Archive for the ‘Structure Changes’ category

« Older Entries

New Jersey legislation would mandate defendants participate in drug court programs

May 18th, 2012

Drugs courts are not particularly new, but New Jersey’s legislature may add a new element to them, making participation mandatory in certain instances.

In March, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced his plans to expand the state’s existing drug court program to include a mandate that non-violent, drug-addicted offenders participate. Legislation putting these ideas into effect has been introduced in the last several weeks and has advanced in the legislative process.

The first bill introduced was SB 1877 on May 3. It would apply statewide and in almost all cases involving non-violent, drug-addicted offenders. That bill is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A second batch of bills (AB 2883 and the identical SB 1963) were introduced May 10 and 17, respectively. Unlike the SB 1877 version, AB 2883/SB1963 create the mandatory drug court system as a two-year pilot program and limit the focus to two vicinages (judicial districts) chosen by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The AOC would also be responsible for administering the pilot program.

AB 2883 was approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on May 14. SB 1963 is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Structure Changes

Tags:

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:

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:

New Hampshire House committee moves to strip supreme court of rule making, create special panel to ensure “balanced and neutral judiciary”, end mandatory bar

February 24th, 2012

Long time readers will no doubt be aware of the litany of efforts by the New Hampshire House to undercut or attack the state’s judiciary, from impeachment threats, to attempts to strip the courts of the power of judicial review, to voting to “repudiate” the opinion’s of the state’s supreme court, to outright writing the state’s supreme court out of the constitution.

The latest such efforts made it out of committee this week, including:

CACR 22 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides that the chief justice shall adopt court rules only with the concurrence of the legislature.

CACR 26 (Constitutional Amendment) Repeals constitutional provision authorizing the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all the courts.

HB 1131 ORIGINAL: Establishes a committee to study the revisions to laws which would be necessary if the supreme court and superior court were abolished as constitutional courts. AS AMENDED: Establishes committee of 3 House members and 2 Senate members to “to study methods of creating a balanced and neutral judiciary.” Committee to report by November 2, 2012.

HB 1474 Eliminates requirement that attorneys be members of New Hampshire Bar Association. (Unified bar established by state supreme court in 1968, see In re Unification of N.H. Bar, 248 A.2d 709).

This is in addition to an effort passed by the House earlier in February the sought to unilaterally “revoke” rules established by the supreme court under its existing rule making authority.

All four items adopted by the House Judiciary Committee will be voted on by the full House March 7.

1 comment »

Posted in Other, Rule Making Authority, Structure Changes

Tags:

Arizona Senator tries to “push back” against state’s supreme court decision by cutting court of appeals from 22 judges to 6

February 21st, 2012

Legislative anger of state supreme court decisions is nothing new, nor is the practice of “punishing” the judiciary as a whole for the decisions of that court. The most visible example so far this year may have been the attempt made in Arizona last week.

Arizona has an independent redistricting commission (IRC). In November 2011, the state’s Senate and Governor attempted to remove the chair of that commission. The chair filed an action in the state’s Supreme Court, which held the attempted removal unconstitutional.

Angry over the decision, a state senator attempted to “push back” against the judiciary as a branch in two ways. The first was an effort to end the state’s merit selection system and replace it with partisan elections (SB 1371 / SCR 1034).

The second would have reduced the state’s Court of Appeals (which did not hear the IRC case and had nothing to do with it) from 22 judges to 6 (SB 1372).

The video below is from the February 13, 2012 hearing on these bills before the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Selection, Structure Changes, Video

New Hampshire House votes to keep the state’s Supreme Court in constitution; 47 Republicans vote to remove it

February 3rd, 2012

An idea, popular among Republican presidential candidates, is to simply delete or remove from statute the court(s) that issue opinions that they disagree with. A similar effort was put in place in New Hampshire with respect to their Supreme and Superior (main trial) Courts. Under CACR 25, a 1966 constitutional amendment that specifically named the Supreme and Superior Courts in the state’s constitution would be eliminated, allowing the legislature to end the existence of the courts by statute (HB 1131 would set up a committee to work out the details on that).

In debate on the House floor on February 1, 2012 proponents argued that the 1966 put too much power into the hands of the judiciary, “fractured the balance of power” between the branches and that the supreme court was a “super power”, not a co-equal branch. Proponents argued that it would “subordinate” the judiciary to the legislature.

The video below is from the floor debate on CACR 25. The final vote was 251 in favor, 47 opposed (all Republicans).

1 comment »

Posted in Structure Changes, Video

Tags:

Oklahoma becomes third state this year to consider stripping its state Supreme Court of power of judicial review

February 2nd, 2012

First it was New Hampshire, then Tennessee, now Oklahoma’s legislature is considering removing the power of its state courts to strike down statutes as unconstitutional.

Under the recently introduced SJR 84, the state’s Supreme Court would be banned from reviewing any law enacted by the legislature. However, unlike the other states, this proposal does allow for an “Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review” to rule on. The amendment, in full, reads:

The Supreme Court shall not have the power of judicial review over the constitutionality of laws enacted in this state. An Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review shall be created to rule on the constitutionality of such enacted laws.

There is no indication of how this “Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review” would be formed, its membership, or any other details.

The amendment has been prefiled in the Senate awaiting the legislature’s return to session next week.

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Structure Changes

Tags:

Arizona Senator trying to end merit selection in state wants to remove over 2/3 of Court of Appeals judges, strip court of funding

February 1st, 2012

I mentioned last week the Arizona Senate, despite approving a constitutional amendment in 2011 to alter but not end merit selection in the state, is considering revoking the amendment from the 2012 ballot and replacing with partisan election for all judicial offices (not just those currently under merit selection).

The same senator has now introduced SB 1372 which would effectively remove 2/3 of the judges from the state’s Court of Appeals.

Under existing law, the Court of Appeals is made up of 2 divisions. Division 1 has a Chief judge + 15 judges (sitting in panels of 5 labeled A, B, C, D, and E. Division 2 has 6 judges with panels A & B. The two Divisions combine for a total of 22 judges.

Under SB 1372 Division 1 would shrink from 16 to 3 while Division 2 would go from 6 to 3. The reduction from 22 down to 6 would also cut funding for the court. Under current law the Court of Appeals retains 8.36% of all of the monies it collects monthly as fees and costs associated with appeals. SB 1372 would reduce that to 1% and transfer the other 7.36% to the state general fund.

The bill is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

1 comment »

Posted in Structure Changes

Tags:

Showdown in California Assembly over Judicial Council’s budgetary power over state’s courts set for next week

January 27th, 2012

Angst and anger at the California Administrative Office of the Courts and the constitutionally-established Judicial Council will be coming to a head next week in the state’s Assembly. Under AB 1208, much of the Judicial Council’s power over local court budgeting and policy would be curtailed or ended with local courts given a veto over budget issues. According to an analysis written by the Assembly, AB 1208

  1. Deletes the existing provision of law that states that the Judicial Council shall retain the ultimate responsibility to adopt a budget and allocate funding for the trial courts and perform specified activities that best assure their ability to carry out their functions, promote implementation of statewide policies, and promote the immediate implementation of efficiencies and cost saving measures in court operations, in order to guarantee equal access to the courts.
  2. Deletes existing provisions which empower the Judicial Council to authorize a trial court to carry unexpended funds over from one fiscal year to the next, and instead provides that unexpended funds shall be the funds of that trial court, which may carry those unexpended funds over from one fiscal year to the next. Prohibits those funds from being reallocated or redirected without the consent of the management of the trial court.
  3. Requires the Judicial Council, or its designee, to allocate 100% of the funds appropriated for support of trial court operations according to each court’s share of statewide operational funding. Provides that all funds, once allocated, are funds of the trial court, and authorizes courts to transfer funds between functions, line items or programs as directed by management of the trial court.
  4. Deletes existing provisions relating to the manner in which the Judicial Council allocates funding for trial court operations, and instead requires that the amount allocated to each trial court from the amount appropriated for trial court operations be equal to the pro rata share of the prior fiscal year’s adjusted base budget, except as provided.
  5. Requires the Legislature, based on the information submitted in the Governor’s proposed budget, and prior to the allocation of funds to each local trial court, to specify, in each annual Budget Act, the funding amounts to be allocated for programs of statewide concern from the total funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature.
  6. Prohibits the Judicial Council, or its designee, from withholding or expending any portion of the total funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature for any statewide information technology or administrative infrastructure program that was not identified in the annual Budget Act, unless the Judicial Council, or its designee, first obtains the written approval of 66 2/3% of a proportional representation of all local trial courts as determined by the number of judges in each court.

Introduced in 2011, the bill has been stalled since May of last year, however time is running out. The state’s constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 10(c)) requires bills introduced in the first year of a legislative session be adopted by its originating house by January 31 of the second year. This is confirmed by the Assembly’s own deadline calendar as being Tuesday of next week.

1 comment »

Posted in Rule Making Authority, Salary & Budget, Structure Changes

Tags:

West Virginia considers creating an intermediate appellate court, Virginia considers getting rid of theirs

January 27th, 2012

Of the 50 U.S. states, 40 have an intermediate appellate court (IAC), generally (but not always) called the “Court of Appeals”. Two states have been actively trying to get their own IACs. The first, Nevada, has been trying for decades but has been unable to get voter support for a constitutional amendment to create or allow the legislature to create such a court.  A fourth attempt is currently in the works.

The other state is West Virginia. Creation of an IAC (tentatively entitled the “Intermediate Court of Appeals”) has bounced around the legislature since at least 1999 (HB 3008 of 1999; HB 200B of Second Special Session of 2003) but picked up a great deal of attention in 2010 (HB 3269; HB 4619; SB 589; SB 645) and 2011 (HB 3150; HB 3165) with the state’s senate approving one version (SB 307) that has been reintroduced as part of a larger “Civil Justice Reform Act” in 2012 (SB 420). Under this bill,  “all appeals shall be reviewed and a written decision on the merits issued by either the Supreme Court or Intermediate Court as a matter of right except for [certain appeals as specified in statute]…”

Meanwhile, in the name of cost savings, the Commonwealth of Virginia is considering abolishing their IAC. Under SB 630 the current Court of Appeals would end effective October 2012. According to the blog of the Virginia Lawyers’ Weekly, the change would keep the current judges in their respective offices until the end of their terms, but with no apparent work to do after October of this year. The prime sponsor told the VLW Blog “when the state is cutting services to children the judiciary ought not be immune from the budget ax” and criticized the court for having in his view few if any judges with experience in criminal, domestic or workers compensation practice prior to selection to the court.

No comments »

Posted in Structure Changes

Tags: