Gavel to Gavel

A review of state legislation affecting the courts.

Week ahead: Hearings on sharia/international law bans in FL, GA & NH; MD House looks at state judiciary’s e-filing system

January 23rd, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Legislatures Coming Into Session

Utah 1/23/12
Minnesota 1/24/12

Committee Activity of Note

January 23

HB 1064 Allows the Supreme Court to establish certain rules for the use of interactive audio visual equipment and to provide for the collection and deposit of fees for the use thereof.

January 24

Georgia House Non-Civil Judiciary Committee, Rep. Setzler’s Subcommittee

HB 242 Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”

Maryland House Judiciary Committee

Presentation on state judiciary’s electronic filing system

January 25

Florida Senate Committee on Judiciary

SB 1360 Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”

Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee

SB 8 Requires the attorney general to represent a court that has issued an order of mandate for funds for the operation of the court or court related functions. Prohibits the state from reimbursing a judge for expenses incurred in employing a private attorney to represent the court in an action for mandate of funds.

New Hampshire House Committee on Judiciary

HB 1422 Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution.

January 26

January 27

No comments »

Posted in Coming Week

Should judges be forced to retire at 70? 75? Florida’s Senate Judiciary Committee debates the issue

January 20th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

The issue of mandatory judicial retirement ages has grown more and more pressing as the general populace sees its life expectancy increase. Several state legislatures have grappled with the issue. Below is a hearing conducted before the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee on January 19, 2012 on SJR 408, an effort to increase Florida’s mandatory retirement age.

Florida’s Constitution specifies in Art. V, Sec. 8 that judges must retire at age 70, but may serve out their current term if they have already served roe than 50% of it.

No justice or judge shall serve after attaining the age of seventy years except upon temporary assignment or to complete a term, one-half of which has been served.

SJR 408 changes the bolded text to read “seventy five”. It also makes some grammatical corrections (changes “No justice or judge…” to “A justice or judge…”)

The video below gives some of the pros and cons heard at the committee hearing. In the end, the bill passed 5-0 and was sent to the Senate Budget Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Qualification & Terms, Video

Tags: Florida

Issue 6:3 is out

January 19th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Issue 6:3 is here.

Missouri constitutional amendment would ban state courts from enforcing federal law
Tennessee bills would end judicial review by state courts, require drug testing of judges
West Virginia may require magistrate court judges have a bachelor’s degree, could create intermediate appellate court
Virginia legislature looks to change how it funds court technology, may direct weighted caseload and other studies of the commonwealth’s courts
Kentucky and Ohio consider public financing for judicial campaigns
Vermont bill would require judges give a jury nullification instruction

No comments »

Posted in Weekly Edition

Indiana Chief Justice delivers his 25th and final State of the Judiciary

January 19th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

The National Center for State Courts has an archive of 2011, 2010, and previous years State of the Judiciary addresses located here.

Chief Justice Randall Shepard delivered his 25th and final State of the Judiciary address last week. Chief Justice Shepard’s address is one of the only State of the Judiciary speeches in the nation to be constitutionally based (Art. 7, Sec 3)

The Chief Justice shall have prepared and submit to the General Assembly regular reports on the condition of the courts and such other reports as may be requested.

However unlike in recent years it does not appear a formal concurrent resolution inviting the Chief Justice to deliver it was adopted (compare HCR 1 of 2011, HCR 20 of 2010, HCR 5 of 2009, HCR 4 of 2008).

Highlights of the Chief Justice’s speech (full text here) below the jump

No comments »

Posted in State of the Judiciary

Tags: Indiana

New public financing systems for judicial elections to be considered in Kentucky, Ohio & Wisconsin

January 18th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

While much of the election focus for the 2012 will be on the Presidential races, numerous states will be electing members to the courts. At least three state legislatures are considering joining (and in the case of Wisconsin, rejoining) the list of states that allow for public financing of at least some of those judicial races.

I’ve mentioned Kentucky’s unique position: in 2014 the entire judiciary (save one or two judges) will be on the ballot. Over the last several years members of the state’s legislature have proposed public financing for the races, delivering speeches on the subject during the interim and trying to gather support. A 2012 version (HB 230) specifies the funding would come from state tax refund designations made on tax forms and by permitting (but not requiring) bar members contribute via their bar dues.

Wisconsin had a public financing system for its supreme court races but it was zeroed out in the latest budget. A new plan, one that would include most state-level elected officials, was introduced in Fall 2011. Under AB 317 and SB 213 taxpayers could designate $1 of their state income taxes to an Election Campaign Fund. Whatever funds are in the Fund would be all that was available for that particular election year(s).

Ohio’s HB 413 focuses on creation of a public financing program for supreme court races only in that state, but does include a trigger provision allowing for expansion to include races for court of appeals if the fund ever reaches $6 million. Funding would come from a designation of tax refunds on tax forms.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags: Kentucky Ohio Wisconsin

Missouri courts may be prohibited from enforcing federal law, court orders; may be required to use only “originalist” interpretations

January 17th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

The U.S. Constitution provides in Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Known commonly as the supremacy clause, it is unique in that it specifically mentions state courts, or more specifically the judges thereof, by title. Missouri’s legislature, however, is on the verge of adopting a state constitutional amendment that would direct its state judges to disregard numerous federal laws.

Initially introduced in 2011 as HJR 26 and SJR 15 and approved by their respective committees, the proposal has been reintroduced as SJR 45 of 2012. If approved by Missouri voters, the amendment would:

Prohibit the Missouri judicial branch from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal action that exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government.
Prohibit Missouri courts from recognizing, enforcing, or acting 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 Missouri courts interpret the U.S. Constitution based on its language and the original intent of the signers of the Constitution. Further provides 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
Grants standing to Missouri citizens to sue in state court to enforce the provisions of the amendment and that enforcement of the amendment applies to federal actions taken after the amendment is approved by the voters, federal actions specified in the amendment, and any federal action, regardless of when it occurred, that the Missouri Supreme Court determines to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags: Missouri

Iowa State of the Judiciary: budget cut “undermines the public’s confidence in the reliability of our justice system and hinders the state in achieving its goal of a vibrant economy”

January 17th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

The National Center for State Courts has an archive of 2011, 2010, and previous years State of the Judiciary addresses located here.

Chief Justice Mark Cady presented the State of the Judiciary on January 11 to a joint convention of the legislature pursuant to a resolution (HCR 102 of 2012) passed by both chambers. HCR 102 noted that the Chief Justice’s report is statutorily based. Iowa Code 602.1207 provides:

The chief justice shall communicate the condition of the judicial branch by message to each general assembly, and may recommend matters the chief justice deems appropriate.

Highlights of the Chief Justice’s speech (full text here) below the jump

No comments »

Posted in State of the Judiciary

Tags: Iowa

State of the Judiciary Addresses: 2012

January 17th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Gavel to Gavel focuses on legislation affecting the courts. Yet in many or most states (depending on year) the chief justice has the opportunity to come into the legislature or addresses legislative leaders directly in the form of State of the Judiciary Addresses. For the second year in a row, Gavel to Gavel the Blog will be tracking them with links to give some idea of what the chief justices are asking from the legislatures.

The National Center for State Courts has an archive of 2011, 2010, and previous years State of the Judiciary addresses located here.

No comments »

Posted in Admin, State of the Judiciary

For the sixth year in a row Virginia’s General Assembly votes on whether to increase mandatory judicial retirement age

January 16th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

I noted just before the 2011 sessions started that Virginia’s legislature has struggled mightily to agree on a plan to increase the state’s mandatory judicial retirement age of 70. Whereas most changes to mandatory judicial retirement ages have been approved, or at least sent to the voters, within 1 or 2 legislative years, Virginia is now entering Year 6 in its efforts to amend Virginia Code 51.1-305(B1) which not only sets 70 as the mandatory age for judges, but for members of the state Corporation Commission who are also members of the Judicial Retirement System. Each year since 2007, changes have been approved at the committee level, even obtaining one-chamber passage, only to be killed or left to die at the end of the session.

This year the two vehicles are HB 163 and SB 95 with both raising the retirement age from 70 to 73 and eliminating the special provisions related to the Corporation Commission. Earlier this morning the Senate Committee on Courts of Justice approved its version on an 11-3 vote. The House Committee on Courts of Justice, Civil Subcommittee is set to vote on it later this afternoon. This vote is critical as it was the civil subcommittee which killed the House version last year on a 5-5 tie vote (with 1 abstention). This year’s subcommittee may be more welcoming. Of the 9 members of the 2012 committee, 4 voted in favor of the 2011 plan, 2 voted against and 1 abstained. Assuming those 7 delegates vote the same way, that leaves the decision to two delegates first elected in 2011.

Update 1/16/12 @ 5:29 PM – The two newly elected delegates voted against, resulting once again in the bill’s failure to pass due to a tie vote (4-4, 1 abstention).

Details of prior years efforts below the fold.
» Read more: For the sixth year in a row Virginia’s General Assembly votes on whether to increase mandatory judicial retirement age

No comments »

Posted in Qualification & Terms

Tags: Virginia