Issue 7:5 is here.
I mentioned last year a series of efforts in the Hawaii House and Senate to change the way in which the state’s judges are selected. Those bills appear to have returned in 2013.
First, some background.
Currently, the state uses a version of the merit selection system. For the Supreme Court, Court of Intermediate Appeals, and Circuit Court that means a list of 4-6 names given to the Governor by the Judicial Selection Commission, subject to Senate confirmation. For the District Court the process is much the same: 6 names given to the Chief Justice, subject to Senate confirmation. Additional terms for all 4 courts are granted by the Judicial Selection Commission (no elections and no involvement by the governor, chief justice, or senate).
In 2012 several efforts were made to change the process including reducing to 3 the number of candidates submitted to the governor or chief justice.
Most failed to advance, but the ones that did move focused on public disclosure of all those seeking office either by requiring the Judicial Selection Commission release the names of everyone seeking to fill a vacancy or requiring the Governor release the names given for final selection.
Those disclosure bills are back, along with one proposing to simply end the state’s judicial selection system for the supreme court only and switch to a statewide election instead.
Details below the jump.
Among New York’s 10 types of trial courts are the Town and Village Courts, known collectively as “Justice Courts.” These courts are locally-funded and operated in about 1300 locations throughout the state (except NYC). They handle minor civil and criminal matters.
Under AB 2154 of 2103, the dockets of the these courts would be open to quarterly inspection by the town supervisor for the locality. The supervisor would be permitted to examine the court’s docket and “determine whether the fines and fees therein shown to have been collected during the immediately previous quarter have been turned over to the proper officials as required by law.”
AB 2154 has been filed in the Assembly Local Governments Committee.
With but a few exceptions, security for state courts is provided by local government, typically through the office of sheriff. The extent to which the courthouse and individual courtrooms are secured is often left to the sheriff or local government, which some localities providing no security at all.
Washington HB 1365 and SB 5240 would change this practice in that state by amending existing law that already requires counties provide “furniture, books, stationery, postage, office eequipment, heat, light and telephone” to also provided “suitable, secure courthouses” (the language currently requires only that “suitable courtrooms” be provided and makes no mention of security).
In addition, the bills would add new provisions into law regarding security (the following is for cities, the county-specific provisions are identical).
Cities shall provide security to municipal courts in order to:
(1) Promote the safety and security of all court facilities and proceedings;
(2) Ensure access to court proceedings as guaranteed by Article 1, section 10 of the Washington state Constitution; and
(3) Assist judges in carrying out their respective constitutional and statutory duties.
The House version is before the Local Government committee while the Senate is before the Law & Justice Committee, the new name for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Aside from the provisions related to ending the state’s merit selection system, the recent Kansas legislation (HCR 5002, HCR 5003, HCR 5004, SCR 1601, SCR 1605) also changes the status of the state’s intermediate appellate court (or IACs, usually called the Court of Appeals) from a creation of statute to one established constitutionally. Most IACs can trace their origins back only in the 1970s (the “youngest” such court is probably the Mississippi Court of Appeals, created in 1995).
18 states created their IACs under constitutional provisions allowing the legislature to create courts below the supreme court.
Some state legislators have attempted to use the fact that the IAC is created by statute, and its membership set by statute as well, to pressure the courts. For example in 2012 an Arizona Senate bill attempted to cut the state’s court of appeals from 22 judges down to 6, expressly as punishment and a “push back” against the supreme court for ruling against the senate. (Prior coverage and video from the committee hearing here). Also in 2012 a member of the Virginia Senate tried to repeal the state’s court of appeals outright (SB 630) reportedly in order to save money.
18 states with 19 statute-based IACs below the fold.
» Read more: Kansas tries to put its court of appeals in the state constitution: 19 state appellate courts are creatures of statute only
The last several years have seen numerous challenges to merit selection systems in the state legislatures, with perhaps the most common feature being some sort of legislative confirmation (often but not always in lieu of ending merit selection commissions). Two legislatures, Florida and Tennessee, have outright approved such plans, although the Florida proposal was rejected at the ballot box in 2012 and the Tennessee bill must be approved a second time before going to the voters. Under the 2012 Florida bill, the Senate would have had 90 days to confirm nominees for the state’s supreme court or else the nomination was deemed confirmed. The Senate would have been allowed to call itself back into session for such a confirmation process.
I noted when this subject came up in Florida that, in states where there is some sort of legislative confirmation (House, Senate, or both) there were already examples of a variety of scenarios:
Kansas’ bills to end the state’s merit selection system (HCR 5002 and SB 8 / SCR 1601) and the Tennessee bill approved in 2012 and requiring approval in 2013/2014 (HJR 8 / SJR 2) opt for automatic confirmation. Kansas would have Senate confirmation within 60 calendar days or within 20 days of a new session start. Tennessee provides for confirmation by both houses within 60 calendar days or within 60 calendar days of a new session start. Neither appears to contemplate the chamber(s) coming back into session for confirmations.
Tennessee’s Senate Judiciary Committee considers SJR 2 later today while Kansas’ full Senate is set to vote on SB 8 / SCR 1601 tomorrow.
I noted earlier in January that the Kansas legislature declined to invite the state’s chief justice to deliver a state of the judiciary address. Now HB 2040 of 2013 would in fact require such a speech be delivered, orally, at the start of every session.
First, some background.
Longtime readers of the blog may know I’ve tracked state of the judiciary addresses delivered to legislatures for a few years now, noting whether or not the speech was required by statute or constitutional provision. There are at least 3 such states that have specific language that is cited when the legislature makes the formal invitation to the state’s chief justice.
Kansas HB 2040 would specify any report by the chief justice would have to be delivered, in person, to the legislature (legislative leaders in declining to invite the chief justice in 2013 suggested he just send a written report instead).
At the beginning of each regular session of the legislature, the chief justice shall have the responsibility for delivering an oral state of the judiciary address to the legislature evaluating affairs concerning the state of the judiciary, including accessibility of the courts to the citizens of this state, future needs of the courts of the state and any recommendations for addressing such affairs of the judiciary.
The same bill would also require the governor’s state of the state address be made orally to the legislature.
Given that the bill is authored by a Democrat in a chamber that is made up of 92 Republicans and 33 Democrats, it appears unlikely the bill will get out of the House Judiciary Committee.
Numerous state bills introduced in the last several weeks regarding firearms purport to either nullify federal laws and actions or exempt firearms made in a state (declaring them intrastate items and not subject to the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause). Several, however, go further and threaten or allude to criminal penalties for federal and state officials, including state judges and jurors by name, should they enforce or uphold such federal laws or actions.
Texas HB 553 for example provides
A person who is a Peace Officer, State Officer, or State Employee commits an offense if the person, while acting under color of the person’s office or employment, intentionally enforces or attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.
Arizona’s HB 2291 and SB 1122 both are silent on what penalties a public servant faces for enforcing a federal firearms law, but include within the definition of those covered both state judges and jurors.
For the purposes of this section, “public servant” means any officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, including legislators and judges, and any person who participates, as juror, witness, advisor, consultant or otherwise, in performing a government function.
The Senate version is set for a hearing before that chamber’s Public Safety committee on January 30.
Full list of all such legislation below the fold.
Update 1/28/13 @ 2:00 PM added Missouri & Pennsylvania bills
» Read more: State nullification laws provide for criminal punishment of state judges & jurors who enforce or uphold federal firearms law
Update 1/28/13 @ 4:00 PM: Appears KS Senate will vote on Wednesday
Coming into session
Utah 1/28/2013
North Carolina 1/30/2013
Possible votes
Kansas HCR 5002 (Constitutional Amendment) Ends merit selection in state. Provides governor may select nominees subject to senate confirmation. Provides failure by Senate to vote on candidate within certain time frame results in automatic confirmation. Establishes court of appeals in state constitution (currently created by statute). Approved by House Judiciary Committee 1/24/13.
Virginia SB 740 Increases mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 73. Approved by full Senate 1/25/13.
January 28
January 29
Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee
SJR 6 Removes prohibition on judges being elected or appointed after the age of 70.
Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee
SJR 2 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides governor may appoint anyone who meets age and residency requirements to appellate courts with legislative confirmation. Provides nominee is deemed confirmed if legislature fails to act on nomination within 60 calendar days of nomination or 60 days of start of legislative session (if nominated out of session). Provides for retention elections. Previously approved by 2011/2012 legislative session. Must be approved by 2013/2014 session.
Washington State House Judiciary Committee
HB 1266 Extends mandatory retirement age for district court judges only from end of year judge turns 75 to end of term of office judge turns 75.
January 30
Kansas Senate
SB 8 / SCR 1601 Ends merit selection in state. Provides governor may select nominees subject to senate confirmation. Creates Commission on Judicial Nominations to review governor’s pick and make recommendations prior to Senate confirmation. Provides failure by Senate to vote on candidate within certain time frame results in automatic confirmation. Establishes court of appeals in state constitution (currently created by statute). Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 1/25/13.
January 31
February 1
The advent of technology often requires revision to existing policies. The increased use of efiling in state trial courts is no exception. Often the solution can be found in the judiciary’s power to alter its rules of procedure or practice, but there are the occasional statutory impediments.
Oregon and Virginia are among the states looking at the subject this year. Oregon HB 2562 modifies existing laws on the filing of a transcript on appeal to allow for filing of an electronic, rather than a paper, version. Meanwhile Virginia HB 1654 would require a clerk of circuit court (the state’s general jurisdiction court) with an established electronic filing system to provide any appellate court the trial court record in electronic form. Both are pending in their respective chambers.
Louisiana in 2012 (HB 112) changed that state’s laws to allow for depositions made a part of a record on appeal to be attached in a reduced format or in an electronic format approved by the court.
In 2011, Nebraska’s LB 17 changed the law regarding what constitutes the “complete record” to include “those things maintained in the state’s electronic case management system.”
You are currently browsing the archives for January, 2013.
