Posts Tagged ‘Connecticut’

« Older Entries

Connecticut will NOT force courts to order poor into community service prior to filing civil suits

May 17th, 2013

I noted last month that Connecticut was considering compelling those unable to pay civil filing fees to work up to 20 hours of community service. HB 6692 would have amended existing law to provide a person who could not pay due to indigence could be be compelled to work.

If the court waives such fee, fees or the cost of service of process, the court may, in connection with the granting of such fee waiver, order that the person participate in a program of community service, as set forth in section 2 of this act, for a period of time not to exceed twenty hours. In determining whether to order a person to participate in a program of community service, the court shall consider the person’s ability to perform community service and prior compliance with any order to participate in a program of community service.

The avowed purpose according to news reports was to stop frivolous lawsuits.

After an April 15 hearing the bill was effectively rewritten with all references to community service removed (additions to existing 52-259b(c) are underlined):

(c) Nothing in this section shall preclude the court from (1) finding that a person whose income does not meet the criteria of subsection (b) of this section is indigent and unable to pay a fee or fees or the cost of service of process, or (2) denying an application for the waiver of the payment of a fee or fees or the cost of service of process when the court finds that (A) the applicant has repeatedly filed actions with respect to the same or similar matters and such filings establish an extended pattern of filings that have been so without merit as to be deemed frivolous and an abuse of judicial process, (B) the application before the court is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings, (C) the application is sought in connection with an action that, on its face, fails to state a cognizable claim for which relief may be granted and would likely be dismissed by the court as frivolous, and (D) the granting of such application would constitute an egregious misuse of Judicial Branch resources. If an application for the waiver of the payment of a fee or fees or the cost of service of process is denied, the court clerk shall, upon the request of the applicant, schedule a hearing on the application.

The amended bill was approved 44-1 in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on April 19.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Connecticut bill would require indigent work up to 20 hours of community service before filing lawsuits; hearing set for 4/15

April 11th, 2013

Many states provide by law, court rule, or case law that an indigent person too poor to pay the fees associated with a  case may have the fees waived. Connecticut’s present statute on the subject, 52-259b(a) is fairly straightforward

In any civil or criminal matter, if the court finds that a party is indigent and unable to pay a fee or fees payable to the court or to pay the cost of service of process, the court shall waive such fee or fees and the cost of service of process shall be paid by the state.

HB 6692 would amend this to provide an alternative; if a person cannot pay due to indigence they can be compelled to work.

If the court waives such fee, fees or the cost of service of process, the court may, in connection with the granting of such fee waiver, order that the person participate in a program of community service, as set forth in section 2 of this act, for a period of time not to exceed twenty hours. In determining whether to order a person to participate in a program of community service, the court shall consider the person’s ability to perform community service and prior compliance with any order to participate in a program of community service.

Those seeking restraining orders against domestic violence under 46b-15 or 46b-38c would not be compelled to work.

HB 6692 is set for a hearing on April 15 before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

Efforts to enact, modify, or end merit selection for judges: what is moving and what is not

February 27th, 2013

I’ve had several readers ask for a synopsis of what is gong on in states to enact, modify, or end merit selection in 2013. This post is intended to respond to those queries. The latest information can always be found at the Gavel to Gavel database located here.

Details below the fold.

» Read more: Efforts to enact, modify, or end merit selection for judges: what is moving and what is not

No comments »

Posted in Selection, Special Edition

Tags:

First, Maryland, then Connecticut, now Maine considered getting rid of partisan elections for probate courts

February 22nd, 2013

Most states use multiple selection methods for their courts, with some judges appointed, others elected, etc. Three states in particular (Connecticut, Maryland, and now Maine) want to end partisan elections for one particular type of court: probate.

First, some background.

Most states do not have separate courts to handle probate matters, instead such matters are handled as a division of another court (Probate Court vs. Superior Court, Probate Division). New Hampshire, for example, consolidated its Probate Court into the newly created Circuit Court, Probate Division only a few years ago. About 15 states do, however, still retain courts whose primary or sole purpose is probate matters

  • Alabama Probate
  • Colorado Denver Probate (Probate matters in other parts of state handled in District Court)
  • Connecticut Probate
  • Georgia Probate
  • Indiana Probate (Remains only in St. Joseph’s County; probate matters in other parts of state handled in Superior or Circuit Court)
  • Maine Probate
  • Maryland Orphan’s (Montgomery and Harford counties, probate matters handled in Circuit Court)
  • Massachusetts Family & Probate
  • Michigan Probate
  • New Mexico Probate
  • New York Surrogates’
  • Rhode Island Probate
  • South Carolina Probate
  • Tennessee Probate (Shelby County only)
  • Vermont Probate

In addition to their unique jurisdiction, what sets these courts apart is that they often have a judicial selection system that is not in keeping with most of the other judges in the state. For example, the judges of Georgia’s higher courts (Supreme, Court of Appeals, Superior, State) are non-partisan races; Probate Court races are partisan.

This year’s particular interest in changing the method of judicial selection started January 23 in Maryland where Orphan’s Court judges are elected on a partisan basis. SB 327 was filed January 23 to require nonpartisan elections instead. An identical House bill (HB 515) was filed a week later on January 30.

The next state to consider the issue was Connecticut, where Probate Court judges also run in partisan elections. HJR 17 is a constitutional amendment that would shift the Probate Court judges into the state’s existing merit selection system, which is used for the state’s other courts (Supreme, Appellate, Superior).

The third state to consider such a move was Maine. HB 369, filed February 19, would end partisan elections for Probate Judges, Registers of Probate and Registers of Deeds. Instead, the offices would be subject to gubernatorial appointment with senate confirmation in the same way all other state judges are currently appointed.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Connecticut Legislative Year in Review: advisory judicial salary commission; paying for & using e-courts; court security

November 27th, 2012

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

HB 5290 Authorizes the Judicial Branch to lease its own facilities.

HB 5365 AS AMENDED: Makes judge trial referee evaluations available to Judiciary Committee members before a hearing on a referee’s nomination. Allows the Judicial Branch to enter into agreements with other agencies on a broader range of security matters. Allows electronic communication by computer, fax, or other technology according to procedures and technical standards set by either the chief court administrator or probate court administrator. Gives notice delivered electronically the same validity and status as if sent by mail. For Supreme Court, gives a party a right to a panel of at least five justices and requires the court to sit in panels of five, six, or seven judges under rules the court adopts. Expands the use of senior judges on Supreme Court panels by allowing them to be part of a panel when at least one justice is disabled or disqualified or the business of the court requires it. Repeals authority for judges to appoint messengers and assistant messengers and set their compensation and assignments.

HB 5388 ORIGINAL: Increases certain court filing fees and allocate sixty per cent of the funds generated to the interest earned on lawyers clients funds account to provide legal services to the poor, and allocate the remaining funds to the Judicial Data Processing Revolving Fund to fund technology projects within the Judicial Branch. AS AMENDED: Same, but sunsets the fee after 3 years.

SB 31 ORIGINAL: Creates commission on compensation to set judicial salaries every four years. Commissions recommendations go into effect automatically unless modified or abrogated by legislature. AS AMENDED: Recommendations no longer automatic.

SB 309 Specifies compensation probate judges receive for service as administrative judges for regional children’s probate courts or special assignment probate judges are included in their calculations and contributions for purposes of retirement benefits. Clarifies a surviving spouse’s entitlement to a pension when a judge or employee dies in office. Reduces the frequency of a probate court administrator reporting requirement. Makes several changes related to managing and safekeeping probate court records, including shifting certain responsibilities from the state librarian to the probate court administrator.

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

Revised judicial compensation commission approved by Connecticut Senate, up against adjournment deadline

May 7th, 2012

I mentioned in March the proposed new judicial compensation commission being considered by the Connecticut legislature. That bill, as introduced, would have made the commission’s recommendation binding and given the effect of law unless overridden by the legislature. SB 31 was approved by the Joint Judiciary Committee back in March on a 34-8 vote and by the Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee on a 12-0 vote on May 2.

The full Connecticut Senate, however, approved its version last week, with some notable changes:

  • Alters compensation commission members and expands commission (See below)
    ORIGINAL (9 members)
    		 AMENDED BY SENATE (12 members)
    Governor Governor
    Governor Governor
    Governor Governor
    Governor
    Senate President Pro temp Senate President Pro temp
    House Speaker House Speaker
    Senate Minority Leader Senate Minority Leader
    House Minority Leader House Minority Leader
    Senate Majority Leader
    House Majority Leader
    Chief Justice Chief Justice
    Chief Justice Chief Justice
  • Removes provisions making the commission recommendations automatic. Instead, it requires the chief court administrator to send estimates of expenditures to implement the commission’s recommendations to the Office of Policy and Management for inclusion in the governor’s biennial budget.

This revised bill was approved by a 35-1 vote on May 3. The CT legislature is set to adjourn May 9, and the revised bill is on the House calendar for today May 7.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget

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:

CT: Judicial compensation commission with binding powers advances out of Joint Judiciary Committee

March 27th, 2012

A plan to change the way Connecticut sets judicial salaries has passed its first hurdle (prior coverage here).

Copying much of the language from New York’s relatively new judicial compensation commission, SB 31 would create a commission that would make recommendations every 4 years on judicial salaries that would go into effect automatically unless overridden or altered by the legislature. The automatic nature of the recommendations was the primary concern cited by opponents.

Currently, there is a joint commission (Compensation Commission for Elected State Officers and Judges) that makes nonbinding recommendations to the legislature. That commission would continue, but without jurisdiction over judicial salaries.

The video below is from the March 26 Joint Committee on the Judiciary hearing and vote on the bill. The bill was approved on a 34-8 vote.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Video

Tags:

Judicial compensation commissions introduced in Connecticut, advance in Indiana

February 15th, 2012

Judicial salary or compensation commissions are nothing particularly new, but more and more states have in the last several years attempted to get them established in their states. Texas enacted one in 2007 that makes advisory suggestions, while the salaries set by New York’s commission, created by a law signed in 2010, are binding unless overriden by the state’s legislature. 2012 has two bills that look to establish or reestablish such commissions.

The Indiana Public Officers Compensation Advisory Commission was created in 2004 (HB 1401) to make recommendations to the legislature regarding salaries to be paid to public officers, including and expressly all judges. It was repealed in 2011 as part of an omnibus bill (HB 1233) that eliminated dozens of councils, commissions, and boards. HB 1002 of 2012 also eliminates two dozen or so committees, commissions, and boards but does re-create the Public Officers Compensation Advisory Commission. The bill, with the advisory commission, passed the House unanimously on January 30 and is currently in the Senate Committee on Public Policy.

Connecticut is considering SB 31, a bill to create a new Commission on Judicial Compensation. Connecticut already has a Compensation Commission for Elected State Officers and Judges which recommends salary changes. The Commission on Judicial Compensation under SB 31, however, would replicate provisions similar to New York, namely, that the recommended changes to salaries are automatic unless overriden by the legislature. The bill specifies that the Commission in examining judicial salaries must take into account a variety of factors, including but expressly not limited to:

  1. the overall economic climate in the state
  2. the rate of inflation
  3. the levels of compensation received by judges of other states and of the federal government
  4. the levels of compensation received by attorneys employed by government agencies, academic institutions and private and nonprofit organizations
  5. the state’s interest in attracting highly qualified and experienced attorneys to serve in judicial capacities
  6. compensation adjustments applicable to employees of the state during applicable fiscal years
  7. the state’s ability to fund increases in compensation

The bill was introduced February 9 and is currently pending in the Joint Committee on Judiciary.

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget

Tags:

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

November 2nd, 2011

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

HB 6438 Changes numerous provisions of probate court and its operations. Provides workers’ compensation coverage for probate judges. Establishes a fee structure of twenty dollars per day when an individual copies probate court records with a hand-held scanner. Permits the Probate Court Administrator to establish a fee structure for electronic access to data processing systems.

HB 6600 Requires State Librarian, in consultation with the Chief Court Administrator of the judicial branch and others, establish standards and guidelines for the preservation and authentication of electronic documents.

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags: