Archive for October, 2012

Wyoming Joint Judiciary Interim Committee meets, will examine court reporters and transcript fees, purchasing by state supreme court

October 26th, 2012

The Wyoming legislature’s joint judiciary interim committee is meeting October 25 & 26. On the agenda is an examination of  court reporters and transcript fees, recording of court proceedings, and transcripts in criminal cases. In addition the committee will discuss the purchase of official reporter and session laws for libraries or other offices by the Supreme Court.

Other topics include juvenile sentencing, eminent domain, seismic exploration, regulatory takings, private transfer fees, the Community Juvenile Services Act, child support guidelines tables, law enforcement officer authority and liability on the Wind River Indian Reservation, and wiretap authority.

 

 

Judicial Compensation Commissions meeting in Louisiana, Maine

October 26th, 2012

Louisiana’s Judicial Compensation Commission, which is statutorily housed within the legislature, meets October 30 to continue its ongoing study of judicial salaries.

Meanwhile Maine’s 3-member Judicial Compensation Commission (2 members selected by the legislature’s leadership plus 1 member selected by the governor) which is staffed by the Legislative Council was to meet October 22. That meeting has apparently been postponed to November 13.

Special Election Night Coverage hosted by Gavel to Gavel’s Bill Raftery

October 23rd, 2012

I’ll be hosting the National Center for State Court’s live election night results on the state ballot initiatives discussed on this blog and state supreme court elections at www.ncsc.org/elections.

There will also be coverage on the National Center’s Twitter feed @StateCourts using the hashtag #NCSCElections.

New Mexico Amendment 1: expanding membership of judicial disciplinary commission; what do other states have?

October 18th, 2012

In November New Mexico voters will decide whether to expand the state’s judicial disciplinary commission, called the Judicial Standards Commission, by adding a magistrate judge and an additional member of public. Currently the Commission has a 3-2-6 balance: 3 judges, 2 lawyers, and 6 non-attorney members of the public.

States vary in terms of the raw number and overall ratio between judges, lawyers, and laypersons. New Mexico and 11 other states give half or more seats to lay persons. Moreover, over half of states (27) put changes to the membership of these commissions into their state’s constitution while another 10 make the membership of these commissions subject to court rule.

Details below the fold
» Read more: New Mexico Amendment 1: expanding membership of judicial disciplinary commission; what do other states have?

Maryland Question 1 & Question 2: double-majorities required to pass, plus what trial judges must be attorneys in other states?

October 17th, 2012

Voters in Maryland will once again be voting on whether to require certain judges in the state be attorneys. In 2010 voters amended the state constitution to require that Orphan’s Court (read: probate) judges in the city of Baltimore must be attorneys. Question 1 (SB 281 0f 2011) and Question 2 (SB 48 of 2012) would extend that requirement to the Orphan’s Court judges of Prince George’s County and Baltimore County, respectively.

Double-majorities required to pass

Interestingly, the two bills were at one point intertwined. SB 281 of 2011 as introduced, dealt only with Prince George’s County. It was amended to include Baltimore County, however the state constitution created a sticking point. Under Article XIV, § 1, an amendment dealing with only one county or jurisdiction has to get the approval of a majority of a voters both statewide and in the county/jurisdiction affected. Multi-county proposals aren’t so constrained

If the General Assembly determines that a proposed Constitutional amendment affects only one county or the City of Baltimore, the proposed amendment shall be part of the Constitution if it receives a majority of the votes cast in the State and in the affected county or City of Baltimore, as the case may be. When two or more amendments shall be submitted to the voters of this State at the same election, they shall be so submitted as that each amendment shall be voted on separately.

The House amended SB 281 of 2011 to get rid of Baltimore County and thus return the bill to a single county amendment. SB 48 of 2012 was introduced and adopted for Baltimore County.

What do other states do?

A majority of states allow at least some judges to be non-attorneys, although in practice attorneys often fill these positions it is not always the case. Moreover, the tendency is to move away from such “lay” judges; in addition to Maryland’s 2010 amendment Georgia voted in 2011 to discontinue the practice of electing lay judges for Municipal Courts (those already serving may continue to do so and be reelected).

Details below the fold
» Read more: Maryland Question 1 & Question 2: double-majorities required to pass, plus what trial judges must be attorneys in other states?

Wyoming Constitutional Amendment C: What exactly is “chambers business”?

October 16th, 2012

Wyoming HJR 1 (of 2011) / Constitutional Amendment C , on the ballot this November, would eliminate an existing provision that district court commissioners may act only 1) in the absence of the district judge from the county or 2) where it is improper for the district judge to act.

Article 5, Section 14. District courts generally; commissioners. The legislature shall provide by law for the appointment by the several district courts of one or more district court commissioners (who shall be persons learned in the law) in each organized county in which a district court is holden, such commissioners shall have authority to perform such chamber business in the absence of the district judge from the county or upon his written statement filed with the papers, that it is improper for him to act, as may be prescribed by law, to take depositions and perform such other duties, and receive such compensation as shall be prescribed by law.

In this first look at Wyoming’s Amendment C I’ll take a look at what exactly is “chamber business”?

Wyoming’s Article 5, Section 14 is almost identical to Article VI, Section 14 of the 1879 California Constitution.

The Legislature may also provide for the appointment, by the several superior courts, of one or more commissioners in their respective counties, or cities and counties, with authority to perform chamber business of the judges of the superior courts, to take depositions, and to perform such other business connected with the administration of justice as may be prescribed by law.

As the 1966 California Constitution Revision Commission noted, the term “chamber business” wasn’t particularly clear.

The existing section [14] raises the  problem of defining ‘chamber business’ since many ‘judicial’ duties can be performed in chambers. To indicate the subordinate nature of duties that officers such as commissioners should be allowed to perform, the phrase ‘subordinate judicial duties’ was used.” (Cal. Const. Revision Com., Proposed Revision (1966) p. 99., as cited in Gomez v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 4th 293, 305-306 (Cal. 2012))

The phrase was amended out of the California Constitution and replaced with “subordinate judicial duties” in 1966.

The Wyoming Board of Judicial Policy and Administration produced a press release last week to give more details.

The purpose of Constitutional Amendment C is to enhance the efficiency of the district court by removing two obstacles to the court’s use of court commissioners. The state constitution currently allows court commissioners appointed by the district judge to conduct “chambers business”, and it grants the court commissioner authority to act in the absence of the district judge from the county. However, much has changed in the operation of district courts since the 1890 when our constitution was adopted. The statutes impose more duties and deadlines that can be difficult to fulfill promptly when the district court is conducting trials or other business. The amendment would give the court commissioner authority to act in matters beyond “chambers business,” such as emergency hearings in mental health and juvenile cases, where the district judge is within the county, but is otherwise occupied, such as in a jury trial. This would allow the district court to more promptly act on matters of great importance to members of the public.

Ohio bill would require court proceedings be audio recorded and available to the public & parties

October 11th, 2012

The idea of a “court of record” predates the invention of electronic recording devices, but a bill recently introduced in Ohio may come close to making the old and new understandings of the term synonymous.

Under HB 592 as introduced last month, all “courts of record” in the state would be required to electronically record the audio of “every proceeding before the court.” The bill authorizes the clerk of the court or an employee of the clerk’s office to record the proceeding as needed.

The subsequent recording “is a public record” except where “the recording is a record to which public access is restricted by court rule or statute.” The parties and general public would be able to request the court provide a copy of the recording with the cost of the copy (or access to listening to a copy) to be determined by the court in accordance to the state’s Open Records Law.

The bill is currently in the House but not yet assigned to a committee.

Arizona Proposition 115: What courts/states have mandatory judicial retirement and at what age?

October 11th, 2012

In addition to extending most judicial terms to 8 years, Arizona’s Proposition 115 would also change the state’s mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75.

As I noted last year when this subject came up in the Ohio ballot, 33 states plus D.C. have age limits for at least some of their judges. While Arizona’s current 70 is the most typical age, several states use 75: Kansas, Missouri (municipal court judges), Oregon, Texas (Appellate + District), Utah, and Washington.

A chart listing all mandatory retirement ages for state judges is below. (Updated 2/12/2013)

» Read more: Arizona Proposition 115: What courts/states have mandatory judicial retirement and at what age?

New Jersey may end governor & senate’s roles in appointing certain judges

October 11th, 2012

Like many states, New Jersey uses several different methods of judicial appointment based on the level of the court or the geographical location served. New Jersey’s Supreme Court, Superior Court Appellate Division, and Superior Court use a quasi-federal system: the governor nominates and the Senate confirms an individual for their initial 7 year term; the governor can then renominate and the Senate reconfirm in which case the person serves until age 70.

The state’s municipal courts, however, are a different story altogether.

ACR 88 and the related AB 1566 would remove the governor and senate from the equation.

  • In multi-municipality or joint municipal courts, the method of selection would be chosen by the municipalities involved at their discretion when they agree to form the court.
  • The judge of a countywide central municipal court would be appointed by the county executive in those counties having a county executive and in all other counties would be appointed by the county governing body.

ACR 88 and AB 1566 are scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on October 15.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election

October 4th, 2012

Few if any state legislatures are in session, but one of those few is Michigan and that state’s House is set to come back into session November 27 to decide the fate of a bill that would ban the use of international law by the state’s judiciary.

Under Michigan  HB 4769 and SB 701

A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.

After initial bad press and rallies where the bills were introduced earlier this year the bills remained in their respective committees. However the House journal indicates a notice for a motion to discharge HB 4769 from the House Committee on Judiciary was filed by the bill’s primary sponsor September 11 and the motion made September 12. The vote on the motion was postponed until November 27, 2012.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election