Posts Tagged ‘Illinois’

Bills for mandatory recusal of judges for campaign contributions introduced in 3 states this year; hearing on one bill later this week

March 4th, 2013

I mentioned in December 2012 that Texas legislators had prefiled a bill (HB 129 of 2013) to require judges of state’s top appellate courts (Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals) recuse if a party, attorney, firm, etc. contributed $2,500 or more to judge’s campaign in last four years.

Two other states have introduced similar bills, including one set for a hearing later this week.

New York AB 5460 is a repeat of bills introduced in the past several years to require recusal where a judge received $500 or more from a party, attorney, or firm in the last five years. AB 5460 and its predecessors also required that the judge, parties, firms, and attorneys notify one another as soon as they became aware of the conflict. Court rules adopted in 2011 (New York Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge 151) set the limit at $2,500 from an individual party/attorney/firm OR $3,500 in the aggregate from all parties/attorneys/firms in the prior two years.

Illinois HB 2218 effectively replicates the provisions of the New York bill: $500 in prior five years, all parties, attorneys, and judges must disclose as soon as case is assigned.  HB 2218 is set for a hearing March 6 before the House Judiciary Committee.

Hearing March 5 on Illinois bill to give Supreme Court power to set court fees to fund e-filing and electronic case management

February 28th, 2013

I’ve mentioned the push in numerous states to let the supreme court or chief justice of a state determine additional court fees to pay for court technology (such as New Jersey and South Carolina in 2012). Illinois may be the next state to give their Supreme Court the same discretion.

Under SB 1768 the Supreme Court would be able to alter certain specified fees related to the appellate court filing fees (705 ILCS 25/3 & 705 ILCS 105/28) with revenues generated going to a Reviewing Court Case Management System Fund. The new fund would be a non-appropriated trust fund held separate and apart from State moneys. The Supreme Court would then be allowed to use the fund for two purposes: electronic filing and electronic case management systems.

SB 1768 also includes a second provision for the creation on a Supreme Court Committees and Commissions Fund. Money for this fund would come from additional fees on law firms (805 ILCS 10/12 & 805 ILCS 180/50-45) and the license to practice law held by individual attorneys (805 ILCS 305/10). Like the other fund, money collected would be a non-appropriated trust fund held separate and apart from State moneys. The funds from the Supreme Court Committees and Commissions Fund would be used “for costs associated with the operation of committees and commissions created by the Supreme Court.” such as the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, the Board of Admissions to the Bar and others.

SB 1768 has a hearing March 5 before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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

Proposed change to Illinois judicial retention looks similar to Hawaii’s system; would eliminate many/most retention elections

February 14th, 2013

The judicial retention system in Hawaii is unique from among all the U.S. states. Rather than having to run for re-election (partisan, non-partisan, or retention) or seek reappointment/reconfirmation, judges in Hawaii are reviewed by an independent body (the state’s Judicial Selection Commission). and either retained in office or not at the end of their term.

Illinois’ HJR 10 would provide for a similar retention-by-panel system. Under the constitutional amendment, all Illinois judges would be brought before 11 member Judicial Retention Commissions for their district (6 non-attorneys, 5 attorneys). Judges would be reviewed for their “character, background, temperament, professional aptitude, experience, and commitment to justice”.

If 60% of the Commission approved, the judge would be retained. A judge failing to get the 60% Commission vote would then be able to run in a yes/no retention election, where they would have to get approval by 60% of voters, as is the current practice.

HJR 10 is currently pending in the House Rules Committee.

Should the Tennessee Supreme Court decide if the governor is incapacitated? Constitutional amendment considers the issue.

February 12th, 2013

Tennessee may join 25 other states in letting the supreme court play a role in gubernatorial incapacity determinations.

Under SJR 103 the Attorney General would (in consultation with the Secretary of State, Comptroller of the Treasury, and Treasurer) petition the Supreme Court seeking a declaration the governor was “unable to perform the powers and duties of the office.” The court would rule on the petition and could remove the governor, who could then re-petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement.

If the Governor failed to file such a petition within 30 days of being temporarily removed, the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller of the Treasury, and Treasurer could decide themselves (apparently with no input by the Supreme Court) that the Governor was permanently removed from office.

What makes the Tennessee proposal interesting is that a similar effort was undertaken in Illinois and Indiana. As I noted in Gubernatorial Removal and State Supreme Courts, there are at least two instances in which Supreme Courts have had to weigh in on gubernatorial disability (the article lists the 25 states that currently give the supreme court or chief justice some role in the disability process, for those interested).

The more contentious instance was in 2008, when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was investigated, and later impeached and sent to prison, on corruption charges. At the time the state’s Attorney General attempted to have the Supreme Court declare the governor unable to serve due to a “disability”. The state’s constitution does provide for such a review by the state’s supreme court, but the court declined to entertain the case and the legislature impeached and removed Blagojevich shortly thereafter.

The other usage was in the Indiana in 2003. Governor Frank O’Bannon suffered a stroke on September 8 of that year. The Supreme Court, at the request of legislative leaders and O’Bannon’s own family, issued an order on September 10 that the Governor was “unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office”. O’Bannon died on September 13.

Illinois Legislative Year in Review: Judicial security, collecting debts owed courts, Veterans and Servicemembers Court

December 5th, 2012

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

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

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

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

SB 180 Permits state comptroller to withhold any payment from the state treasure due to a person if the individual owes a debt to a state court.

SB 1047 Provides that pursuant to an administrative order from the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding judge of the county authorizing such collection, a clerk of the circuit court in any county that imposes a court automation fee shall also charge and collect an additional $10 operations fee for probation and court services department operations.

Legislation to protect the home addresses of judges in Florida, Georgia, Illinois

March 6th, 2012

An unfortunate reality for many judges is the prospect of irate, and possibly violent, litigants and others seeking to harm the judges and their families. Most states have prohibitions on the release of the judge’s home address in certain instances through Freedom of Information Act requests, but those determined to harm the judge may find other venues (such as requesting voter registration information which contains the address).

Three state legislatures are currently debating the subject in particular:

Florida HB 629 / SB 916 Expands confidentiality of home addresses to include former as well as current judges/justices. House version: Approved by full House 2/16/12. In Senate Criminal Justice Committee. Senate version: Approved by Senate Criminal Justice Committee 2/22/12. On Senate Special Order Calendar for 3/7/12.

Georgia HB 397 Repeals provision that prohibits release of records that reveal the home address of judges. Replaces with new provision prohibiting release of records that reveal the home address of “public employees”, including any officer or employee of any state, county, or municipal agency, department, or commission. Approved by full House 3/5/12.

Illinois HB 5877 Excludes personal information of a judicial officer covered by the Judicial Privacy Act from being included as a public record under the Freedom of Information Act, and from inspection or copying under the Act. Establishes procedure for the State Board of Elections to redact a judicial candidate’s home address from the candidate’s certificate of nomination or nomination papers, after conclusion of the Code’s objection period. Establishes procedure for the Secretary of State to redact a judicial candidate’s home address from the candidate’s declaration for retention. Provides that the Secretary of State may allow an applicant who is a judicial officer to provide an office or work address instead of a residence or mailing address on a driver’s license. In House Judiciary I – Civil Law Committee.

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

December 20th, 2011

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

HB 176 Increases the fee that the county board may authorize the circuit clerk to collect for automated record keeping to not less than $10 (rather than $1) and not more than $20 (rather than $15). Provides that an additional fine of $25 shall be imposed upon a person convicted of any violation of the Criminal Code of 1961 who was at the time of the commission of the offense in violation of parole orders. Provides that $5 of the fine shall be deposited into the Circuit Court Clerk Operation and Administrative Fund created by the Clerk of the Circuit Court to be used to offset the costs incurred by the Circuit Court Clerk in performing the additional duties required to collect and disburse funds as provided by law.

HB 1258  Provides that of the amounts collected as fines under the Cannabis Control Act, the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act for emergency response, 99% shall be deposited to the law enforcement agency or fund specified and 1% shall be deposited into the Circuit Court Clerk Operation and Administrative Fund to be used to offset the costs incurred by the Circuit Court Clerk in performing the additional duties required to collect and disburse funds to entities of State and local government as provided by law.

HB 3346 Provides that the Director of State Police may direct the use of an additional fee paid by a defendant in any felony, traffic, misdemeanor, local ordinance, or conservation case upon a judgment of guilty or grant of supervision for homeland security purposes by quarterly transferring these fees into the ILEAS Fund. Provides that, subject to the approval of the ILEAS Executive Board, the amounts transferred from the additional fees into the Fund shall be allocated as follows: (i) 66.6% for homeland security initiatives and (ii) 33.3% for airborne operations.

HB 3417 Provides that moneys collected from the fee imposed on defendants convicted of non-alcohol and non-drug offenses and placed on probation or conditional discharge shall be deposited in the probation and court services fund (rather than the working cash fund).

SB 1586  For judicial candidates, requires at least 1,000 signatures in circuits and subcircuits located in the First Judicial District or 500 signatures in every other Judicial District (currently set at 500 signatures in any circuit or subcircuit).

SB 1631 Provides that, pursuant to an administrative order from the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding judge of the county authorizing such collection, a clerk of the circuit court in any county that imposes a court automation fee shall also charge and collect an additional $10 operations fee for probation and court services department operations. Provides certain exceptions to new $10 fee. Provides that in relation to the payment of salaries of probation officers and other court services personnel whose salaries are reimbursed under the Act in any State fiscal year that the appropriation for reimbursement to counties for probation salaries and services is less than the amount appropriated to the Supreme Court for these purposes for State Fiscal Year 2002, the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts shall adjust this amount appropriated in 2002 by 3% per year and may continue to permit use of the probation and court services fund for salaries in any State fiscal year where the State reimbursement to counties is regularly delayed more than 4 months.

SB 1703 Provides that a clerk of the circuit court in any county that imposes a fee for automated record keeping shall charge and collect an additional fee in an amount equal to the amount of that fee.

Special/Interim Judiciary Committee meetings in Illinois, North Carolina, Washington

November 28th, 2011

This week promises to be busy for legislators as Special and Interim Sessions are being held in Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington.

The Illinois House’s Judiciary II – Criminal Law Committee meets December 1 to examine overcrowding in prisons.

In NC, the Senate Judiciary I committee meets today (November 28) to debate changes to the state’s No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty Act that allow the introduction of certain statistical evidence to show discrimination in either pretrial or posttrial proceedings in capital cases.

Washington State’s Senate Judiciary Committee will consider draft legislation on “Protection of public policy” on November 29.  On December 1 the same committee will consider bills on

  • Bail and pretrial release practices
  • Consular Notification
  • County Coroners

On December 2, it is the House Judiciary’s turn to meet. That committee will look at

  • Child Support Schedule Work Group Report and Recommendations
  • Uniform Collaborative Law Act
  • Legislation authorizing qui tam actions as part of a state Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act

2011 Midwestern court interpreters legislation

November 9th, 2011

Law

Nebraska LB 669 Expands supreme court’s options for funding sources from which to compensate interpreters used by the court including grant money made available to the Supreme Court for such purpose.

Active

Illinois HB 216 Permits counties to authorize a fee of up to $10 for court interpreter services on criminal and traffic convictions for deposit into a Court Interpreter Services Fund under the control of the local chief judge. In House Rules Committee.

Died in committee

Iowa HSB 175 /SSB 1073 Provides that a “limited English proficient” (LEP) person who is a participant in any legal proceeding involving a court or an administrative agency or in a court-ordered program shall be entitled to an interpreter or a translator to assist the person in the proceeding or program. Defines “limited English proficient”, “interpreter”, “translator”, and “participant.” Provides that fees for interpreter or translator services shall not be charged to an LEP participant in a legal proceeding or court-ordered program. Specifies that an oral language interpreter or a translator required for an LEP participant in a judicial branch legal proceeding or in a court-ordered program is to be paid by the state court administrator from the revolving fund established in Code section 602.1302, subsection 3 (known as the jury and witness fund). Excludes the costs of interpreter and translator services from being charged to a parent in a juvenile proceeding and to a person receiving indigent legal assistance services. Provides additional specifications for fees and qualifications for interpreter and translator services are to be determined by the court. Requires an interpreter or translator in any legal proceeding take an oath approved by the supreme court. Permits court to inquire into the qualifications, neutrality, and integrity of an interpreter or translator and disqualify any person from serving as an interpreter or translator. Requires electronic rather than audio recordings of the portion of proceedings where non-English testimony is given to be made and maintained.

Nebraska LB 451 Amends existing law to provide the cost of interpreter services for persons unable to communicate the English language shall be paid by the state with money appropriated to the Supreme Court for that purpose or from other funds, including grant money, made available to the Supreme Court for such purpose.