Presently, there appears to be only two items circulating and neither of them appear to be gathering signatures.

Colorado Proposed Initiative 2011-11 (DEADLINE: August 6) Changes term of office for the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court from ten years to two years. Prohibits a justice from serving as chief justice for more than one term. Prohibits a justice who is not retained as the result of a retention election, resigns from the Court, is removed from the Court, or fails to file a declaration under section 25 of article VI of the Colorado constitution from being reappointed to the Court for a period of ten years.

Oregon Proposal Initiative SP-2012-004 (DEADLINE: July 6) Prohibits labeling judge as “incumbent” on ballot if required study shows advantage to incumbent candidates.

SB 650 would amend the state’s constitution to add the following to the judicial selection portion of Article VI.

The chief justice may appoint judges who have retired upon attaining the age of seventy years as emeritus judges, permitting the appointed judges to serve as temporary judges in courts no higher than the court level they reached prior to retirement and for terms not to exceed three months per each appointment.

The Judicial branch has submitted testimony in favor of the proposition, arguing “the knowledge and experience of such judges are recognized as valuable resources not only as judicial mentors but also to help provide fair and timely disposition of cases.”, with a suggestion that the language read “emeritus judges and justices” rather than just “judges”. The state’s public defender came out against an earlier version of the bill, which would have let the judges emeritus come back as “judicial mentors“, language that was amended out of the bill.

SB 650 was approved by the full Senate March 6 and by the House Judiciary committee March 13. It is set for a hearing before the House Finance committee later today (April 3).

Because it was a mere statute, however, a state trial judge in Montana has struck SB 268 (now known as LR-119) off the ballot. In sum, the court held that election-by-district was a qualification for office that could only be altered by constitutional amendment. An appeal to the state’s supreme court is expected.

Reports on the decision are available from Gavel Grab.

The bill initially failed in November 2011 when the House Judiciary Committee recommended its rejection on a 10-6 vote. It was then recommitted to the Judiciary Committee by the full House and then swiftly moved to another committee (the House Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification Committee) which had previously approved several anti-judiciary bills. That committee expanded the term to 7 years and provided that the new rule would only apply to judges appointed after 1/1/2012. The revised version was recommended for passage on a 10-5 vote. The House then voted on March 7, giving it a majority (218-120) but not the 3/5ths of the full membership (240 out of 400) needed for passage under the state’s constitution. The bill was tabled 244-97.

This morning votes were expected on two pieces of legislation that would curtail or end the state supreme court’s rule making authority. Instead, a motion was made to take CACR 11 off the table, which was approved 209-144.

The bill was then debated, including several references to possible Senate action on an unspecified House bill that is currently in the Senate for a hearing soon. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to take up three House bills tomorrow March 21: HB 344 relative to judicial performance evaluations, HB 1384 relative to the statute of limitations for complaints against judges, and HB 151 repealing the laws relative to marital masters.

The House voted 156-200 to reject a motion that the bill was “Inexpedient to Legislate” and then went into lunch until 1:10 PM Eastern.

Live coverage of this afternoon’s House activity is available here.

Update 3/21/12 @ 1:27 P.M. The House rejected a motion to reconsider the actions taken on March 7 by a 172-176 vote. The Speaker has stated from the chair that there is no further legislative activity to be had on this matter.

Alabama’s HB 550, however, may have taken this to a new realm. The bill prohibits members of the legislature from being appointed to judgeships within 2 years of their legislative service (there’s no comment about being independently elected).

While bans on serving in judgeships are not unheard of, they are rare and are usually directed at people who have a role in the appointment of judges. Take for example South Carolina, where judges are appointed by the legislature after being reviewed by Judicial Merit Selection Commission made up of legislators and non-legislators. Commission members in particular (S.C. Code Ann. § 2-19-10 (G)) and legislators in general (S.C. Code Ann. § 2-19-70 (A)) are prohibited from being appointed to a judgeship for one year after their service on the commission and/or in the legislature.

Alabama HB 550 is currently pending in the House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee.

First, some background.

In 2008, the legislature (SB 72) asserted more state-level control over these justice courts and their judges, requiring judges graduate college, be elected, and be subject to the state’s judicial performance evaluation program. In 2011, additional changes were made.  Under SB 143, candidates for justice court judgeships could run as a candidate for more than one justice court judge office. It also removed the requirement that all registered voters in a county vote in the retention election of a county justice court judge and removed the requirement that the governing bodies of a county and a municipality within that county both concur when a justice court judge is permitted to hold office as both a county and a municipal justice court judge. It removed the authorization for a justice court judge to order administrative traffic checkpoints and issue search warrants.

Now in 2012 comes SB 200. This bill

• establishes and amends procedures to establish and expand the territorial jurisdiction of justice courts
• amends and consolidates the minimum operating standards of justice courts
• amends the Judicial Council’s authority to establish rules and procedures concerning the creation and expansion of justice courts
• provides for uniform fees of the justice courts
• requires every prospective justice court judge to attend an orientation program conducted under the direction of the Judicial Council before the justice court can be certified and qualified to hold office
• authorizes the governing body of a justice court to create specialized calendars and exempts judges who hear these calendars from being assigned at random
• modifies the procedures and penalties for failure to comply with continuing education requirements
• modifies the procedures and penalties for failure to comply with compensation limits, limits on secondary employment, and limits on holding elected or political offices and requires the Judicial Council to file a formal complaint for violations
• amends the procedures to appoint a temporary justice court judge and prohibits a retired justice court judge from serving as a temporary justice court judge
• modifies and establishes new standards for when and where a municipality and county may hold justice court and authorizes the Judicial Council to determine when and where justice courts my hold court.

The changes were approved by full Senate 2/29/12 and are now in the House awaiting committee assignment

(a) Before considering the judicial performance evaluation of any judge, the commission shall notify the judge of the date and time of any commission meeting during which the judge’s judicial performance evaluation will be considered.
(b) The commission shall allow a judge who is the subject of a judicial performance evaluation to appear and speak at any commission meeting, except a closed meeting, during which the judge’s judicial performance evaluation is considered.

HB 328 would remove these provisions. It would also excluded juror responses from being included in the minimum standards; currently judges must receive “an average score of no less than 65% on each survey category“, including legal ability, judicial temperament and integrity, and administrative performance.

The bill is currently pending in the House Rules Committee.

The release of President Obama’s long form birth certification has for the most part diminished the interest in  such bills, but not completely eliminated it. Several remain pending, having been carried over from the 2011, while others are newly introduced for 2012.

SB 2205 / SB 2209

One of the particular pieces of angst expressed by governors and others with state merit selection systems is the limitation on the names submitted by the merit selection commission. Arizona’s SCR 1001, for example, expands the number of choices for the governor from “not less than 3″ to “not less than 8″ (a two-thirds majority can reject an applicant and submit less than 8). Other proposals have sought similar expansions.

That is what sets Hawaii’s proposed constitutional amendment SB 2205 apart. Currently, the state’s judicial nominating commission sends “not less than four, and not more than six” names to the Governor for vacancies on the Supreme, Intermediate Appellate & Circuit Courts. For the state’s limited jurisdiction District Courts, the Chief Justice selects “from not less than 6″ names.

SB 2205, however, reduces the selection down to 3 in all instances/courts. Senator Clayton Hill, the chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor, stated that by reducing the number “you reduce the politics”.

A companion constitutional amendment, SB 2209, would require the judicial selection commission disclose the names of and other statistical information regarding active nominees and applicants to fill justice and judge vacancies (amendment language in bold)

The deliberations of the commission shall be confidential with the exception of disclosing the names of nominees and the names of applicants to fill any justice or judge vacancies.  The commission shall disclose the names of active applicants to fill a justice or judge vacancy at the close of each application period as well as statistical information that serves the public interest, including but not limited to the total number, gender, and experience of applicants.

This issue of gender diversity is one the Hawaii Senate is on record as being concerned by. SR 26 and SCR 37, both adopted by the Senate in 2010, recited a litany of statistics regarding the gender diversity of the state’s bench and “strongly urged” then-Governor Linda Lingle “to use and consider gender equality when appointing judges and justices in the future…”

SB 2206

In 2006 Hawaii’s (heavily Democratic) legislature suddenly became interested in increasing the mandatory retirement age for the state’s judiciary. It may, or may not, have been a coincidence that the interest occurred right when the first Republican governor in 5 decades was about to appoint several judges and justices who were being forced out of office due to the mandatory retirement age of 70. SB 995 of 2006 to simply eliminate the mandatory retirement age was rejected 2-1 by voters.

In 2012, with a Democratic governor in office, SB 2006 was introduced to amend the state’s constitution and allow judges and justices to serve until age 80. If approved by voters, it would give Hawaii one of the highest mandatory retirement age in the U.S. (Vermont judges can serve until the end of the year they turn 90).

Under its provisions, all judges/justices of the state’s top appellate courts (Supreme Court for civil matters; Court of Criminal Appeals for criminal ones) would be limited to 12 years in office.

As of the effective date of this act, no Justice shall serve on the Supreme Court for a period of more than twelve (12) years…

As of the effective date of this act, no judge shall serve on the Court of Criminal Appeals for a period of more than twelve (12) years

Given that the judges/justices serve for 1 year or so initial terms (after merit selection appointment) and 6 years in subsequent terms, this would effectively limit them to only 1 initial term, 1 full term and a portion of a second full term.

Given that the effective date of the law is November 1, 2012, the effect would be to remove 2 of the 9 justices of the state’s Supreme Court: Justice Yvonne Kauger (appointed in 1984 and up for a retention election November 6) and Justice Joseph Watt (appointed in 1992).

The impact would be even greater on the Court of Criminal Appeals and could potentially clear the court entirely:

• 2 of that court’s 5 judges, Judge Charles Johnson (appointed 1989) and Judge Gary Lumpkin (appointed 1988) would be out of office effective November 1, 2012.
• The 3 remaining judges (Arlene Johnson, David B. Lewis, and Clancy Smith) are up for retention elections 5 days later on November 6, 2012. If they all lost (a possibility, given that Iowa saw 3 of its Supreme Court justices lose their retention election in 2010, all on the same day) the effect would be to empty the court.

SB 1729 has been prefiled with the legislature set to come into session February 6.