Most states do not yet have court efiling and those few that do do not usually use a single vendor/efiling system, instead leaving it to local courts to decide. That dichotomy is put starkly in two bills introduced in the last week.

Kansas HB 2116 allows for electronic filing of service of process but leaves the choice of the method and system to accomplish electronic filing to the Chief Judge of each district.

When a case is electronically filed and process is to be served under this subsection, the chief judge of each judicial district shall determine the procedure for service of process through an agreement with a local enforcement agency.

Similarly, a 2011 effort to transfer the decision making about computer information storage and retrieval systems into the hands of the supreme court and away from the local chief judge (SB 46 of 2011) met with initial approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee but ultimately failed.

Almost the same time HB 2116 was being filed in Kansas, Tennessee bills HB 418 and SB 1050 were introduced to put the power into the hands of the state’s administrative office of the courts. Under HB 418 / SB 1050 the AOC would have until January 1, 2014 to determine a e-filing provider and for all courts in the state to utilize that system.

• Previous Entry: New Hampshire tries re-establishing legislative committee that sought to impeach judges, overturn judicial decisions
• Next Entry: Issue 7:6 is out