Issue 6:22 is here.
Maine’s legislature has been roiled recently with the question of whether or not bonds issued from construction of government facilities should have to go to the voters. One bill in particular (HP 603, also called LD 807) as introduced would have required that all bonds previously issued by the Maine Governmental Facilities Authority without voter approval go to the voters. It was amended with an exception: bonds for court facilities would not require voter approval.
Governor Paul LePage has now vetoed the bill as amended. In his veto message, the Governor cited a desire for consistency between the branches in how bonds/debts are approved (or not) by voters.
The legislature is back in session today (5/31) to consider this and other vetoes.
I mentioned a few weeks ago that the Pennsylvania House Judiciary was set to vote May 22 on a constitutional amendment (HB 1815) and its implementing statutory language (HB 1816) to set up a merit selection system of that state’s appellate judges. The vote was deferred to an unspecified date, but now according to the latest posting from the legislature’s committee hearings notice page, the date is now set as June 5 for the constitutional amendment.
There were only two pieces of activity since the May 14 update:
With adjournments already having occurred, and with Missouri set to formal adjourn May 30 (they informally adjourned May 18), only 4 states even have the theoretically potential to advance such legislation in 2012 (barring special sessions):
Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: signed into law in Kansas, sent to study committee in New Hampshire, still technically alive in MI, NC, PA, & SC
Like most states, Oklahoma law permits judges to carry firearms into their assigned courthouses and/or courtrooms. Specifically it exempts judges from the unlawful carry statutes (emphasis added)
[T]his section shall not prohibit…The carrying or use of weapons in a courthouse by a district judge, associate district judge or special district judge within this state, who is in possession of a valid concealed handgun license issued pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act and whose name appears on a list maintained by the Administrative Director of the Courts (21 Okl. St. § 1272(A)(4))
District judges, associate district judges and special district judges, who are in possession of a valid concealed handgun license issued pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act and whose names appear on a list maintained by the Administrative Director of the Courts, shall be exempt from this section when acting in the course and scope of employment within the courthouses of this state. (21 Okl. St. § 1277(E))
Under the terms of SB 1733, signed into law by Oklahoma’s Governor on May 15, the state would now permit “open carry” of firearms with a valid handgun license. The law would also remove the word “concealed ” in the above statutes, thus allowing judges to carry unconcealed in courthouses.
The statute changes go into effect November 1.
A variety of states have joint commissions or committees, made of members of the judiciary along with legislators and in some cases executive branch appointees, to examine issues related to the courts. Examples include Virginia’s Committee on District Courts (14 members include 8 legislators) and Indiana’s Commission on Courts (13 members include 8 legislators).
North Carolina’s version, the Courts Commission (28 members: 7 appointed by the Governor, 7 appointed by the Chief Justice, and 14 legislators) has been in place since the 1980s but may end under legislation just introduced. SB 851, entitled the Boards & Commissions Efficiency Act of 2012, would repeal the authorizing legislation for the Commission.
The bill is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Program Evaluation.
The Pennsylvania state legislature’s website information for the merit selection constitutional amendment and implementing bill (HB 1815 and HB 1816, respectively) indicate no action was taken at yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing. Although I could find no news reports of the events, the blog for Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts indicates that the vote was postponed to an unspecified date.
In the first 200 years of the United States, it was a relatively common practice for state constitutions or statutes to provide that local mayors could exercise judicial functions, sitting as courts for minor offenses and civil matters. Most states have repealed the provisions or retained them but opted not to use them. The two notable exceptions are Louisiana and Ohio. In Ohio, efforts in the 2008/2009 legislative session to outright end the courts met with failure, however a new effort to modify the courts appears to be starting.
Under existing law, Ohio cities or towns with more than 100 people can form mayor’s courts unless expressly prohibited by law. Under SB 254 the population threshold would increase to 200 for a mayor’s court. However, the bill provides an exception for any town “located entirely on an island in Lake Erie”. According to an analysis of the bill by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the village of Put-in-Bay has a population of 138 (according to the 2010 census) and is located entirely on South Bass Island in Lake Erie. A similar House bill (HB 523) would raise the population threshold from 100 to 1,000 for a mayor’s court.
Both bills are pending in committee.
Legislatures Going Out of Session
Oklahoma 5/25
Floor/Committee Activity of Note
May 21
HB 5877 AS AMENDED: Provides that if the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts has a policy and procedure for a state judicial officer to file a written request for non-disclosure of personal information by a government agency with the Administrative Office, the state judicial officer may file the written request with the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Provides on a quarterly basis the Administrative Office to ill provide a list of all state judicial officers who have submitted a written request to it and provide the list to the appropriate officer with ultimate supervisory authority for a government agency. Requires he officer hall promptly provide a copy of the list to any and all government agencies under his or her supervision. Specifies receipt of the written request list constitutes the written request to the agency that it not disclose the personal information of the listed state judicial officers. Changes Election Code allowing redaction of a judicial candidate’s home address on a certificate of nomination or nomination papers after the Election Code objection period, to apply only to a judicial officer who is a judicial candidate. Provides that prior to expiration of the objection period the judicial officer’s home address information from the his or her certificate of nomination or nomination papers is available for public inspection; however, after redaction the home address information is only available for an in camera inspection by the court reviewing an objection to a judicial candidate’s certificate of nomination or nomination papers. Allows a judicial officer applying for an Illinois Identification card to use his or her work address in lieu of his or her residence or mailing address in the card application. Includes judicial officers in the list of persons who may use a work or business address instead of a domicile address on a vehicle registration application. Approved as amended by Senate Executive Committee 4/18/12.
May 22
North Carolina Senate Judiciary I Committee
HB 517 AS AMENDED: Creates position of chief magistrate. Provides chief district judge may appoint full time magistrate for county to serve as chief magistrate at chief district judge’s pleasure. Modifies current method(s) for discipline of magistrates. Allows resident superior court judge to give notice in cases where defendant has not been tried for 9 months after indictment to hold a trial conference. Approved as amended by full House 5/31/11.
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.
May 23
May 24
Michigan House Judiciary Committee
HB 5128 Creates business courts as divisions of the circuit court.
May 25
Drugs courts are not particularly new, but New Jersey’s legislature may add a new element to them, making participation mandatory in certain instances.
In March, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced his plans to expand the state’s existing drug court program to include a mandate that non-violent, drug-addicted offenders participate. Legislation putting these ideas into effect has been introduced in the last several weeks and has advanced in the legislative process.
The first bill introduced was SB 1877 on May 3. It would apply statewide and in almost all cases involving non-violent, drug-addicted offenders. That bill is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A second batch of bills (AB 2883 and the identical SB 1963) were introduced May 10 and 17, respectively. Unlike the SB 1877 version, AB 2883/SB1963 create the mandatory drug court system as a two-year pilot program and limit the focus to two vicinages (judicial districts) chosen by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The AOC would also be responsible for administering the pilot program.
AB 2883 was approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on May 14. SB 1963 is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
You are currently browsing the archives for May, 2012.
