Archive for February, 2012

« Older Entries

Florida House ties women/minority law student scholarships to changes to state merit selection system

February 29th, 2012

I mentioned back in January the effort in Florida to allow governors to replace a majority of the members of the state’s judicial nominating commissions. What made the provisions of HB 971 and the similar SB 1570 even more notable than the change to merit selection was their tying of the changes to changes in the state’s judicial retirement system, arguably to the advantage of judges recalled back into temporary service by the state’s chief justice.

Last Friday the House passed its version, a version that removed the tie between judicial retirement benefits and judicial nominating commission changes but added a new tie.

Under HB 971, as passed by the House, election qualifying fees for incumbent, unopposed circuit and county judges are now moved from the Elections Commission Trust Fund to the Florida Bar Foundation for scholarships for female and minority law students who attend a Florida law school and are interested in seeking judicial office in the future.

The focus now shifts to the Senate. SB 1570, which retains the tie to the judicial retirement system if there are changes to the judicial nominating commissions, has been dormant, having been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee January 25 and pending in the Senate Budget committee/subcommittee process.

The clock is ticking, with the legislature set to adjourn March 9

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection

Tags:

Add Maryland to list of states considering public financing of judicial races

February 29th, 2012

First it was Kentucky, Ohio, and Wisconsin considering public financing for judicial races.

Then Pennsylvania.

Somewhere in between I neglected to mention Maryland’s SB 181, an error I am now rectifying. But first, some background.

In 2011 the Maryland legislature adopted HJR 7, which created a Commission to Study Campaign Finance Law. The 17 member commission is made up of mostly legislators (12) and members of the executive branch (State Administrator of Elections & Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission). The Governor opted to use one of his appointments to name a retired judge to the panel.

The commission was tasked with examining numerous issues, including public financing of campaigns for judicial offices and the costs and practical funding sources for such a system (other than via the state’s general fund). The commission submitted an interim report on December 31, 2011 that made no mention of public financing of judicial elections. Its final report is due December 31, 2012.

Enter SB 181 of 2012, a bill to create a Task Force to Study the Public Financing of Judicial Elections. The sole purposes of this task force, made up of legislators, judges, and others, would be to:

  1. study the feasibility of adopting a public finance system for judicial elections
  2. review best practices for publicly financing judicial elections
  3. develop a proposal to institute a public finance system for judicial elections

SB 181 requires the Task Force report back on these three elements by December 31, 2012.

The video below is from the February 7, 2012 hearing on the bill.

No comments »

Posted in Selection, Video

Tags:

New Jersey legislators once again attempt to adopt constitutional amendment allowing for legislative “override” of judicial decisions, require use of original intent interpretation

February 28th, 2012

As I mentioned last year, Rick Perry’s idea of allowing legislatures to “override” or vote to overturn judicial decisions is not particularly new. Two states, Montana and New Jersey, have debated the concept for years.

Undaunted by the fact that not a single version of the bill has even advanced to a committee hearing, members of the New Jersey Assembly have nevertheless reintroduced ACR 102, permitting (among other things) the legislature to override the state’s judiciary.

Specifically, it would add a new section IX to the state’s judiciary article (Article VI).

a. As the people possess the exclusive authority to ordain or amend constitutions, all courts shall interpret this Constitution in a manner consistent with the intention of the people when ordaining or amending the same. Any court which declares an act of government contrary to the provisions of the Constitution shall do so in writing, setting forth in specific detail the section violated and the history of the provision which supports the decision. No court shall expand a constitutional provision beyond, nor constrict a constitutional provision below, the scope actually intended by the people. Furthermore, as the power of the purse is solely that of the Legislature, no court shall issue any decision, whether under this Constitution or otherwise, which shall have the effect of compelling the State or any of its subdivisions to expend any money, or restraining the expenditure thereof, without the express consent of the Legislature.

b. The Legislature may review any decision to determine if the decision violates the provisions of subsection a. of this constitutional amendment or is otherwise inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature. The Legislature may invalidate the decision, in whole or in part, by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the authorized membership of each House in favor of a concurrent resolution providing for invalidation.

The concurrent resolution has been sent to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other

Tags:

Welcome to the new, improved Gavel to Gavel! New website, new features, same great content.

February 27th, 2012

Some readers may have noticed in the last two issues some changes to Gavel to Gavel. After months of redevelopment, I am happy to announce the release of the new, improved Gavel to Gavel homepage at:

www.ncsc.org/gaveltogavel

Readers now have a single source for all Gavel to Gavel products, including an expanded social media presence on Twitter, YouTube, and our new Facebook page.

Some of the new and newly revised features:

  1. E-publication: Issues now available as html, not pdfs. All bills cited or listed have links to the bills (where available) directly embedded.
  2. Database: New interface allows for faster and easier bill searching.
  3. Blog: The database is also fully integrated into the blog (look for the “database” tab).
  4. YouTube: More videos from committee/floor hearings on major pieces of legislation affecting the courts.
  5. Twitter: We’ve reached out 400th follower! Won’t you become #401?
  6. Facebook: All blog and Twitter posts will be cross-posted here. Come “Like” us now!
  7. Subscriptions: Sign up or unsubscribe from Gavel to Gaveland all NCSC e-newsletters in one spot.

Additionally I expect to try a first of its kind live-chat for Gavel to Gavel readers to give a mid-session update sometime in early March. Stay tuned.

Questions, comments about the changes, or suggestions are really appreciated at wraftery@ncsc.org or by responding to this email.

Thanks again for your continued support!

Bill Raftery

Editor, Gavel to Gavel

1 comment »

Posted in Admin

Week ahead: GA may get a tax court, merit selection in PA, assaults on court staff in WI, mandatory judicial retirement in AL & MD

February 24th, 2012

Legislatures Coming Into Session

NONE

Committee Activity of Note

February 27

Georgia House Judiciary Civil Committee, Jacobs Subcommittee (Subcommittee Two)

HB 100 Creates Tax Court as a pilot project within the judicial branch. Judges to be nominated by governor and confirmed by senate. (Prior coverage here)

February 28

Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee

SB 18 Creates Task Force on Military Service Members, Veterans, and the Courts to study military service-related mental health issues and substance abuse problems and to make recommendations concerning the establishment of a special court for defendants who are military members or veterans.

SB 616 (Constitutional Amendment) Increases from 70 to 72 the mandatory retirement age for judges. Requires that judges serving after age 70 must be certified as fit by state’s court of last resort (Court of Appeals).

February 29

Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee

SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment) Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”

SB 256 Increases mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75.

March 1

Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee

HB 1815 (Constitutional Amendment) Replaces current election system for appellate judges with merit selection Appellate Court Nominating Commission and retention elections. Requires Senate confirmation for those chosen by commission and appointed by governor.

HB 1816 Creates Appellate Court Nominating Commission to provide for merit selection for appellate vacancies.

Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics

AB 424 Makes battery or threat to a court employee a Class I felony. Makes it a Class I felony to threaten to cause damage to a courthouse and if the threatened action could result in bodily harm to a judge or court employee.

March 2

 

No comments »

Posted in Coming Week

New Hampshire House committee moves to strip supreme court of rule making, create special panel to ensure “balanced and neutral judiciary”, end mandatory bar

February 24th, 2012

Long time readers will no doubt be aware of the litany of efforts by the New Hampshire House to undercut or attack the state’s judiciary, from impeachment threats, to attempts to strip the courts of the power of judicial review, to voting to “repudiate” the opinion’s of the state’s supreme court, to outright writing the state’s supreme court out of the constitution.

The latest such efforts made it out of committee this week, including:

CACR 22 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides that the chief justice shall adopt court rules only with the concurrence of the legislature.

CACR 26 (Constitutional Amendment) Repeals constitutional provision authorizing the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all the courts.

HB 1131 ORIGINAL: Establishes a committee to study the revisions to laws which would be necessary if the supreme court and superior court were abolished as constitutional courts. AS AMENDED: Establishes committee of 3 House members and 2 Senate members to “to study methods of creating a balanced and neutral judiciary.” Committee to report by November 2, 2012.

HB 1474 Eliminates requirement that attorneys be members of New Hampshire Bar Association. (Unified bar established by state supreme court in 1968, see In re Unification of N.H. Bar, 248 A.2d 709).

This is in addition to an effort passed by the House earlier in February the sought to unilaterally “revoke” rules established by the supreme court under its existing rule making authority.

All four items adopted by the House Judiciary Committee will be voted on by the full House March 7.

1 comment »

Posted in Other, Rule Making Authority, Structure Changes

Tags:

Kansas plan to end merit selection for Court of Appeals, dormant for a year, fails in Senate on bipartisan vote

February 24th, 2012

When last we looked at the effort to end merit selection for the Kansas Court of Appeals, the House had adopted HB 2101, a change to a quasi-federal system (governor appoints, senate confirms, but instead of life tenure, retention elections). When the Senate failed to take it up, the House tried to force the issue by attaching it to a completely unrelated bill (SB 83). When the Senate balked at the change in March 2011, a conference committee was set to reconcile the competing versions of SB 83.

Yesterday (February 23, 2012), the issue was forced again when a Senator moved to accept the House amendment killing merit selection for the Court of Appeals. The effort failed on a 17-22 vote. The vote split across party lines. All 17 votes in favor of ending merit selection were from Republicans. Of the 22 votes against, 14 Republicans and 8 Democrats opposing the amendment.

SB 83 now returns back to the conference committee created in March 2011, its fate unknown.

For news reports and details, check out this Gavel Grab post.

6 comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Another day, another legislative plan to prosecute judges for their decisions, this time in Mississippi

February 24th, 2012

In yesterday’s Gavel to Gavel e-newsletter (free subscription here) I noted that Iowa’s Senate was considering a bill to make it a Class D felony for judges in the state to use or cite international law. Today’s effort at prosecuting judges for their opinions comes from Mississippi.

HCR 75 is a constitutional amendment made up of three parts.

The first grants any qualified elector with at least an Associate’s degree the right to submit a bill draft request to the legislature, which must then draft the bill and consider it.

The second provides any law enforcement officer who commits misconduct, racial misconduct, unnecessary physical abuse or other improper conduct against another shall, is to face a $5,000 fine and be suspended for 30 days.

The third is focused on judges and prosecutors. Under it, any judge who

  • deprives a person of his constitutional or civil rights,
  • abuses or exceeds the authority of his office,
  • does not maintain proper decorum in the court room, or
  • engages in unethical conduct

is to be criminally prosecuted. Conviction of a first offense means a $5,000 fine and a law license suspension for 90 days. Second or subsequent convictions have no fine provision, but would result in suspension of the judge’s law license for 1 year.

Given that judges/justices of the state’s courts (except justices of the peace and municipal courts serving a population below 10,000)  must be attorneys, this would presumably prohibit them from serving as a judge during the duration of the suspension.

HCR 75 is currently pending before the House Constitution Committee and has been cross-referred to the House Judiciary B Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Other

Tags:

Issue 6:8 is out

February 23rd, 2012

Issue 6:8 is here.

  • Iowa threatens to jail any judge who uses foreign law
  • Kansas would force judicial candidates prove their citizenship
  • Florida’s Senate tries to change way state’s courts are funded
  • Judicial salary increases: introduced in Wyoming, advance in New Mexico, opposed in Oklahoma
  • Florida’s House Judiciary Committee approves plan to revise state’s judicial nominating omissions
  • Illinois tries to bolster privacy protection for judges by withholding addresses and similar information from public

No comments »

Posted in Weekly Edition

Wyoming House battles over whether to ban firearms in court buildings, fails to pass bill

February 23rd, 2012

Last week’s Gavel to Gavel publication focused on efforts to allow more people to carry guns into courthouses. Wyoming’s HB 70 was not listed (having just been introduced) but it does give a microcosm of the conflict over the subject. In sum,

Proponents of loosening restrictions point to the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago to argue that such bans should be eliminated or restricted to the absolute minimum (i.e. the courtroom). Opponents argue that the tense circumstances of cases and the constant concern of judges, court staff, and others being shot by irate litigants weigh against such expansions.

HB 70, as introduced in the Wyoming House, specified no person shall carry or possess a firearm beyond the secured entrance to any building containing a courtroom, or the secured entrance to designated parts thereof, during such times that such secured entrance has 1) a guard, 2) signs noting the prohibition on carrying, and 3) a magnetometer, x-ray, access device (such as card-access), or locked doors.

After meeting approval in the House Judiciary Committee, a floor fight ensued over limiting the restriction to courtrooms rather than courthouses or court buildings. Floor amendment 2 would have deleted all references to courthouses/buildings and replaced with courtrooms. The amendment was approved February 20 but failed on a vote for final passage on a 20-39 vote on February 22.

2 comments »

Posted in Other

Tags: