Posts Tagged ‘Kentucky’

« Older Entries

Veterans Courts: 2013 legislatures are both encouraging them and trying to give the executive control over them

February 26th, 2013

I’ve been monitoring for the last several years legislative interest in veterans courts, and 2013 appears to bear out the continued interest in them. Many states already operate such courts through court rule or the calendar/docketing practices of individual judges, such as in Buffalo, New York where the a veterans court has operated for years.

What sets 2013′s bills apart is the shift in focus from establishment (such bills are still being introduced) to encouragement and control.

3 states (Kentucky HR 118, Oregon HCR 24, Washington State SB 5797) are considering bills or resolutions “encouraging” or “urging” veterans courts.

3 states (Oregon’s HB 3194 and HB 3195; Texas SB 462, South Carolina’s HB 3014) would transfer to or establish it is the executive branch, not the judiciary, that is to create veterans courts and/or set the rules for their operation.

Details and current status of the efforts below the fold. » Read more: Veterans Courts: 2013 legislatures are both encouraging them and trying to give the executive control over them

No comments »

Posted in Rule Making Authority, Structure Changes

Tags:

Kentucky becomes fourth state this session to consider letting state chief justice or supreme court redistrict state’s courts and reallocate judgeships

February 25th, 2013

I mentioned earlier in February that 3 states (Kansas, Missouri, and to a limited extend Wyoming) are considering allowing their supreme court and/or chief justice reallocate judgeships and even redraw judicial circuit/district lines based on workload assessments and without legislative involvement. I also noted that Iowa had effectively done both in the last several years. Now Kentucky is considering a similar effort to give control of the judicial redistricting and resource allocation process to the judiciary.

Kentucky HB 391 would amend the state’s constitution to include two new elements.

  1. The Chief Justice, not the legislature, would redistrict the state’s District and Circuit judicial lines every 10 years based on the census AND in reflection not just of population but “to reflect workload.” The language echoes a 2003 law adopted in Iowa (HB 573, now Iowa Code 602.6107) that requires the supreme court redistrict every 10 years, starting in 2012, based on “the most efficient and effective administration of the district court and the judicial branch.”
  2. The Chief Justice, not the legislature, would reallocate judgeships, similar to the scheme enacted in 2011 in Iowa (SB326 now Iowa Code  602.6113). Under the existing Kentucky constitutional provisions the number of judges in each judicial district or circuit are determined by the General Assembly upon a certification of necessity by the Supreme Court.

Kentucky HB 391 is currently before the House Elections, Constitutional Amendments, and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Structure Changes

Tags:

With 4 of 7 justices on 2014 ballot, Kentucky plan for public financing of Supreme Court campaigns up for hearing today

February 20th, 2013

For the third year in a row, Kentucky is considering public financing for at least some of their judicial elections. This year may be the most critical as almost the entire judiciary is on the 2014 ballot (Supreme Court Districts 1, 2, 4, and 6; all or most of the Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, and District Court).

HB 31 would provide for optional public financing for the state’s Supreme Court only. This is in contrast to the 2011 version (HB 21) which covered all judicial races but is in keeping with the 2012 version (HB 230) which was Supreme Court focused.

Under the plan, a candidate would have to get $25 contributions from 200 people to qualify. Funding would come from an income tax refund check-off, unspent funds from other campaigns, voluntary contributions from the state’s bar association.

While the 2011 bill covering all judicial elections went nowhere, the 2012 bill did get approved by the House Judiciary Committee 9-6 with 8 Democrats on the committee joined by a single Republican

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Kentucky legislator introduces bill to have ABA review state’s Judicial Retirement and Removal Commission

December 17th, 2012

Kentucky’s Judicial Retirement and Removal Commission, and in particular its funding, is the focus of HB 61 of 2013 prefiled last week. Under the bill the Administrative Office of the Courts would have to separate the Commission’s budge request and would make the Commission’s executive secretary responsible for expenditures.

Perhaps even more intriguing is a provision asking the American Bar Association perform a study of the commission:

Toward the goal of increasing the efficiency of state government, the General Assembly hereby requests that the American Bar Association (ABA) evaluate the operation of the Judicial Retirement and Removal Commission, including its structure, rules, procedures, and its fiscal policies, including its contracting procedures. If the ABA conducts the evaluation requested, it shall forward its recommendations to the Kentucky Supreme Court and to the General Assembly for use in developing an efficient and fair manner of funding and oversight.

The Kentucky legislature comes back into session January 8.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Kentucky Legislative Year in Review: judicial retirement/pensions, redistricting appellate courts

December 6th, 2012

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

HB 1 Redistricts state supreme court & court of appeals.

HB 54 Adds judges to the list of persons to be notified upon the release or escape of an involuntary committed person.

HB 171 Permits retired Commonwealths or county attorney and retired assistant Commonwealths or county attorneys to carry a concealed deadly weapon statewide, including into courthouses.

HB 300 Requires that an audit of the Judicial Form Retirement System shall be performed by the Auditor of Public Accounts at least once every five years. Requires the governing board and investment committee for the Judicial Retirement Plan establish ethics policies and procedures. Establishes term limits for members and chairs of the Board of Trustees of the Judicial Retirement System. Requires the Judicial Form Retirement System to make available on a public website all system expenditures, except protected individual retirement-specific records of members/retirees of the Judicial Retirement Plan;  establish conflict of interest provisions for System trustees and employees; and mandate that no funds of the Judicial Retirement Plan shall be used to pay unregulated placement agents.

HCR 162 Establish the Kentucky Public Pensions Task Force to examine all state pensions, including Judicial Retirement Plan.

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

Supreme Court Justice to testify to interim legislative committee July 12 on Kentucky Access to Justice Commission’s Veterans Task Force

July 10th, 2012

Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott, chair of the Kentucky Access to Justice Commission’s Veterans Task Force is set to testify July 12 to the the state legislature’s Interim Joint Committee on Veterans, Military Affairs, and Public Protection.

The task force has looked at efforts to identify through information acquisition systems whether a veteran is a party in case and if appropriate, as determined by the judge, partnering with Veterans Administration to try and help. This includes training judges to be knowledgeable about what services are available to vets and a pilot veterans court in Jefferson County. The point is not to change the law, but to address neurological effects of modern combat and match vets with services.

No comments »

Posted in Interim Activities

Tags:

Kentucky Interim Joint Committee on the Judiciary to meet July 6 in a High School

July 2nd, 2012

Kentucky’s Interim Joint Committee on the Judiciary is set to meet July 6. On the agenda, an examination of drugs, including:

  • Drug Bills introduced from the last session on Pseudoephedrine, Prescription Drugs/Pill Mills, & Synthetic Drugs
  • Treatment
  • Education

The hearing is set for McCreary Central High School in Stearns, Kentucky.

No comments »

Posted in Interim Activities

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:

Kentucky House Judiciary Committee approves plan for public financing of Supreme Court races on 9-7 party line vote UPDATED: 9-6 non-party line vote

March 15th, 2012

As I noted previously, Kentucky has almost its entire judiciary on the ballot in 2014, including 5 of the state supreme court’s 7 members. It is this, plus the view of judicial elections in other states and concern over the impact Citizens United has had on elections, that has prompted several bills in the last few years to create a public financing system for judicial elections in the state.

First, some background.

The first attempt at a Kentucky “clean judicial elections” fund was in 2006. HB 682 of that year covered all judicial elections for trial and appellate courts. It met with approval in the House Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee and was floor amended to permit the Supreme Court to require members of the Kentucky Bar Association to submit an annual fixed amount not to exceed $25 to be dedicated to the clean judicial elections fund. It was then sent to the House Appropriations and Revenue Committee where it died.

From 2006 to 2010 there were no indications the bill was reintroduced. In 2011, HB 21 was put forward with much (if not all) the same language of the 2006 bill. This time it failed to advance in the House Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee.

2012 saw two iterations: HB 47 (which was withdrawn almost the day it was introduced) and HB 230. The major difference: HB 47 would have covered all judicial races (like HB 682 of 2006 had) while HB 230 is focused only on Supreme Court races. While initially sent back to the House Elections committee, HB 230 was re-assigned two weeks after introduction to the House Judiciary Committee.

The video below is from two hearings before the House Judiciary Committee: the informational hearing held February 29 and the actual committee vote held March 14, where the committee voted 9 to 7 along party lines (all Democrats in favor, all Republicans opposed) to advance the bill.

UPDATE 3/15/12: I misheard some of the audio. According to this news account the vote was 9-6 with 8 Democrats joined by Republican Rep. Michael Nemes (h/t Gavel Grab).

1 comment »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection, Video

Tags:

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

January 18th, 2012

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

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

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

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

2 comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags: