Week ahead: NH Senate to have critical hearing on judicial rulemaking, mandatory bar membership, international law and state courts

April 27th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Legislatures Going Out of Session

Hawaii  5/3

Tennessee (possible)

Floor/Committee Activity of Note

April 30

May 1

Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Judicial Reform

Possible votes on any matter referred to the committee, including:

HB 1848 Alters state court of appeals districts.

HJR 77 (Constitutional Amendment) Ends merit selection in state. Requires all judicial elections be partisan elections. Reduces supreme court terms from 12 to 8 years. Requires general assembly redistrict circuits after every census.

HJR 82 (Constitutional Amendment) Alters composition of the judicial Commission on Retirement, Removal, and Discipline. Adds one non-attorney and subtracts one attorney. Replaces seat for circuit court judge with supreme court justice.

May 2

May 3

New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee

1:00 p.m. 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. Approved by full House by 3/5ths vote 3/21/12.

1:30 p.m. 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. AMENDED: Creates committee “to study methods of creating a balanced and neutral judiciary”. Approved as amended by full House 3/7/12.

1:45 p.m. HB 1422 ORIGINAL: Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individuals or corporations rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution. AS AMENDED: Provides unless the parties have previously agreed in writing to the contrary, no tribunal shall apply or enforce a foreign law or a state law or decision enforcing a foreign law, or base a determination in whole or in part on foreign law, if such application or enforcement would supersede or take precedence over any right, liberty, or privilege under the constitution of the state of New Hampshire, the laws or public policy of the state of New Hampshire, or the constitution of the United States. Approved by as amended by full House 2/22/12.

2:00 p.m. HB 1474 Prohibits requiring membership in any bar association or other professional organization as a condition for practicing law or for appointment to certain positions. Approved by full House 3/8/12.

2:15 p.m. HB 1722 ORIGINAL: Clarifies no judge or attorney may appear before one another if in newly created Circuit Court if they are professionally affiliated. AMENDED: Provides no attorney associated with a judge in the practice of law shall be permitted to practice in the division at the circuit court site in which the judge is assigned. Approved as amended by full House 3/7/12.

2:30 p.m. HB 1395 Declares unconstitutional and revokes supreme court rules amendments that would require attorneys to create or maintain a pooled interest-bearing trust account for clients funds nominal in amount or to be held for a short period of time, and to remit the interest earned thereby to the New Hampshire Bar Foundation. Approved by full House 3/28/12.

2:45 p.m. HB 1718 Requires courts give precedence over all other cases to challenges to electoral districts.

Possible votes on above legislation

May 4

Tennessee Senate advances quasi-federal judicial selection plan, focus now on the House, a look at the Senate vote counts

April 24th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Last night the Tennessee Senate approved SJR 710, as amended. As previously noted, the constitutional amendment provides for a quasi-federal judicial selection system

  • Governor appoints anyone meeting minimum qualifications (age 35, resident for 5 years)
  • legislature confirms
  • subject to retention election

Prior amendments had removed any reference to merit selection.

This particular method was approved 22-9, a critical number. Under the state constitution, a mere majority (17 of 33) was needed for first passage. An intervening election must take place (November 2012) and the 2013-2014 Senate must approved the bill by “two-thirds of all the members elected to each house”, or 22.

Contrast this with SJR 183, adopted last week, which permits but does not require merit selection with retention elections. SJR 183 met with a 21-9 vote.

Even more interesting was the for/against tallies.

  • 19 Senators (18 R, 1 D) voted to advance both bills
  • 7 Senators (6 D, 1 R) voted no on both

Of the remaining 7

Senator Party SJR 183 SJR 710
Tate D Absent Absent
Ford D Absent Y
Summerville R Absent Y
Harper D N Absent
Barnes D N Y
Haynes D Y N
Stewart D Y N

California: Bill would prohibit the state supreme court from sitting outside Sacramento

April 20th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Just after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita slammed into the southern U.S. I wrote a piece on a matter which had confronted the Louisiana Supreme Court: could it move and sit in a location other than New Orleans? Some state statutes do appear to restrict where the state’s appellate courts may sit, right down to which building, but California was not among them.

That may change if AB 2501 is adopted. The bill requires all state agencies have their primary administrative office on Sacramento “to the extent practicable”.

The Supreme Court, however, “shall only hear cases in the Sacramento metropolitan area” (defined as “the greater metropolitan Sacramento area, including the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, and the eastern part of Yolo County”).

Even if enacted the bill gives the Supreme Court until 2025 to make the necessary adjustments.

AB 2501 is currently in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.

Week ahead: TN legislature may advance merit selection AND non-merit selection judicial selection methods, special docket fee increases to pay for AL judiciary, expanding NH drug courts

April 20th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Legislatures Coming Back Into Session

North Carolina 4/23 – 4/25

Floor/Committee Activity of Note

April 23

Tennessee House

HJR 753 (Constitutional Amendment) ORIGINAL: Provides all appellate judges are to be initially selected via merit-based gubernatorial appointment from a panel of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission. Subjects selections to legislative confirmation. Provides that, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, judges are subject to retention election. Provides all appellate judges be at least thirty-five years of age and a resident of the state for the five-year period immediately preceding appointment. Sets terms of office at eight years. AS AMENDED: Same, but removes references to “merit-based” appointment. Approved as amended by House Finance, Ways & Means Committee 4/17/12.

Tennessee Senate

SJR 710 (Constitutional Amendment) ORIGINAL: Provides all appellate judges are to be initially selected via merit-based gubernatorial appointment from a panel of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission. Subjects selections to legislative confirmation. Provides that, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, judges are subject to retention election. Provides all appellate judges be at least thirty-five years of age and a resident of the state for the five-year period immediately preceding appointment. Sets terms of office at eight years. AS AMENDED: Same, but removes references to “merit-based” appointment. Amended on floor 4/16/12.

April 24

Alabama House Ways and Means General Fund Committee

HB 688 Increases docket fees in all civil cases in the circuit and district courts excluding child support cases and in all criminal cases in the circuit, district, and municipal courts. Provides for for distribution of the funds into State Judicial Administration Fund, Circuit Clerk’s Judicial Administration Fund, and Presiding Circuit Judge’s Judicial Administration Fund.

New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee

HB 1665 Enables  superior court or circuit court to implement one or more drug courts. Approved by full House 3/7/12.

Tennessee House

HB 3691 Requires House and Senate speakers appoint all nine members of the judicial evaluation commission since the judicial council no longer exists. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/12.

Tennessee House Finance, Ways & Means Committee

HJR 830 (Constitutional Amendment) Unequivocally authorizes the general assembly, by statute, to establish a system of merit-based appointments with retention elections for appellate court judges. Approved by House Finance, Ways & Means Committee, General Subcommittee 4/11/12.

 April 25

April 26

April 27

 

Issue 6:16 is out

April 19th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Issue 6:16 is here.

  • OK legislature on verge of overriding judicial compensation commission’s recommended 6% increase in judicial salaries
  • Multiple judicial selection bills advance in TN
  • NH Senate Finance committee approves changes to judicial performance evaluation

Arizona Governor vetoes increase to small claims jursidiction limit; override seems unlikely

April 18th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

In many states, efforts to increase small claims limits take years of introduction and re-introduction before actual passage. Arizona’s effort (SB 1310) took only one year to be adopted, but has now run smack into a gubernatorial veto.

SB 1310 would have increased the small claims of justice of the peace courts from $2,500 to $10,000. It was amended down to $5,000 on the Senate floor. The bill’s author noted in committee the history of the proposal: a constituent had sued in small claims court and when the defendant company appeared it did so both with an attorney and a counter-claim large enough to force it into the regular justice of the peace court, requiring that the constituent hire an attorney.

Governor Jan Brewer issued her veto on April 4. In her veto letter, Governor Brewer noted the case, but also noted “Arizona Revised Statute 22-504 allows either party to object to a small claims proceeding and transfer the case to justice court to preserve the right to appeal and there is no monetary threshold a party must meet  to transfer the case. This legislation does not solve the stated concern and is contrary to the purpose of the small claims division.”

The bill is now back in the Senate, but it is unclear if there are the votes for an override. The Senate passed the bill 20-10, just barely the 2/3rds (20 out of 30 senators) needed to override. The House passed it 34-22 (4 not voting), less than the 40 (out of 60) needed for an override there.

Tennessee judicial selection: what is moving, what isn’t, and why the word “merit” seems to matter

April 17th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

I mentioned last week the stacks and stacks of legislation in Tennessee to extend, end, alter, etc. the state’s merit selection system for appellate judges. There was also as previously note the apparent advance of numerous different formulations of legislation, some of which have now been put to the side.

Extending current merit selection past 2012

The current merit selection system, which relies on a judicial nominating commission (for initial appointment) and a judicial performance evaluation commission (for retention election-year review), is set to sunset June 2012.

Efforts to extend it to 2013 or 2014 have been introduced, however so far only the portions related to the judicial performance evaluation commission have advanced. HB 2537 was approved in the House Government Operations Committee April 11 and is on the House floor calendar for April 18. In the Senate SB 2345 is up for a vote in the Senate Government Operations Committee April 18.

Put merit selection explicitly in the constitution

HJR 830 is relatively spartan in terms of details. It was approved by the House Finance, Ways, and Means General Subcommittee on April 11 and is set for a vote today (April 17) by the full committee.

As an alternative to contested elections, the Legislature is authorized to establish, by law, a system of merit-based appointments with retention elections
for the judges of the Supreme Court and for the judges of the intermediate appellate courts.

SJR 183 uses the same language as HJR 830. It was approved yesterday (April 16) but not after several amendment attempts.

  • Amendments  SA0368 and SA 1166 would have provided for merit selection “with or without retention elections” (amendment underlined). Both were withdrawn.
  • Amendment SA 1176 would have scraped the language entirely, ended merit selection, and provided for a quasi-federal system of gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation and contested elections. That amendment failed on April 12 on a 15-16-1 vote.

SJR 710 also proposes a quasi-federal system with nomination entirely at the discretion of the governor (i.e. no merit selection commissions) but unlike amendment SA 1176 to SJR 183, it would provide for retention elections rather than contested ones. Moreover, confirmation would automatically occur if the legislature failed to reject a nominee, a concern that as I noted previously senators had especially in light of delays in confirmation of federal judges.

Key to SJR 710 is the particular language used, especially the word “merit”, with the latest version eliminating the word entirely (underline added)

  • As introduced: Each judge of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be initially selected via merit-based gubernatorial appointment from a panel of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission; shall be legislatively confirmed; and, thereafter, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, shall be subject to retention election by the qualified voters of the state.
  • Amendment SA 1111 (withdrawn): Each Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the governor based on merit and shall be confirmed by the Legislature.
  • Amendment SA 1165 (adopted April 11): Judges of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be appointed for a full term or to fill a vacancy by and at the sole discretion of the governor based on merit; shall be confirmed by the Legislature; and thereafter, shall be elected in a retention election by the qualified voters of the state.
  • Amendment SA 1168 (withdrawn): Judges of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be nominated for a full term or to fill a vacancy by and at the sole discretion of the governor based on merit; shall be confirmed by the Legislature; and thereafter, shall be elected in a retention election by the qualified voters of the state.
  • Amendment SA 1232 (adopted April 16): Judges of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be appointed for a full term or to fill a vacancy by and at the discretion of the governor; shall be confirmed by the Legislature; and thereafter, shall be elected in a retention election by the qualified voters of the state.

End merit selection

Language to provide for contested elections for appellate judges faced rejection in the House but fared better in the Senate. HB 173 to specifically ensconce such a system in statute failed on a 7-7 vote in the House Judiciary Committee on April 11. The Senate version (SB 127) had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2011 but hasn’t moved since.

Also on April 11 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SJR 635 to put contested elections for appellate judges, based on districts to be drawn by the general assembly rather than statewide, into the constitution.

Missouri looks to compel state judges use original intent interpretation of federal constitution, nullify federal laws & court decisions

April 16th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Just a day after the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court published an op-ed arguing in favor of a “living constitution”, Missouri’s Senate may be voting to explicitly enshrine in that state’s constitution a rejection of the concept.

SJR 45 is a lengthy amendment that would, among other things:

  • Prohibits the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal action that exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government.
  • Provides the state’s courts shall not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of any federal actions that:
    • restrict the right to bear arms
    • legalize or fund abortions, or the destruction of any embryo from the zygote stage
    • require the sale or trade of carbon credits or impose a tax on the release of carbon emissions
    • involve certain health care issues
    • mandate the recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions
    • increase the punishment for a crime based on perpetrator’s thoughts or designate a crime as a hate crime
    • interpret the establishment clause as creating a wall of separation between church and state
    • restrict the right of parents or guardians to home school or enroll their children in a private or parochial school or restrict school curriculum.
  • Requires state courts interpret the U.S. Constitution based on its language and the original intent of the signers of the Constitution. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution shall be interpreted based on their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment.
  • “Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.”
  • Declares that Missouri citizens have standing to enforce the provisions of the amendment in state court.
  • Provides enforcement of the amendment applies to:
    • federal actions taken after the amendment is approved by the voters
    • federal actions specified in the amendment
    • any federal action, regardless of when it occurred, that the general assembly or the Missouri Supreme Court determines to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

This is the third year in a row such a bill has been introduced.

In 2010, HJR 88 was approved by the Missouri House and made it to the Senate floor before dying due to adjournment.

In 2011, HJR 26 made it out of committee and died on the House floor, while the similar SJR 15 met a similar fate on the Senate side.

The 2012 version was approved by the Senate General Laws Committee 4/3/12 and may be voted on as early as today (April 16).

Week ahead: Impeaching NH judges, TN judicial selection bills, MO Senate may vote to ban “living constitutionalism”

April 16th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Legislatures Going Out of Session

Alaska 4/15

Iowa 4/17 (Per diem expenses end)

Floor/Committee Activity of Note

April 16

Missouri Senate

SB 676 Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions. Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 2/28/12.

SJR 45 (Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of Missouri’s government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting on any federal law, executive order, judicial or administrative ruling, collection or dispersal of revenue, or other actions by the three branches of government that exceed the limited powers enumerated in the United States Constitution and delegated to the federal government. Prohibits the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of Missouri’s government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting on federal restrictions on the right of private citizens to bear arms; federal laws legalizing or funding abortions or the destruction of human embryos; certain specified federal actions involving health care including a federal public option; federal actions requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or the taxing on the release of carbon emissions; federal actions mandating the recognition of same sex marriages; federal actions increasing the penalty for a crime based on a perpetrators thoughts or designating hate crimes; federal actions regarding the Establishment Clause based on a “wall of separation” between church and state; and federal actions restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school or enroll their children in a private or parochial school or placing restrictions on the school’s curriculum. Requires Missouri courts to interpret the United States Constitution based on its language and the intent of the signers at the time of its passage. Interpretation of its amendments must be based on the intent of the congressional sponsors and co-sponsors. Non-originalist methods of interpretation that consider the constitution a “living, breathing document” and any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government are to be deemed to exceed the limited powers of the federal government. Missouri courts will be required to use this method of interpretation, and any court ruling inconsistent with this method will not be recognized or enforced in Missouri. Allows Missouri citizens to have standing to bring suit to enforce the provisions of the resolution. Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 4/3/12.

Tennessee Senate

SJR 183 (Constitutional Amendment) Unequivocally authorizes the general assembly, by statute, to establish a system of merit-based appointments with retention elections for appellate court judges. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/26/11. Carried over into 2012 session.

SJR 710 (Constitutional Amendment)2012Constitutionally enshrines a system for selection of each appellate court judge by means of merit-based gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation and, thereafter, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, retention election by the voters of the state. Approved by Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee 4/10/12.

April 17

New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee

Full committee hearing pursuant to HR 7 (adopted in 2011), which directs house judiciary committee to investigate whether grounds exist to impeach marital master Phillip Cross and/or any justice of the New Hampshire superior court. Approved by full House 3/16/11.

Tennessee House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee

HJR 830 (Constitutional Amendment) Unequivocally authorizes the general assembly, by statute, to establish a system of merit-based appointments with retention elections for appellate court judges. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/3/12.

Tennessee Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee

SJR 635 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides for election of judges/justices of appellate courts from districts drawn by general assembly (currently drawn from three “grand districts”). Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/11/12.

April 18

Illinois Senate Executive Committee

HB 5877 AS AMENDED: Provides that if the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts has a policy and procedure for a state judicial officer to file a written request for non-disclosure of personal information by a government agency with the Administrative Office, the state judicial officer may file the written request with the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Provides on a quarterly basis the Administrative Office to ill provide a list of all state judicial officers who have submitted a written request to it and provide the list to the appropriate officer with ultimate supervisory authority for a government agency. Requires he officer hall promptly provide a copy of the list to any and all government agencies under his or her supervision. Specifies receipt of the written request list constitutes the written request to the agency that it not disclose the personal information of the listed state judicial officers. Changes Election Code allowing redaction of a judicial candidate’s home address on a certificate of nomination or nomination papers after the Election Code objection period, to apply only to a judicial officer who is a judicial candidate. Provides that prior to expiration of the objection period the judicial officer’s home address information from the his or her certificate of nomination or nomination papers is available for public inspection; however, after redaction the home address information is only available for an in camera inspection by the court reviewing an objection to a judicial candidate’s certificate of nomination or nomination papers. Allows a judicial officer applying for an Illinois Identification card to use his or her work address in lieu of his or her residence or mailing address in the card application. Includes judicial officers in the list of persons who may use a work or business address instead of a domicile address on a vehicle registration application. Approved as amended by full House 3/28/12.

Illinois Senate Criminal Law Committee

HB 5187 Requires clerk of court post the rights of crime victims set forth in the Illinois Constitution and in law within 3 feet of the door to any courtroom where criminal proceedings are conducted. Approved by full House 3/27/12.

HB 4926 Changes the definitions of “drug court professional”, “Veterans and Servicemembers Court professional”, and “mental health court professional” to include peer recovery coaches and coordinators. Provides that a Veterans and Servicemembers Court may be established as a problem solving court and includes a mental health court. Deletes provisions that exclude from a Veterans and Servicemembers Court program or a mental health court program a defendant who has previously completed or has been discharged from such program within 3 years of that completion or discharge. Provides that in addition to other entities prescribed by law, mental health court professionals, Veterans and Servicemembers Court professionals, and juvenile detention facilities may disclose a recipient’s mental health record or communications, without consent, to each other, but only for the purpose of admission, treatment, planning, or discharge. Approved as amended by full House 3/23/12.

New Hampshire Senate

HB 344 Changes procedures for judicial performance evaluations. Expands evaluation to include “other nonjudicial branch officers as established by court rule”. Requires judges that fail to achieve satisfactory evaluation have follow-up evaluation 18 months later. Requires all reports prepared on judicial performance identify judges individually. Approved as amended by full House 1/4/12. Approved by Senate Finance Committee 4/11/12.

Tennessee House

HB 2537 Extends sunset date for the judicial performance evaluation commission to June 30, 2013.

Tennessee Senate Government Operations Committee

SB 2345 Extends sunset date for the judicial performance evaluation commission to June 30, 2013.

April 19

April 20

Montana Law and Justice Interim Committee

Hearing on New Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure and Other Rules

Issue 6:15 is out

April 12th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Issue 6:15 is here.

  • MO bill would require judges use orginalist interpretation of law and constitution
  • More and more activity in TN on judicial selection
  • Veterans’ courts advance in MO & TN, MD will study the issue