Posts Tagged ‘Alaska’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled

October 3rd, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

Since the last update of this list in August, two pieces of legislation have been introduced. Michigan’s SB 701 appears to be the Senate version of HB 4769, which has gone nowhere since its June introduction.

The other bill is Alabama SB 33 of 2012, a prefiled bill for the next session. SB 33 of 2012 is a constitutional amendment that looks more like HB 607 / SB 61 than HB 597 / SB 62 in that it does not specifically mention “sharia”.

It should be noted that at least some 2011 bills will make a return in 2012; roughly half of states allow bills to be “carried over” from one session to the next. Definitive answers as to which bills will return will be available as the legislatures come back into session in January.

Full roster of bills going back to 2010 after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled

18 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

2011 Western indigent defense legislation

September 16th, 2011

Law

Arizona HB 2377 Continues the State Capital Postconviction Public Defender Office until July 1, 2016.

California AB 118 Defines public safety programs, including public defenders, as local responsibilities. Creates Local Revenue Fund 2011 with District Attorney and Public Defender Account.

Hawaii SB 1073 Increases the amount of the indigent legal services fee surcharge on court filing fees in civil actions. January  2012: trial level – $10 to $35; appellate courts – $25 to $50.  January 2014: trial level – $35 to $50; appellate courts – $50 to $65. Requires Hawaii Justice Foundation to review, on a biennial basis, whether the Indigent Legal Assistance Fund is meeting the civil legal needs of indigent persons, and report its findings.

Idaho SB 1048 Allows governor to select anyone, subject to senate confirmation, to serve as State Appellate Public Defender (currently, may only chose from list submitted by panel consisting of bar president, chairs of Senate and House judiciary committees, appointee of governor and, ex-officio, the chief justice). (see also SB 1117)

Montana HB 96 Allows state public defender to recover costs in cases involving involuntary commitment of a developmentally disabled person when the respondent is determined to have the financial ability to pay for a public defender and a judge orders payment.

Montana HB 97 Transfers supervision of Office of Appellate Defender from Chief Public Defender to Public Defender Commission.

Montana SB 187 Provides if the defendant desires assigned counsel because of financial inability to retain private counsel and the offense charged is a misdemeanor and incarceration is a sentencing option if the defendant is convicted, during the initial appearance the court may order that incarceration not be exercised as a sentencing option if the defendant is convicted. Further provides if the court so orders, the court shall inform the defendant that the assistance of counsel at public expense through the office of state public defender is not available and that time will be given to consult with an attorney before a plea is entered. Further provides if incarceration is waived as a sentencing option, a public defender may not be assigned.” Increases amount of fee to be paid by defendant for representation to various amounts depending on case outcome and severity of crime. Provides, during application and at other points in time, court advise defendant is subject to criminal charges for any false statement made regarding their finances, ability to pay, etc. on the financial statement. Requiring defendant sign affidavit and specifies affidavit must include statement regarding perjury and possible criminal prosecution for false statements regarding finances. Adds as a purpose of state public defender commission “ensure that clients of the statewide public defender system pay reasonable costs for services provided by the system based on the clients’ financial ability to pay”. Requires commission establish and oversee a conflicts office with a conflicts manager responsible for conflicts of interest and for ensuring that cases involving a conflict of interest are handled according to professional ethical standards. Provides new staff positions for the public defender commission may be added only when the public defender account received sufficient revenue pursuant maintain a balance in the account that would sustain any staff position approved by the commission for at least 1 year. Ends requirement that chief public defender serve as secretary to commission. Provides neither the chief public defender nor the chief contract manager may not maintain a client caseload. Requires commission limit number of contract attorneys so they may be meaningfully evaluated and requires commission establish biennial reviews.  Provides contract attorneys may not take any money or benefit from an appointed client or from anyone for the benefit of the appointed client.

Nevada AB 259 Authorizes certain fees to be charged and collected in civil actions be used to support legal services for the indigent in counties whose population is less than 100,000.  Provides in counties over 100,000, $10 of certain fees related to transfer of cases between courts, must be submitted to a program for legal services for the operation of programs for the indigent. Provides $5 collected at the time of recording a notice of default and election to sell must be submitted to a program for legal services for the operation of programs for the indigent.

Oregon HB 2710 Establishes Legal Aid Account in General Fund and directs state court administrator as to funding and distribution of account funds.

Utah HB 272 Requires the court, when making a determination of indigency for a defendant. consider the reasonableness of the fees and expenses charge by privately retained defense counsel.

Approved by one chamber

California AB 259 Allows the appointment to the office of public defender 1) a sitting or retired judge, and as a judge meets specified qualifications, or 2) a judicial commissioner, magistrate, or referee, or elected public official meeting specified qualifications.

Idaho HB 300 Establishes an Access to Justice Fund in the state treasury to assist Idaho Legal Aid Services in providing free legal representation for indigent persons in civil matters and to meet the costs of maintaining the operation of ILAS.  Provides for $10 fee on most civil cases filed in state to pay for Fund.

Nevada SB 26 Provides standards for determining whether the parent or guardian of a child for whom the juvenile court has appointed an attorney is  required to pay for such legal representation or reimburse the county or State for such legal representation.

Died in committee

Arizona HB 2375 Makes an assault on a public defender an aggravated assault.

Hawaii HB 1381 Increases the surcharges on court filing fees in civil actions used to fund indigent legal services : trial level – $10 to $35; appellate courts- $25 to $65.

Montana SB 147 Allows public defender access to jailed persons prior to court appointment.

Nevada AB 49 Establishes the Fund for Legal Defense of Indigent Persons and authorizes certain counties to apply to the Board of Trustees of the Fund for reimbursement of certain extraordinary costs of providing public defender services. Provides for additional administrative assessments or increase is existing assessments for guilty pleas in misdemeanors and in other instances to pay for Fund. Imposes additional sales and use tax and authorizes county commissioners to impose an additional sales and use tax for legal services to indigent persons.

Nevada AB 520 Requires all the compensation and expenses of a court-appointed attorney to be paid from the treasury of the county in which a court appointed the attorney.

Nevada SB 123 Moves Office of State Public Defender  from Department of Health and Human Services to the Office of the Governor.

New Mexico SB 106 Removes Public Defender Department as administratively attached to the Department of Corrections, making it a “stand alone” “adjunct” agency.

No comments »

Posted in Special Edition

Tags:

Alaska House Judiciary & North Carolina Senate Judiciary I committees holding interim meetings today

September 12th, 2011

Alaska’s House Judiciary Committee meets in interim session today to review select 2010 court decisions. A full list of the cases to be reviewed by the committee is here.

Also meeting today is the North Carolina Senate Judiciary I Committee, which will be discussing two constitutional amendments. The first, HB 61 as approved by the House,  originally set term limits for Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.The agenda for the meeting, however, indicates a committee substitute that would replace the term limits proposal with one that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.*

The second (HB 823) changes the way the way the state’s Department of of Public Instruction is governed, including modifications to the State Board of Education’s membership.

 

*Update 9/12/11 @ 2:43 PM – The legislature’s online calendar now makes it unclear whether the marriage amendment will or will not come up (italics added).

Judiciary I — CORRECTED (Senate)

Judiciary I will meet in Room 643 at 1:30 PM. The committee will take up a PCS to HB 823, which will include a Constitutional amendment regarding term limits. Members of the public wishing to make comments must sign up with the committee assistant prior to the meeting.
Governance of the Dep’t of Public Instruction. (H823)

No comments »

Posted in Interim Activities

Tags:

State-by-State 2011 Legislative Year in Review: Alaska

August 31st, 2011

New laws affecting the courts enacted or adopted by the Alaska legislature in 2011 include the following:

HB 127 Amends Rule 5(a)(1), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules of Administration to eliminate conflicts between court rules and statutes in regard to the deadline for bringing an arrested person before a judicial officer, the offenses of failure to carry and show to law enforcement a driver’s license or proof of insurance, and burning a vehicle on public property.

SB 58 Increases Superior Court judges in third district from 24 to 26.

SB 61 Amends all references to “administrative director of the courts” to “administrative director of the Alaska Court System.”

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

2011 Western bail/pretrial release legislation

August 20th, 2011

Note: This was suppose to go out Friday, August 19. Sorry for the delayed posting.

Law

Arizona HB 2355 Redefines various “assessments” with respect to bail as “surcharges”.

Arizona SB 1023 Authorizes adult probation officers, in counties with more than two million, to serve warrants and make arrests on anyone who has violated a condition of pretrial release while under the supervision of the pretrial services division.

California SB 291 Provides that after a person has been brought back to the state by extradition proceedings, the person shall be committed to a county jail with bail set in the amount of $100,000 in addition to the amount of bail appearing on the underlying arrest warrant. Specifies a 48-hour noticed bail hearing, excluding weekends and holidays, is required to deviate from this prescribed bail amount. Clarifies that nothing in this law is intended to preclude the existing ex parte process for raising bail through an affidavit of a law enforcement officer in a felony or specified misdemeanor domestic violence case, as specified.

Colorado HB 1189 Provides if a person is arrested for driving under the influence or driving while ability impaired and has been convicted of either offense at least
twice previously, the bill requires the court to impose participation in a substance abuse treatment program, electronic monitoring, drug or alcohol testing, and use of an interlock device (if appropriate) as bail conditions.

Wyoming SB 17 Provides that “conditional release” does not include release on bail; probation and parole agents will not supervise individuals on bail.

Introduced with committee and/or floor approval

Alaska HB 175 Makes corrections in the law to conform to the changes in the bail statutes adopted in 2010. Makes conforming amendments to statutes that are in conflict with the bail schedules in the court rules and directly and indirectly amends various rules of court, including the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure and Alaska Rules of Administration.

Arizona SB 1611 Prohibits a person from being admitted to bail if the proof is evident or the presumption great that the person is guilty of a class 5 or 6 felony if there is probable cause to believe that the person has entered or remained in the U.S. illegally.

California AB 178 Requires any person released from county jail before sentencing due to a court order or policy to relieve overcrowding to sign a release agreement, as specified; apply the same penalties to a person released under court order or policy to relieve overcrowding and who fails to appear as would apply to a person released on their “own recognizance”; and apply the same penalty enhancement to a person released due to a court order or policy to relieve overcrowding who commits a new felony offense while on release as would apply to a person who commits such an offense while on an “own recognizance” release.

Colorado HB 1088 Provides a law enforcement agency holding a defendant for a felony or class 1 or 2 misdemeanor whom the law enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to believe is present in the country illegally must notify the district attorney and any pretrial services agency of the defendant’s presumed immigration status. Requires a court, when considering the amount of bond to set, consider whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is present in the country illegally.

Colorado SB 186 Permits an alternative bond program to be established in any judicial district. Allows courts to provide the option of the alternative bond program to a defendant if there is such a program in that judicial district. Provides a law enforcement agency may work with an alternative bond program to secure the appearance of defendants in the program. Provides a pretrial services program with an alternative bond program is permitted to expend a portion of the moneys collected for pretrial services.

Hawaii HCR 140 Urges criminal justice system provide additional rights to victims, including right to be notified and heard regarding pretrial release/bail.

Hawaii HR 122 Urges criminal justice system provide additional rights to victims, including right to be notified and heard regarding pretrial release/bail.

New Mexico HJR 20 (Constitutional Amendment) Eliminates right to bail under state’s constitution. Provides bail may be granted or denied by a court based on the flight risk of the defendant, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the danger that would be posed to any person or the community by the defendant’s release, and other factors as provided by law. Eliminates the presumption of no bail in capital cases. Eliminates prohibitions against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. Eliminates requirement that courts give preference to an appeal from an order denying bail over all other matters.

Washington HB 1194 Provides when a person is arrested and detained for a class A or B felony, a judicial officer must make a bail determination on an individualized basis. Requires courts notify sureties of a defendant’s failure to appear within 14 calendar days of the date on which the defendant failed to appear, rather than 30 days. Provides a surety may surrender a client in a criminal case for good cause and if accompanied by a notice of forfeiture or a notarized affidavit specifying the reasons for surrender. Provides if the court finds that good cause does not exist for the surrender, the surety must return the premium paid as well as any recovery fee. Specifies good cause does not include circumstances in which the client failed to make timely payment to the surety for the bond premium. Requires presiding judge of a court notify the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) when the court revokes the justification or certification of a bail bond agent to post bonds in the court. Requires AOC notify superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction statewide or revocation.

Washington SB 5056 Subject to the availability of funds, requires Administrator for the Courts provide superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction access to the risk assessment tool developed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). Subject to the availability of funds, requires Washington State Center for Court Research (WSCCR) research, evaluate, monitor, and report on the validity of the risk assessment tool to ensure the predictive value of the tool. Requires every two years WSCCR submit a report and recommendations regarding the validity of the risk assessment tool to the Governor, the Supreme Court, and the Legislature. Provides a court may, in its consideration of pretrial release or detention, issue an order requesting information related to mental health services that a defendant has received. Limits information that may be requested to information related to violent acts. Provides court may delay the setting of bail pending receipt of the information, not to exceed 48 hours. Subject to the availability of funds, requires WSIPP develop and validate a pretrial risk assessment tool to assess whether an individual is likely to fail to appear at subsequent court hearings by December 1, 2011. Requires WSIPP submit a report, describing the methodology for developing and validating the pretrial risk assessment tool and the predictive value of the tool, to the Governor, the Supreme Court, and the Legislature by December 1, 2011. Provides presiding judge of a court must notify AOC when the court revokes the justification or certification of a bail bond agent to post bonds in the court. This notice must include the reasons for revocation. Provides once AOC receives the information it must notify superior courts and courts of limited jurisdiction statewide. Requires AOC develop a model form that law enforcement and jails may use to collect information about persons arrested or held in custody so that courts have more information at the bail hearing, including any history of domestic violence, protection orders known to law enforcement or the facility holding the person, and input from individuals reasonably believed to be a victim of the person in custody regarding pretrial release determinations.

Introduced with committee rejection

n/a

Introduced with other or no activity

California AB 1264 Repeals the uniform countywide schedule of bail. Establishes Statewide Bail Commission to prepare, adopt, and annually revise a statewide bail schedule for all bailable felony offenses and for all misdemeanor and infraction offenses except Vehicle Code infractions.

Hawaii HB 401 Creates task force to reduce contact with the criminal justice system to examine various issues, including increasing options for cost-effective pretrial release, with consideration given to enrollment and participation in an appropriate social services or treatment program.

Idaho SB 1119 Requires bail agents to collect all of the premium on the surety bail bonds they write at the time the defendant is released from custody.

Nevada SB 217 Requires each pretrial release agency prepare a register to be made available to the public that contains certain information regarding the cases and defendants who are recommended for release by the pretrial release agency and submit an annual report containing certain statistical information regarding the operations of the pretrial release agency during the preceding calendar year.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: ABA House of Delegates opposes “blanket prohibitions”, state legislatures out of session

August 8th, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

Earlier today, the American Bar Association House of Delegates approved Resolution 113A:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes federal or state laws imposing blanket prohibitions on consideration or use by courts or arbitral tribunals of foreign or international law.

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes federal or state laws imposing blanket prohibitions on consideration or use by courts or arbitral tribunals of the entire body of law or doctrine of a particular religion.

Clearly geared towards efforts to ban court use of sharia/international law, the resolution comes at a time when the state legislatures are out of session and silent. Since the July update, no legislative activity has occurred, although the Michigan bill remains technically pending (the legislature sits year-round).

Full roster of 49 bills introduced in 2011 in 22 states and their statuses after the jump.

» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: ABA House of Delegates opposes “blanket prohibitions”, state legislatures out of session

3 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

What’s in a name? Alaska (sorta) changes title for state court administrator, and why it matters historically speaking

August 3rd, 2011

I noted in Issue 5:30 that the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) was meeting this week in Atlanta, GA. Also meeting at the same time is the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA). While some states make use of the title “Court Administrator” or “State Court Administrator”, most do not. Alaska, for example, makes reference to an “administrative director”, but of what precisely? “Courts” or “the Alaska Court System”? And, aside from semantics, does it matter?

SB 61 of 2011, a set of corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes, was enacted earlier this year. According to testimony delivered in the Senate State Affairs Committee on February 15, 2011 and the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 28, the single biggest change made by SB 61 relates to the administrative director of the Alaska Court System, formerly known as the administrative director of courts. In Alaska, the position is established by the constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 16)

The chief justice shall, with the approval of the supreme court, appoint an administrative director to serve at the pleasure of the supreme court and to supervise the administrative operations of the judicial system.

However, as noted in committee, the Alaska constitution does not establish a title. According to the revisor’s office, at some point, the court system changed its usage from “administrative director of the courts” to “administrative director of the Alaska Court System”, but not all the statutes did so. SB 61 fixed that by making them all uniformly “administrative director of the Alaska Court System.”

So why does this matter? Consider that, until the 1950s and in some states as late as the 1970s, the concept of state (vs. local) court administration was almost unheard of and local judges and other officials were only too happy to keep it that way. At the second meeting of the Conference of Chief Justices in 1950, Virginia’s then-Chief Justice Edward W. Hudgins noted that it was the title of the office that kept it from getting legislative approval. (PDF page 27, warning large PDF)

The bill for a judicial administrator was defeated largely because they used the wrong word to describe him. If they had called him an executive secretary they might have gotten it through, but to the legislators a “judicial administrator” sounded like a dictator or a snooper, and the bill was killed in committee. (Underline in original)

And thus, to this day, the state court administrator for the Commonwealth of Virginia is the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court.

No comments »

Posted in Other

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Michigan becomes 22nd state to consider, Texas House tries again to get Senate to adopt

July 5th, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

With Alabama, Iowa, and North Carolina all set to adjourn in June, it looked as if there would not be any additional sharia/international law bans introduced or debated in 2011. However, in mid-June Michigan introduced a bill (HB 4769) co-sponsored by 42 of 63 Michigan House Republicans that copied much of the language from the versions introduced in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, South Dakota, and West Virginia, in particular the use of the term “informal tribunals” or “informal administrative body” in all of these versions, something that does not appear in the others.

Meanwhile, Texas in its special session reintroduced one of theirs from the regular session. I went into the details of the legislative machinations in May in Texas in my last update. In sum, the ban was limited to family law/Family Code cases by a House committee (HB 911), was added onto the “losers pays” tort reform bill at the last minute on the House floor (Amendment #6 to HB 274), and stripped out by a Senate committee.

June proved to be a repeat of May’s efforts. The original HB 79A, a bill for the implementation of the judiciary budget, did not include the ban. Instead, it was again floor amended in (Amendment #12), over the objections of a least one member of the House who attempted to have the amendment ruled not germane to the bill. The amendment was ruled germane and adopted on a 105-29-2 vote. Once again, a Senate committee (this time the Jurisprudence Committee) stripped the provision out and the bill was sent to the governor without the ban on June 29.

Full roster of 49 bills introduced in 2011 in 22 states and their statuses after the jump.

» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Michigan becomes 22nd state to consider, Texas House tries again to get Senate to adopt

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Alaska State of the Judiciary: Learning to get comfortable with the term “cost-effective”

June 20th, 2011

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

Chief Justice Walter L. Carpeneti gave  the Alaska State of the Judiciary on March 9. Under the Legislature’s Uniform Rule 51, a joint session may be called by agreement of the presiding officers of both houses or by either house by motion adopted by a majority vote of the full membership of the house. Such an invitation appears to have been extended by the presiding officers, as there is no record of a separate resolution.

Highlights of the the Chief Justice’s speech (full text here) included:

I have served as Alaska’s Chief Justice for nearly two years, and from where I stand I believe our mutual commitment to a justice system that is fair, efficient and effective is stronger than ever. So while I’m here to report on where we have been and where we are going, I’m also here to thank you—for your support, for your dedication, and, most of all, for your enduring vision of a government that gives true meaning to the promise of justice for all.

When I spoke before you last year, I emphasized the theme of inter-branch cooperation and collaboration—the need for all three branches to work together to solve the problems facing Alaska’s citizens, and the many benefits gained when we do so. The past year has only underscored the value of working together, as we have successfully navigated a number of difficult challenges through common effort…I have to admit that it has taken me a while to get comfortable with using the term “cost-effective” in the justice context, because I’ve associated it with cost benefit analysis in the business world…In our justice system, we are learning that many of the cases that fill our court dockets — on both the criminal and civil side — can benefit from a similar principle: We need to reserve the most intense (and costly) services for the most intense cases, and to fully explore alternative, less intensive problem-solving solutions for cases that don’t demand full-throttle attention.

In criminal cases, the Criminal Justice Working Group continues to take the lead in examining ways to ensure the highest and best use of limited resources across the agencies and institutions involved in the criminal justice system. The Efficiencies Committee of the working group has made remarkable progress in addressing a perennial vexing problem that I mentioned to you last year: delay in criminal proceedings. We have all heard the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied,” and we can all appreciate the far-reaching costs of delay, not only to those who stand accused and their families, but to victims and their families, witnesses, the attorneys and agencies involved, and the court system itself. So it’s very exciting to learn that the committee initiatives I mentioned to you last year appear to be bearing fruit. First, a pilot project to facilitate the exchange of discovery in criminal cases is being instituted here in Juneau. Once in place, the project will enable law enforcement agencies to provide discovery to defense attorneys electronically, through a server based in the Department of Law…Second, the committee began a pilot project in Kenai to implement a shorter pre-sentence report, which gives judges the information they need to sentence criminal defendants..And third, over the past year the committee successfully addressed a long-standing problem at the Anchorage jail: the limited opportunities for defense attorneys to meet with their clients in advance of court proceedings…With these advances now under way, the Efficiencies Committee is beginning to address several other key challenges.

The Criminal Justice Working Group’s second major group, the Prevention- Recidivism Committee, chaired by Commissioner of Corrections Joe Schmidt, also had a productive and promising year…But I think the good news is that there are promising new approaches to criminal justice that are achieving goals once thought impossible. Today, we’re learning that jails and long jail terms — the most expensive tools in our corrections toolkit — can be focused on those offenders for whom other mechanisms to ensure public safety and accountability won’t work. For other offenders, we’re learning that alternative sentencing and corrections policies and practices, based on sound research and solid evidence, are effectively reducing crime rates at much lower cost.

As public officials who study the criminal justice system, members of the Criminal Justice Working Group know there is no one-size-fits-all response to the problems we confront. Offenders are all different, and communities are all different. But both our own experience and the national research give us new hope that we can slow down the revolving doors of our jails, and that this change can be lasting. We have a long way to go, but we are more confident than ever that we are heading in the right direction, with two new major initiatives now underway.

In July 2010, a pilot program was commenced in Anchorage to more effectively monitor probationers with substance abuse and addiction problems…Using the coercive power of the courts to hold probationers responsible for even the most minor violations helps keep them on the path to recovery and ultimately makes them better prepared to succeed on their own…Also new this year was the formation of the Reentry Task Force, a group charged with exploring ways to better ensure the successful reintegration of offenders back into their communities…Both the [pilot] program and the Reentry Task Force reflect the recognition that Alaskans are not well served by a justice system that returns offenders to their communities with little hope or likelihood that they will succeed, and with every likelihood that they will again commit harmful acts of crime.

Over 8200 family law cases were filed statewide in the last year alone. Of these about 67% involved at least one party without a lawyer. The commitment of judicial resources to these disputes is enormous, especially when couples have no legal counsel to help them navigate what is inevitably an emotional and stressful process. So against this backdrop, two new projects of the court’s Family Law Self-Help Center offer to not only provide improved information and assistance to self-represented litigants, but to significantly increase the number of cases that settle before trial, alleviating the strain contested proceedings place on court resources. First, the center will soon be making is popular Hearing and Trial Preparation Course available online through YouTube…A second promising initiative of the Family Law Self-Help Center is the new Volunteer Lawyer Assisted Early Resolution Project.

The court system’s Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Program has been tremendously successful in helping families reach amicable settlements. But today, as it celebrates its tenth anniversary, it is becoming a victim of its own success. In recent years, referrals to the program have risen dramatically, causing a 250% cost increase that exceeds available federal grant funding.

If there is a common theme to our recent family law efforts, it is one of matching family cases with the appropriate level of judicial intervention.

Apart from the improvements we are pursuing in both the criminal and civil areas, I’m delighted to report to you recent achievements in the technology arena that serve the goal of cost-effective justice. About ten years ago, the court system began the very tough job of implementing a statewide computerized case management system…Today, all 44 court locations statewide are connected to the network through CourtView, which has revolutionized not only the way courts communicate with each other, but the way courts communicate with the public. For the first time since Statehood, case information is available online to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

I would like to close these remarks with a note about a topic that in recent years has become, I believe, central to our democracy: the need to foster civic education and engagement in America — not just for the adults who face the responsibilities of citizenship today, but for the young people who will carry them forward into the future.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the three branches of government can do little of lasting benefit working alone. This is as true with civic education as it is with justice delivery. Ensuring a strong future for this great country and great state of ours is a goal that we must pursue together. Thomas Jefferson said that “the qualifications for self-government are not innate . . . . [T]hey are the results of habit and long training.” As we work together to advance cost-effective justice, we must remember that the greatest guarantee of a strong future for all three branches of government is a citizenry that understands and embraces the fundamental principles of democracy.

No comments »

Posted in State of the Judiciary

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 38 of 47 bills died or rejected this session; only 1 enacted into law

June 3rd, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

With most state legislatures going out of session, May proved to relatively inactive for bills seeking to ban court use of sharia/international law. In the May update (located here) there were 44 bills in 21 states. In June, the number of bills climbed to 47 in 21 states. As of today, the status of the 47 breaks down as follows:

38 died due to adjournment or had been rejected by their respective legislatures.

1 was signed into law (Arizona’s HB 2064 on April 12).

8 remain at least theoretically active: 4 in Alabama; 3 in Iowa; 1 in North Carolina.

Texas was the focus of much of the May activity. On May 9, the text of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence ban (HB 911) approved in April was floor-amended (Amendment #6) into the so-called “loser pays” tort reform bill (HB 274). This version, as amended in committee, was much more limited than others and specified it applied in matters “arising under the Family Code” only and then only if “the application of that [foreign] law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution or a statute of this state.” Amendment 6 was approved by a 112-31 vote in the House, but was removed by the Senate State Affairs committee and failed to be enacted when the final version of HB 274 was signed into law May 30.

Meanwhile, on (May 10) the House Select Committee on State Sovereignty advanced a broader version (HB 1240) of a sharia/international law ban

“foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside the legal traditions of the states and territories of the United States, including international laws, that do not have a binding effect on this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on: (1) a foreign or international law or doctrine; or (2) a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.

HB 1240 proceeded to the House Calendars committee, where it died when the legislature adjourned.

Full roster of bills introduced in 2011 and their status after the jump.

» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 38 of 47 bills died or rejected this session; only 1 enacted into law

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: