Posts Tagged ‘Arizona’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Arizona bill purports to grant supreme court power to license attorneys; would require supreme court allow online law school graduates take bar exam

January 24th, 2013

I mentioned several weeks ago the push coming from legislatures to control or alter the power of state supreme courts regarding bar admission and practice. The latest state legislature to enter the fray is Arizona.

HB 2120 would codify the power of the supreme court to license attorneys and set rules for the licensing, a power the supreme court appears to have already exercised for a century under existing case law.

Interestingly, the same provision would effectively limit the rules and assert legislative control in one area: online law schools (emphasis added).

The supreme court shall license attorneys for the practice of law in this state.  The supreme court shall adopt rules to carry out the provisions of this section including Minimum qualifications for licensure.  The rules shall allow a person who completed an online law school program to take the state bar examination if that person satisfies all of the other eligibility criteria prescribed in the rules adopted pursuant to this section.

The bill is currently pending in the House Judiciary Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Rule Making Authority

Tags:

Arizona bill would require all judges up for yes/no retention elections self-identify their party on the ballot

January 22nd, 2013

A key element of most merit selection plans, the elimination of party identification on the ballot, may be under threat in Arizona. HCR 2010, while retaining the state’s merit selection system with yes/no retention elections, may require that those seeking re-election nevertheless self-identify by party on the ballot.

First, some background.

Arizona uses, in effect, five different judicial selection systems:

  • Merit selection with yes/no retention elections: Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Courts in counties with a populati0n over 250,000 (Maricopa and Pima) or counties that opt in (none have)
  • Partisan primary election/nonpartisan general election: Superior Courts other than Maricopa & Pima. For example in August 2012 two Democrats challenged each other for the Division 2 seat on the Superior Court for Navajo County in a Democratic primary. The winner faced a Republican in November 2012, but the general election ballots did NOT identify party.
  • Partisan elections: Justice of the Peace (see this example)
  • Nonpartisan elections: City of Yuma Municipal Court
  • Local appointment: Municipal Courts except Yuma

HCR 2010 would amend the state’s constitution to provide that judicial candidates would remain exempt from participating in partisan primaries where applicable (i.e. retention elections). However, at the general election “a candidate for election or retention as a justice or judge shall designate that candidate’s political party affiliation, which shall be displayed on the ballot with that candidate’s name.”

The bill has been filed in the House but not yet assigned to a committee.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Arizona Legislative Year in Review: small claims, homeless courts, audits of state’s AOC

November 26th, 2012

One bill affecting the courts approved by the Arizona legislature subsequently vetoed by the governor in 2012 was SB 1310, which would have increased small claims jurisdiction from $2,500 to $10,000 (details here).

New laws affecting the courts enacted by the Arizona legislature in 2012 include the following:

HB 2283 Specifies that for state benefits purposes, “state employee” includes only those employed by the judicial branch whose salaries are paid for by the state.

HB 2376 Permits the payment of court fees by alternative methods and permits the court to impose a convenience fee when accepting alternative payment methods.

HB 2449 Amends existing statute regarding performance audits of state administrative office of the courts to require, after audit, House and Senate Judiciary Committees meet jointly and conduct hearing on audit.

SB 1152 Establishes a homeless court and homeless court jurisdiction.

SB 1365 Prevents the government from denying a person an appointment to public office or a position on a board, commission or committee based on the persons exercise of religion. Defines government as all courts and administrative bodies or entities under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Supreme Court.

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

Election 2012: The losers lost big and what the losses portend for 2013/2014

November 15th, 2012

The 2012 election saw several attempts to “rein in” or otherwise assert control of the judiciary by the other branches of government. The four key amendments on the ballot not only all failed,  but failed in stunning fashion when compared to both other items on the ballot and historically.

Arizona Proposition 115 failed 27%-73%

The amendment had a variety of pieces: increased terms and mandatory retirement age, giving governor more power over the state’s merit selection commissions and requiring the commissions give governors more names to pick from, etc. What makes the Prop 115 loss even more interesting is that it was the single biggest loss among the 9 propositions on the ballot that night: the other losing propositions had closer tallies. It also failed to take a single county (closest was Apache where it got 32% of the vote: 6,976 to 14,835).

Proposition % yes
115 27
120 32
121 33
204 36
116 44
208 51
117 57
119 62
114 80

Florida Amendment 5 failed 37%-63%

Like Arizona it was an effort to tinker with the state’s merit selection system (plus rule making authority of the state supreme court) and touted as a way to “rein in judges”. Like Arizona it not only lost outright, but was the worst performer of the night in the state. It was able to carry in a single county: Sumter voted for it 52-48 (27,763 vs. 25,969).

Amendment % yes
5 37
3 42
12 42
4 43
6 45
8 45
10 45
1 49
11 61
9 62
2 63
There was no Amendment 7 n/a

Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3 failed 24%-76%

Amendment 3, like the Arizona and Florida efforts, would have given governors more power over the merit selection process, in Missouri’s case by giving effective control of the merit selection commission for the state’s appellate courts to the governor.  Proponents announced months ago they were abandoning the effort when they failed to get the ballot language they wanted, but have vowed to come back and try again, this time perhaps via a citizen’s initiative rather than a legislatively referred ballot item. Like the Arizona and Florida losses, Missouri’s Amendment 3 was the worst performer of election night ballot items in the state.

Amendment/Proposition % yes
Amend 3 24
Prop B 49
Prop E 62
Prop A 64

New Hampshire’s Question 2 failed 49-51%

Question 2 would have given the legislature a veto over rules established by the state’s supreme court.  The loss is remarkable for two reasons. First, despite the closeness of a 49-51% vote total, Question 2 was nowhere close the 67% needed for passage, making this effectively a blowout.  Second, an perhaps even more surprising, was the history of failures on this item. An amendment almost identical to 2012′s Question 2 was offered in 2002 and63% of the vote in favor, only losing because of the need to meet the 67% threshold. When it was put back on the ballot in 2004 it again got a majority (57%) but not the super-majority need. That this time the proposal failed to garner even a simple majority was surprising and, coupled with GOP loss of the New Hampshire House, indicates little chance of a return in 2013/2014.

Ohio’s Issue 2 lost 37%-63%

The amendment dealt would have created an independent redistricting commission and assigned Court of Appeals judges, picked by the Chief Justice, to vet proposed members of the commission. It lost every county in the state (except Athens). Although 19 states do provide for some involvement of judges in redrawing maps (other than hearing appeals or legal challenges from maps once created), the Ohio lopsided loss may caution against similar proposals. Moreover, the recent use of such a provision in Missouri’s constitution (map drawn by panel of appellate judges if legislature cannot come up with map) lead to proposals in that state to remove the map-by-judges provision of that state’s constitution.

No comments »

Posted in Election 2012

Tags:

Arizona Proposition 115: What courts/states have mandatory judicial retirement and at what age?

October 11th, 2012

In addition to extending most judicial terms to 8 years, Arizona’s Proposition 115 would also change the state’s mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75.

As I noted last year when this subject came up in the Ohio ballot, 33 states plus D.C. have age limits for at least some of their judges. While Arizona’s current 70 is the most typical age, several states use 75: Kansas, Missouri (municipal court judges), Oregon, Texas (Appellate + District), Utah, and Washington.

A chart listing all mandatory retirement ages for state judges is below. (Updated 2/12/2013)

» Read more: Arizona Proposition 115: What courts/states have mandatory judicial retirement and at what age?

2 comments »

Posted in Qualification & Terms

Tags:

Arizona Prop 115: Judges seeking re-election to appear before legislative committees?

September 5th, 2012

Arizona’s Proposition 115 not only contends with changes to the initial appointment under the state’s merit selection system for judges (as previously covered here). The constitutional amendment would also change the way judges are retained, specifically authorizing the legislature to meet and review the judge prior to their yes/no retention election.

Background

Arizona already has a constitutionally required judicial performance evaluation program, adopted as part of Prop 109 in 1992.

The supreme court shall adopt, after public hearings, and administer for all justices and judges who file a declaration to be retained in office, a process, established by court rules for evaluating judicial performance.  The rules shall include written performance standards and performance reviews which survey opinions of persons who have knowledge of the justice’s or judge’s performance.  The public shall be afforded a full and fair opportunity for participation in the evaluation process through public hearings, dissemination of evaluation reports to voters and any other methods as the court deems advisable.

The Commission on Judicial Performance Review conducts reviews judge prior to a judge’s re-election and releases the results to the public (see here for results from prior years).

Proposition 115 would add an additional review, namely by the state’s legislature, just prior to the election:

Not later than sixty days preceding the regular primary election the supreme court shall transmit a copy of the judicial performance review of each justice and judge who is up for retention to the President of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives.  Not later than sixty days preceding the regular general election for the retention of justices and judges, a joint legislative committee consisting of the senate judiciary committee and the house of representatives judiciary committee, or their successor committees, may meet and take testimony on the justices and judges who are up for retention.

What do other states do?

Of the 15 states that use some sort of election-year (or reappointment year) evaluation for judges, none are like Arizona Prop 115′s plan which includes both legislative activity and an election. A detailed and comprehensive review of each program can be found at the American Judicature Society’s www.judicialselection.us.

Alaska: No appearance before legislature, retention election

The state’s Judicial Council conducts a performance evaluation and, at least 60 days prior to the election, releases a recommendation that voters do or do not retain the judge or justice.

Arizona (current): No appearance before legislature, retention election

See above

Colorado: No appearance before legislature, retention election

A statewide or local judicial performance commission reviews the judge or justice. The commission then recommends “Retain,” “Do Not Retain,” or “No Opinion”.

Connecticut: Appearance before legislature, no retention election

An incumbent judge is evaluated by the Judicial Selection Commission and (statutorily) presumed to be qualified for reappointment unless the Commission rules otherwise. The Commission then sends the governor the incumbent’s name to the House and Senate, which holds a Joint Committee on Judiciary hearing. Both House and Senate must approve for a judge to be reconfirmed

Hawaii: No appearance before legislature, no retention election

Hawaii’s system requires the Judicial Selection Commission review a judge’s performance. It is the Commission itself (not the legislature and not the public via a retention vote) that reconfirms the judge for another term.

Kansas: No appearance before legislature, retention election

Until 2006 Kansas had no formal evaluation and recommendation process. That year the legislature created the Commission on Judicial Performance, however in 2011 the legislature shut down funding for the Commission and there are no evaluations for the 2012 elections.

Missouri: No appearance before legislature, retention election

In 2008 the Missouri Supreme Court created by rule a judicial performance evaluation program to recommend whether a judge should or should not be retained.

New Jersey: Appearance before legislature, no retention election

New Jersey’s system for its Superior Court, Appellate Division of the Superior Court (the state’s intermediate appellate court), and Supreme Court includes a single reconfirmation; a judge is initially appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate for 7 years at the end of which if the judge is reappointed and reconfirmed he or she serves until age 70.

New Mexico: No appearance before legislature, retention election

The New Mexico Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission makes recommendations for or against retention.

New York: Appearance before legislature, no retention election

While all other judges in the state are elected or appointed, the state’s judges of the state’s top court (Court of Appeals) must be reviewed by the state’s Commission on Judicial Nomination, reappointed by the Governor, and reconfirmed by the Senate.

South Carolina: Appearance before legislature, no retention election

An incumbent judge effectively runs again; he or she must reapply to the state’s 10-member Judicial Merit Selection Commission; the commission itself is made up of 6 sitting members of the legislature and all members are selected by the House and Senate leadership. An incumbent judge is vetted along with any others seeking the office. The Commission then sends a list of names to the full House and Senate for approval.

Tennessee: No appearance before legislature, retention election

With respect to the state’s appellate courts, Tennessee uses a judicial performance evaluation commission makes recommendations for or against retention. With the recent disbanding of the state’s judicial council, membership of the commission rests with the leaders of the House and Senate, however under a newly enacted law the 9-member commission must include at least 3 judges. There is no provision for requiring judges appear before the Tennessee House or Senate.

Utah: No appearance before legislature, retention election

The Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and makes recommendations for or against retention. A tie vote results in no opinion/recommendation.

Vermont: Appearance before legislature, no retention election

The judge must go before the legislature’s Joint Committee on Judicial Retention. There is an automatic reconfirmation “unless a majority of the members of the General Assembly voting on the question vote against continuation in office.” (Vt. Con. Section 34)

Virginia: Appearance before legislature, no retention election

The legislature (House and Senate) reconfirms; the governor plays no role. The legislative review of the judges occurs before the House and Senate Committees for Courts of Justice and then to the full House and Senate. A formal Judicial Performance Evaluation Program lasted only a few years and was suspended in 2009.

No comments »

Posted in Election 2012, Qualification & Terms, Selection

Tags:

Missouri Amendment 3 & Arizona Prop 115: How many names get submitted to the governor in merit selection courts/states?

August 24th, 2012

Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 3 and Arizona’s Proposition 115 contend with modifying the states’ merit selection systems by changing the way they are constituted as well as how many names they submit to a governor. In this installment of Election 2012 coverage, I’ll take a look at the proposed particular changes with respect to the number of names submitted

Missouri Amendment 3

Under the present constitution, Missouri’s merit selection system applies to the state’s Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the Circuit Courts of the City of St. Louis and Jackson County (Art. V, Sec. 25(a)), and any circuit that opts into the system (Art. V, Sec. 25(b)). One “nonpartisan judicial commission” handles the supreme court and court of appeals (and is specifically entitled “The Appellate Judicial Commission”) while each circuit that has merit selection has its own commission (“The …. Circuit Judicial Commission”). Both commissions submit “three persons possessing the qualifications” of their respective judicial offices to the governor, who then chooses one name.

Amendment 3 would bifurcate this: Circuit Judicial Commissions would still submit 3 names to the governor, but the Appellate Judicial Commission would submit 4.

Arizona Proposition 115

As I noted in my first look at Prop 115, this amendment would change a litany of provisions related to the state’s judiciary. With respect to the number of names, it would expand it from at least 3 names to at least 8. There is a proviso allowing fewer than 8 names to be sent to the governor, but only if two-thirds of the nominating commission rejects enough candidate(s) that finding 8 names would be impossible.

Trial vs. appellate

In the case of Missouri, the increase from 3 to 4 applies to the state’s appellate courts (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals), as compared to Arizona which would set the standard of 8 or more for both levels. In those states where there is merit selection at the trial and appellate level, the tendency is to follow the Arizona example and set the same numerical requirement for both. Colorado, Iowa and Utah (by statute) are the exceptions, with a longer list required for appellate court vacancies.

How many names for vacancies?

11 of the 20 states that use merit selection to fill appellate court vacancies, including Missouri, allow for 2 or 3 names to be sent to a governor. In a 2007 New Mexico Supreme Court decision, the constitution’s failure to list specific numbers but inclusion of language that a commission send “names of persons qualified for the judicial office and recommended for appointment to that office by a majority of the commission” was held to preclude sending a single name and implied at least 2.

No state has Arizona’s Prop 115 minimum of 8 names for a vacancy. Only Utah comes close with 7 for its appellate courts. New York does require 7, but only for the state’s chief justice (actual title is Chief Judge); the other vacancies on the court are filled via lists of as few as 3 names. Why the high number of names for the Chief Judge? The applicable statute (Jud § 63(a)) specifies this is “[i]n recognition of the unique responsibilities of the chief judge of the court of appeals for policies of judicial administration…”

State by state breakdowns below the fold. » Read more: Missouri Amendment 3 & Arizona Prop 115: How many names get submitted to the governor in merit selection courts/states?

2 comments »

Posted in Election 2012, Selection

Tags:

Arizona Prop 115: A look at judicial terms in other states

August 22nd, 2012

Arizona’s Proposition 115 modifies several provisions of the state’s constitution with respect to judicial selection, qualifications, and terms. In this first look at Prop 115, I’ll look at the changes to terms of office for judges.

Currently, Arizona’s constitution provides for six year terms for the Supreme Court (Art. 6, Sec. 4) and four year terms for the Superior Court, the state’s  general jurisdiction trial court (Art. 6, Sec. 12). Because it is a creation of statute, the terms for the state’s intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals, are set by statute as six years. (12-120.01)

Under Prop 115, the two existing constitutional provisions would change to provide eight year terms for both the Supreme Court and Superior Court. In addition, Court of Appeals judges would get an explicit eight year term added into the constitution itself.

Court of last resort/”supreme courts”: Arizona plus 14 other states currently use six year terms for the justices of their state’s top court(s), however 30 states use eight year terms or greater.

Intermediate appellate court/”court of appeals”: There is an almost perfect split among the 40 states that have intermediate appellate courts: 20 states (including Arizona currently) have six year terms or shorter for their intermediate appellate courts, while 20 have eight year terms or greater.

General jurisdiction courts: Only eight states join Arizona in giving their general jurisdiction judges a four year term in office. Precisely half of U.S. states grant their general jurisdiction judges six year terms. Fifteen states give eight year terms or longer.

Court of Last Resort = General Jurisdiction Court: One interesting feature of Prop 115 is the equalization of terms for the justices of the Supreme Court and the judges of the Superior Court at eight years. In twenty-seventy states, the higher court(s) have longer terms, in twenty-two they have the same terms. Maryland stands alone: the justices of their court of last resort serve for 10 years, while their general jurisdiction court judges serve for longer, 15 year terms (Md. Con. Art. IV, Sec. 3, 5 & 5A).

State by state breakdowns below the fold.

» Read more: Arizona Prop 115: A look at judicial terms in other states

2 comments »

Posted in Election 2012, Qualification & Terms

Tags:

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

April 18th, 2012

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.

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Merit selection: comprehensive state-by-state review of efforts to modify or end existing systems

April 10th, 2012

The debate over merit selection systems has reached a head in the last several years, with strenuous efforts at play to create merit selection systems in states which lack them coupled with vigorous efforts in other states that have merit selection to heavily modify or end their systems.

Over the next two days I’m going to look at both aspects of merit selection. Today I’ll be examining 2012 efforts to modify or end existing merit selection systems as created by constitutional provision or statute. Several states use “merit selection” entirely as the result of governors’ creating nomination panels; because these don’t involve the legislature I will not focus on them. All information as to which states have what is from the American Judicature Society’s 2011 report “Judicial Merit Selection: Current Status” located here.

Tomorrow (April 11) I will examine efforts to implement statutory and/or constitutional merit selection systems in states that do not currently have them.

Alabama – Circuit Court in select counties [interim only]: No activity

Alaska – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court: No activity

Arizona – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court in larger counties: A 2011 bill (SCR 1001) revising numerous provisions of the merit selection system (commission composition, number of names submitted, etc.) plus increasing judicial terms will be on the 2012 ballot. A 2012 effort to simply end the merit selection system and replace with partisan elections (SCR 1034 / SB 1371) was rejected in committee.

Colorado – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court: No activity

Connecticut – Supreme Court, Appellate Court, Superior Court: No activity

Florida – Supreme Court, District Court of Appeal; Circuit [interim only]: A 2011 bill (HJR 7111) requiring Supreme Court nominees chosen by the governor be subject to Senate confirmation will be on the 2012 ballot. Several attempts to change the composition of the nominating commissions and allowing a governor to fire a majority of the commissioners at will (vs. staggered terms) failed at the last minute (HB 971 / SB 1570).

Hawaii – Supreme Court, Intermediate Appellate Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, District Court: Constitutional amendments HB 2343 and SB 2209 would require judicial selection commissions to provide more public disclosure of their proceedings, specifically information about those whose names are considered to fill vacancies. The Senate version appears now to be the primary bill, having been approved by the full Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. Another constitutional amendment, SB 2205, would lower the number of names submitted to fill vacancies: for Supreme, Intermediate Appellate & Circuit: from 4-6 to specifically 3. For District: from not less than 6 to specifically 3.

Idaho – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court [interim only]: No activity

Indiana – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Superior and other trial courts in select counties: Proposals to substantially revised (SJR 13) or simply end (SJR 14) merit selection failed to advance.

Iowa – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court: Several bills introduced in 2011 to either alter or end merit selection were carried over into the 2012 session (see database for full list). None advanced.

Kansas – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court at district’s discretion : The prime focus was in ending merit selection for the Court of Appeals; because it is a statutorily created court the change would only require a change in statute rather than a constitutional amendment. While meeting with House approval in 2011 (HB 2101) the Senate failed to take up the bill. Undaunted, the House began attaching it to unrelated pieces of legislation (SB 83) and seeking to end the commission on judicial performance which makes recommendations for or against retention of judges (HB 2396).

Kentucky – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court; District Court [interim only]: No activity

Maine – Supreme Judicial Court and Superior Court: No activity

Minnesota – District Court [interim only]: No activity

Missouri – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Courts in select counties: The state synonymous with merit selection saw efforts to outright end merit selection fail to advance (HJR 77, SJR 41, SJR 42). Efforts to modify the system were and are active. SJR 51 would allow the governor to appoint all nominating commission members subject to senate confirmation and a prohibition of members of the bar, judiciary, or their spouses from serving. HJR 44 increases the names given to the governor to chose from 3 to 5 and allows the governor to reject the first 5 person panel, ask for a second, and then select from the 10. It also alters the composition of the nominating commissions and, like the Florida provisions attempted to do, allows the governor to fire commissioners appointed by prior governors. HJR 44 was approved by the House Special Standing Committee on Judicial Reform 3/21/12 and is currently in the House Rules Committee.

Montana – Supreme Court and District Court [interim only]-: Legislature not in session.

Nebraska – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, County Court: No activity

Nevada – Supreme Court and District Court [interim only]: Legislature not in session.

New Mexico – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, Metropolitan Court: SB 24, which was approved by the Senate but not the House, would have created a special fund to help pay for the judicial nominating commissions associated with the state’s merit selection system. Funds were to have come from gifts, donations, etc. plus $50,000 a year from the legislature itself as an automatic, recurring appropriation.

New York – Court of Appeals (court of last resort in state): A single bill introduced in 2011 (AB 309) would have required the nominating commission submit all qualified names to governor. It has failed to advance.

North Dakota – Supreme Court and District Court: Legislature out of session

Oklahoma – Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, District Court [interim only]: 2011 carry over bills SJR 36 would have ended merit selection for the appellate courts, allowing the governor to appoint anyone qualified subject to senate confirmation while SB 621 would have required nominees chosen via the state’s merit selection system be subject to senate confirmation. Neither have advanced in 2012. Other carry over bills from 2011 to end merit (HJR 1008 & HJR 1009 for appellate courts; SB 543 to fill interim vacancies in District Courts) went nowhere.

Rhode Island – Supreme Court, Superior Court, Family Court, District Court : No activity Update 4/11/12: HB 8043 filed just days ago extends until 2013 an existing law allowing any individual whose name was publicly submitted to the governor by the judicial nominating commission to be eligible for subsequent nomination by the governor.

South Dakota – Supreme Court, Circuit Court [Interim only]: No activity

Tennessee – Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Appeals, Trial Courts [interim only]: Tennessee has seen literally dozens of bills introduced in 2011 and carried over, plus new bills in 2012, dealing with the state’s merit selection system which is due to “sunset” and expire soon.

Put merit selection explicitly in constitution:

HJR 753 Adds legislative confirmation of nominees

HJR 830

SJR 183

SJR 710 Adds legislative confirmation of nominees

Extend merit to June 30, 2013:

HB 3575 / SB 3321

HB 2356 / SB 2346

HB 2537 / SB 2345

Extend merit to June 30, 2014:

HB 3451 (nominating commission only)

End merit:

HB 173 / SB 127

HB 231 / SB 281

HB 958 / SB 699

HB 3615 / SB 3714

SJR 475

SJR 635

Modify:

HB 1017 / SB 82 Retains merit selection, but makes judicial nomination commission recommendations advisory; allows governor to ignore recommendations.

HB 1702 / SB 646 Requires judges selected via merit selection system receive 75% yes in retention election.

HB 3452 / SB 2794 Retains merit selection, but alters nomination process and adds confirmation.

HB 3691 / SB 3652 Requires House and Senate speakers appoint all nine members of the judicial evaluation commission since the judicial council no longer exists.

Utah – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, Juvenile Court: No activity

Vermont – Supreme Court, Superior Court, District Court: No activity

West Virginia – Supreme Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court [interim only]: No activity

Wyoming – Supreme Court, District Court, Circuit Court: No activity

 

3 comments »

Posted in Selection, Special Edition

Tags: