Archive for the ‘Salary & Budget’ category

« Older Entries

Revised judicial compensation commission approved by Connecticut Senate, up against adjournment deadline

May 7th, 2012

I mentioned in March the proposed new judicial compensation commission being considered by the Connecticut legislature. That bill, as introduced, would have made the commission’s recommendation binding and given the effect of law unless overridden by the legislature. SB 31 was approved by the Joint Judiciary Committee back in March on a 34-8 vote and by the Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee on a 12-0 vote on May 2.

The full Connecticut Senate, however, approved its version last week, with some notable changes:

  • Alters compensation commission members and expands commission (See below)
    ORIGINAL (9 members)
    		 AMENDED BY SENATE (12 members)
    Governor Governor
    Governor Governor
    Governor Governor
    Governor
    Senate President Pro temp Senate President Pro temp
    House Speaker House Speaker
    Senate Minority Leader Senate Minority Leader
    House Minority Leader House Minority Leader
    Senate Majority Leader
    House Majority Leader
    Chief Justice Chief Justice
    Chief Justice Chief Justice
  • Removes provisions making the commission recommendations automatic. Instead, it requires the chief court administrator to send estimates of expenditures to implement the commission’s recommendations to the Office of Policy and Management for inclusion in the governor’s biennial budget.

This revised bill was approved by a 35-1 vote on May 3. The CT legislature is set to adjourn May 9, and the revised bill is on the House calendar for today May 7.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

CT: Judicial compensation commission with binding powers advances out of Joint Judiciary Committee

March 27th, 2012

A plan to change the way Connecticut sets judicial salaries has passed its first hurdle (prior coverage here).

Copying much of the language from New York’s relatively new judicial compensation commission, SB 31 would create a commission that would make recommendations every 4 years on judicial salaries that would go into effect automatically unless overridden or altered by the legislature. The automatic nature of the recommendations was the primary concern cited by opponents.

Currently, there is a joint commission (Compensation Commission for Elected State Officers and Judges) that makes nonbinding recommendations to the legislature. That commission would continue, but without jurisdiction over judicial salaries.

The video below is from the March 26 Joint Committee on the Judiciary hearing and vote on the bill. The bill was approved on a 34-8 vote.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Video

Tags:

Minnesota bill would cut judicial funding for every dollar court orders state to pay

March 21st, 2012

Bills that would prohibit courts from ordering or directing the expenditure of state funds are nothing new. When courts have ordered increased funding, for schools for example, there has been anecdotal evidence that court budgets have been reduced in retaliation. Minnesota’s SB 2454, however, adds a new twist: direct and explicit fiscal retaliation against the courts for any such order.

The bill contains two provisions. The first is the general prohibition on the court ordering of expenditures.

A court may not: (1) order the governor, an executive branch agency, or the legislature to spend money or to otherwise incur a financial obligation; or (2) appropriate money unless pursuant to an enacted law.

The unique element is in the second clause.

Reduction in court budget; determination by commissioner of management and budget. If the commissioner of management and budget determines that money has been paid out of the state treasury as a result of a court order directing that money be spent to continue the operation of a state function in the absence of an appropriation, the commissioner shall reduce the current general fund operating budget appropriation to the court by the amount determined. If no operating budget for the court has been enacted, the commissioner shall make the specified reduction in the next enacted court budget.

The bill seems to stem from instances in 2011 and 2005. There, the state failed to pass a budget by the constitutional deadline, leading to partial government shutdowns. The courts were requested to step in and order at least some “essential services” be maintained. In 2011 this prompted several bills that would have defined “essential services” and curtailed the judiciary’s power to order some funding.

SB 2454 is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Creating court security fees in Minnesota

March 20th, 2012

The recent spate of courthouse shootings and attacks has brought the focus back to court security and specifically how to pay for it.

Several states provide for court security fees to be added to civil and/or criminal cases. Minnesota is considering such a plan, one that would allow counties that feel the need for such a fee to impose it up to $15.

This video is from the March 15, 2012 hearing on the bill (HF 2000) before the Minnesota House Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Salary & Budget, Video

Tags:

Kentucky House Judiciary Committee approves plan for public financing of Supreme Court races on 9-7 party line vote UPDATED: 9-6 non-party line vote

March 15th, 2012

As I noted previously, Kentucky has almost its entire judiciary on the ballot in 2014, including 5 of the state supreme court’s 7 members. It is this, plus the view of judicial elections in other states and concern over the impact Citizens United has had on elections, that has prompted several bills in the last few years to create a public financing system for judicial elections in the state.

First, some background.

The first attempt at a Kentucky “clean judicial elections” fund was in 2006. HB 682 of that year covered all judicial elections for trial and appellate courts. It met with approval in the House Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee and was floor amended to permit the Supreme Court to require members of the Kentucky Bar Association to submit an annual fixed amount not to exceed $25 to be dedicated to the clean judicial elections fund. It was then sent to the House Appropriations and Revenue Committee where it died.

From 2006 to 2010 there were no indications the bill was reintroduced. In 2011, HB 21 was put forward with much (if not all) the same language of the 2006 bill. This time it failed to advance in the House Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee.

2012 saw two iterations: HB 47 (which was withdrawn almost the day it was introduced) and HB 230. The major difference: HB 47 would have covered all judicial races (like HB 682 of 2006 had) while HB 230 is focused only on Supreme Court races. While initially sent back to the House Elections committee, HB 230 was re-assigned two weeks after introduction to the House Judiciary Committee.

The video below is from two hearings before the House Judiciary Committee: the informational hearing held February 29 and the actual committee vote held March 14, where the committee voted 9 to 7 along party lines (all Democrats in favor, all Republicans opposed) to advance the bill.

UPDATE 3/15/12: I misheard some of the audio. According to this news account the vote was 9-6 with 8 Democrats joined by Republican Rep. Michael Nemes (h/t Gavel Grab).

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection, Video

Should Minnesota judges be elected by county or by judicial district? Should they forfeit their retirement if they resign before their term is over?

March 14th, 2012

Discussions of judicial selection focus more often than not on the method: merit selection, nonpartisan, partisan, etc. Another key component, however, is the geographic basis for election. In sum, how small should the geographic area be electing a judge, especially when it comes to trial judges? Minnesota is debating that and, in the same bills, a great deal more.

First, some background.

Trial judges are generally chosen in multicounty districts/circuits, by county, or by towns/municipalities within a county (where applicable). There are instances where judges are chosen without regard to location (e.g. Delaware Superior & Chancery, Connecticut Superior) or by precincts within a county (e.g. Arizona Justice of the Peace, Illinois’s Circuit Court with respect to Cook County/Chicago). A full review can be found in State Court Organization, 2004 Table 6, located here.

Minnesota’s sole trial court (District) is elected in 10 districts for 87 counties, with two districts being single county entities (2nd = Ramsey; 4th = Hennepin).

This article in Minnesota Lawyer discusses the belief that more localized judicial elections would be fairer, a concept that has manifested in 2012 as HB 1474 & SB 1508.

Under the proposals judges would be elected by county or judicial election precinct within a county and provides for a transition mechanism.

What makes HB 1474 and SB 1508 stand apart from other such proposals introduced in other states is the added elements that have nothing to do with election-by-county.

The first provision would penalize judges for retiring before the end of their term. An incumbent judge or justice would not be allowed to run for re-election unless they make a signed “commitment” that they will remain in office until

  • the expiration of the term of office
  • the mandatory retirement date
  • the December of a general election year
  • the disability date
  • appointment to another office of government
  • inability to serve due to a compelling physical or personal reason (the reason must be approved by the Court of Appeals)

A judge or justice who retires for any reason other than those specified forfeits 25% of their retirement annuity.

Moreover, the bills create the judicial position formally entitled “placeholder” and provides a governor may appoint a “placeholder” to fill a judicial vacancy until a successor is elected and qualified.

Finally, the bill amends current judicial retirement law. Judges must now resign at the end of the month he or she 70; HB 1474 and SB 1508 would let them serve until the end of the year of a general election after the judge turns 70.

The House bill is pending in the Government Operations and Elections Committee, while the Senate bill is in the Local Government and Elections Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection, Structure Changes

Tags:

Florida Senate still wants to tie changes to merit selection to judicial retirement benefits; House wants to tie to women/minority law student scholarships

March 6th, 2012

Last week I noted that the Florida House had abandoned efforts to tie changes to the state’s merit selection system to changes in state judicial retirement benefits, instead opting to tie them funding for women/minority law student scholarship. Earlier today, however, the Senate proceeded with its version, despite passage of the House bill last week.

HB 971 and SB 1570, as introduced, would allow newly elected governors to replace a majority of the state’s judicial nominating commissions. Currently, those 5 members chosen exclusively by the governor serve 4 year terms, meaning some are carry-overs from the prior governor. The governor also picks 4 additional members, but they are from names submitted by the state bar.

Both bills started off with a direct tie to judicial retirement benefits: retired judges and justices called back into temporary service by the Chief Justice would still be eligible for benefits under the Florida Retirement System.

The House bill, however, changed this provision and instead tied the merit selection change to funding for women/minority law student scholarships. That version passed the House 77-35 on February 24.

Today (March 6) on the Senate floor, that chamber opted to pass its own version (SB 1570) without the women/minority law student scholarships but with the original judicial retirement tie-in. Interestingly, three amendments were offered by the author, two of which were withdrawn.

  • Amendment 661818 would have decoupled the link between judicial retirement benefits and the merit selection changes. It was withdrawn.
  • Amendment 346746 appears to have maintained the link but made some technical changes. It too was withdrawn.
  • Amendment 829544 changes the language with respect to current judicial nomination commission members would be forced off, providing those picked under the current policy of 4-year terms would not be immediately forced off. It then makes clear that both retired judges and justices would be eligible to keep their benefits if recalled to temporary service. But it makes even this conditional on a future appropriation to pay for it:

Section 8.?[The judicial retirement sections of the bill] shall take effect only if:

(1)?The Legislature appropriates during the 2012 Legislative Session the sum of at least $1.6 million from the General Revenue Fund on a recurring basis to the judicial branch in order to fund the increased employer contributions associated with the costs of the retirement benefits granted in this act; and
(2)?The State Courts Administrator certifies to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the appropriation was made and that the appropriation was not vetoed by the Governor.

The bill, as amended by Amendment 829544, was advanced to third reading.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection

Tags:

Utah Senate OK’s plan to substantially revise state’s justice courts

March 1st, 2012

For the third time in five years, Utah’s legislature appears on the verge of making substantial revision’s the state’s justice courts.

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

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Qualification & Terms, Rule Making Authority, Salary & Budget, Selection, Structure Changes

Tags:

Florida House ties women/minority law student scholarships to changes to state merit selection system

February 29th, 2012

I mentioned back in January the effort in Florida to allow governors to replace a majority of the members of the state’s judicial nominating commissions. What made the provisions of HB 971 and the similar SB 1570 even more notable than the change to merit selection was their tying of the changes to changes in the state’s judicial retirement system, arguably to the advantage of judges recalled back into temporary service by the state’s chief justice.

Last Friday the House passed its version, a version that removed the tie between judicial retirement benefits and judicial nominating commission changes but added a new tie.

Under HB 971, as passed by the House, election qualifying fees for incumbent, unopposed circuit and county judges are now moved from the Elections Commission Trust Fund to the Florida Bar Foundation for scholarships for female and minority law students who attend a Florida law school and are interested in seeking judicial office in the future.

The focus now shifts to the Senate. SB 1570, which retains the tie to the judicial retirement system if there are changes to the judicial nominating commissions, has been dormant, having been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee January 25 and pending in the Senate Budget committee/subcommittee process.

The clock is ticking, with the legislature set to adjourn March 9

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection

Tags:

West Virginia bill to change funding for judicial campaign conduct committee amended to overhaul system in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decision

February 21st, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in  McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett were at the heart of a hearing Monday in the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee.

HB 4016, as introduced, would have modified sources of revenue for the Supreme Court of Appeals Public Campaign Financing Fund by

  • Requiring a $2 million transfer from the Treasurer’s Unclaimed Property Trust Fund to the financing fund
  • Requiring attorneys to pay additional fees to the state bar
  • Requiring plaintiffs to pay additional fees when a civil action is filed of $10 or $20 in civil actions

A committee substitute addressed the McComish cases prohibition on matching/rescue funds in public financing systems by striking them from the West Virginia system. It also extended the program into the 2016 state supreme court election

The bill, as amended, was approved and forwarded to the House Finance Committee.

 

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection

Tags: