specially appointed Task Force looked at how to improve courthouse security in Louisiana, and yet another committee was appointed to study standard jury instructions with the goal of translating them into plain and understandable language.

Over the last few years, you, the Legislature, has asked the Supreme Court to take on several programs. We did so enthusiastically, and we believe, effectively. We also did so economically. For example, in 2001, you asked us to oversee the establishment of a Drug Court program in Louisiana….Since the first drug court opened in Louisiana, over 8,300 arrestees have graduated from the program. A total of 438 drug-free babies were born, for an estimated total cost saving of $109-1/2 million dollars ($109,500,000), based on a total of estimated costs of medical and related expenses for a drug-addicted baby in the first year of life.

Another example of where funds allocated to the Supreme Court for use in programs result in savings is CASA, or Court Appointed Special Advocates….. Each year, over 1,000 Louisiana children with CASAs are permanently placed out of the foster care system, saving the State approximately $10,000 per year for each child.

Let me turn for a minute to this current legislative session…We have come a long way in our juvenile justice system – from 2001′s ranking by the New York Times as one of the worst systems in the country, to today’s reality of international foundations such as MacArthur, Casey and others investing millions of dollars in our state because they see the potential and willingness for reform…We in the judiciary have embraced our role in the system and have engaged actively with the Department of Children and Family Services and other partners to try to improve outcomes for these vulnerable children.We recently participated actively in the Child and Family Services Review, which is a federal review of all aspects of the state’s child welfare system, including the legal system…This last year, under the chairmanship of your colleague, Rep. John Schroder, we also successfully implemented a new statewide system of representation for children and indigent parents in child protection cases, working with all three branches of government and the Louisiana Bar Foundation.

Thank you again for the invitation to be with you today. Thank you for your attention to my remarks, and on behalf of the state judiciary, thank you for your respect and your courtesies. And most importantly, thank you for your undying efforts to improve the lives of the citizens of our state.

Connecticut State of the Judiciary: Access, efficient resolution of cases, fairness. “[S]ometimes fair and just decisions can also be very unpopular”

July 25th, 2011

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

On April 13, 2011 the Connecticut House and Senate resolved (S.J. 36) to meet in joint convention, and “That a committee of two Senators and two Representatives be appointed to invite the Honorable Chase T. Rogers, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to attend the Joint Convention and to present to the Joint Convention any communication she might be pleased to make.” S.J. 37 directed “the remarks of the Chief Justice be printed in the journals of the Senate and House of Representatives and that a sufficient number of copies be printed for general distribution”

Later the same day Chief Justice Rogers did address the Joint Convention. Highlights of the Chief Justice’s speech (full text here) included:

I don’t have to tell you that we are all confronting the biggest deficit in our state’s history. The Judicial Branch is anything but immune from this crisis. In fact, for the past several years, as a partner with the Executive and Legislative Branches, we have shouldered our fair share of budget cuts and reductions.

Now, the budget is before you. Although we are hoping for the best, we also must prepare for the worst, and I will tell you that we are working on contingency plans to address whatever happens going forward. I feel it is important to let you know that, if there are ultimately more significant cuts or layoffs, the branch that we know today will look very different in the future. For example, the continuation of the initiatives that I highlight over the next several minutes may not be possible.

Regardless of the resources that are available, however, I can assure you that our commitment to three basic principles will remain intact. These principles are: Number one, access; Number two, the efficient resolution of cases; and Number three, fairness.

Starting with the first principle, we must provide access to everyone regardless of race, religion, age, sex, sexual preference, disability, marital status or national origin…While its charge is broad, a key area the Commission will address is one of our court system’s biggest challenges – providing access to self represented parties. If you aren’t aware of this troubling trend, the following numbers may surprise you. In 2010, an astounding 84 percent of all family cases and 27 percent of all civil cases had at least one party who was self-represented. The numbers are close to 90 percent in housing matters.
I am happy to say that we have taken great strides in making our courthouses easier to navigate. For example, by shifting resources we now have employees available in four of our busiest courthouses to greet and direct members of the public to where they need to go immediately upon entering the building. Since January 2010, this program has assisted over 8,000 court patrons. To further assist self represented parties, our court service centers and public information desks provide assistance in completing forms and also provide lawyers and others access to computers and fax machines, as well as other resources.

Of course, we could make all of these enhancements, but if a Judicial Branch employee is not helpful, then our efforts will be futile…Therefore, we are taking a hard look at how our Branch employees interact with the public. While the majority of our employees are professional and courteous, we know we can always do better.

In addition, we now have a team of employees who pose as members of the public and regularly visit our facilities to determine whether people are being treated professionally… As you can imagine, I was a little nervous about how this program would be received by staff. Interestingly, rather than resisting these efforts, the vast majority have welcomed the input they have received as a result of this program.

I would now like to turn to our second commitment – the timely and efficient resolution of cases. You should know that our courts are facing an increase in the number of cases filed. Over the past four years, we have seen an increase in the number of civil cases added to our dockets by 37 percent…I can’t tell you scientifically that these increases are due directly to the economy, but common sense tells us that it is certainly a significant factor.

Two years ago, a report was issued in Florida entitled “The Economic Impacts of Delays in Civil Trials in Florida’s State Courts Due to Under-Funding.” This report showed that a growing population and a growing foreclosure docket combined to create a civil case backlog. More important, it showed that this development severely affected Florida’s ability to create and keep jobs. This problem could become a reality in Connecticut and it is essential that we avoid a similar situation here.

To that end, one area of extensive review has been our Complex Litigation Docket…And to ensure that Connecticut has one of the strongest complex litigation dockets in the country, the Judicial Branch is committed to assigning judges with expertise in these matters to serve on the docket and to train all judges on issues relevant to commercial and business litigation.

We are also examining our court-sponsored Alternative Dispute Resolution programs that resolve civil matters short of trial and provide an off-ramp from full-blown litigation…We also plan to institute special land use dockets with dedicated judges and staff.

Through January of this year, over 9,400 homeowners have completed [the Foreclosure Mediation Program]. Of those, 79 percent reached a resolution and 64 percent were able to stay in their homes…The U.S. Department of Justice recently highlighted our program as a successful, results-based way to address the foreclosure crisis.

While jurors are absolutely essential to our system of government, it’s frustrating to receive a jury summons and to make the necessary arrangements only to find out the night before that your presence is not required…In response, we have been working hard to ensure the number of jurors summoned reflects the court’s actual need on any given day.

Now, I would like to turn your attention to the third commitment – fairness. Toward that goal, one of the most significant changes that has occurred has been at the appellate level.

Beginning with the 2009 term, the Supreme Court changed its longstanding policy regarding how it hears cases. Before that time, most cases were heard by panels of five of the seven justices. Now, the Court sits en banc in panels of all seven justices whenever possible. We believe this change enhances the confidence of the public in the rulings of our state’s highest court.

Finally, I want to talk for a moment about our superior court judges…A courthouse truly represents a microcosm of society’s problems and the public looks to our judges every day for resolution and justice. They do not have an easy task.

And, we know that sometimes fair and just decisions can also be very unpopular. Yet, the rule of law necessarily depends on independent courts where judges make decisions based on facts and law, not popular opinion.

Unfortunately, I am aware from speaking to my colleagues in other states of efforts to remove judges from office because a particular group disagrees with a ruling that is based on an interpretation of the law.

I am pleased to report that this is not the situation in Connecticut and I want to take this opportunity to thank you, on behalf of our state justices and judges, for your unwavering support.

The bottom line is that we need judges who are not afraid to do their job – which is to apply the law to the facts at hand, without fear or favor. The stakes in a democracy are that high…I hope that from just the few examples I have spoken of today, it is evident that the Branch is looking for every way possible to improve the state courts and, therefore, sustain the public’s confidence in our judiciary.

D.C. bill would remove power of President to name judges and require they reside in the District

July 22nd, 2011

Much of the District of Columbia’s power and authority over its courts derives from laws passed by Congress, as reflected in their judicial selection process. Under existing law, the President appoints judges from a list of names submitted by a judicial nomination commission, subject to Senate confirmation (see D.C. Code 1-204.31 and 1-204.33)

B19-0033, however, would remove the power of the power of the President to name judges and the Senate to confirm. The bill amends the District Charter to provide the Districts’ judges are to be selected by the Mayor with the consent of the Council. It further removes the power of the judicial nominating commission to name the chief judges of the Superior Court and Court of Appeals and gives it to the judges of the respective courts. It further removes the power of the President and chief judge of the U.S. District Court for D.C. to name members of the judicial nominating commission. Finally, it requires all judges be residence of the District and have resided in the District at least 5 years (currently, under D.C. Code 11-1501 they may reside in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, Arlington and Fairfax Counties “and any cities within the outer boundaries thereof and the city of Alexandria in Virginia.”)

B19-0033 is currently pending in the Council’s Judiciary Committee.

Another D.C. bill of note is B19-0008, which creates a Central Collection Unit within the Office of the City Administrator to collect all debts owed the District, including court courts. That bill is pending in the Government Operations and the Environment Committee.

U.S. Virgin Islands bill requests would cut judiciary budget 5%, change judicial salaries

July 22nd, 2011

The Legislature of the [U.S.] Virgin Islands has exercised the legislative power under the 1954 Constitution and functioned as a unicameral body during that time. The 15 senators have, in 2011, introduced several bill requests affecting the courts, including:

BR 11-0117 Increases the amount of insurance provided to Superior Court Judges from $15,000 to at least $100,000.

BR 11-0663 Amends the FY 2011 appropriation to the Supreme Court, Superior Court and the Judicial Council – To reduce by 5% (five) the FY 2011 appropriation for all divisions of the Judicial Branch of Government.

BR 11-0240 Establishes the Joint Committee of Judicial Administration. Alters and changes powers of Supreme Court.

BR 11-0386 Alters Selection of the Presiding Judges. Establishes a procedure for determining and linking judicial salaries to those of U.S. District Court judges. Establishes time limits for the appointment and confirmation of judges and justices provide for Territorial Court Administrator and Mashalls etc.

BR 11-0939 Includes “probation officers” of the Superior Court of the VI as peace officers with all rights associated there in.