It should be noted that of the 11 states that give their legislature some role in the confirmation of appellate judges:

• 6 give at least some appellate  judges a decade or more on the bench between reconfirmations: Delaware (12 years), Hawaii (10 years), South Carolina (10 years), Utah (Supreme Court: 10 years), Virginia (Supreme Court: 12 years),  and New York (Court of Appeals: 14 years)
• 3 give reconfirmation to the House and Senate: Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia
• 3 remove the legislature outright from reconfirmation: Hawaii (judicial nominating commission); Maryland and Utah (retention election)
• 2 at least have the option of lifetime or near-lifetime appointment: Rhode Island (life) and New Jersey (until 70 after reconfirmation)

Roles of legislatures in appellate judicial re-confirmation

Connecticut: 8 year term for Supreme Court and Appellate Court. Judicial Selection Commission evaluates incumbent judge, with statutory presumption “that each incumbent judge who seeks reappointment to the same court qualifies for retention in judicial office” and provides burden on commission to demonstrate otherwise (see 51-44a (e) and (f), of the Connecticut General Statutes). Commission sends reappoint/don’t reappoint recommendation to Governor who renominates incumbent judge. Legislature jointly reconfirms.

Delaware: 12 year term for the Supreme Court. Governor renominates. Senate reconfirms.

Hawaii: 10 year term for Supreme Court and Intermediate Appellate Court. Judicial selection commission reappoints.

Maine: 7 year term for Supreme Judicial Court. Governor renominates. Joint House/Senate legislative committee recommends reconfirmation or rejection. That recommendation is binding unless the Senate overrides with 2/3 vote.

Maryland: 1 year (at least) initial term for Court of Appeals and Court of Special Appeals. Yes/no retention election. 10 year subsequent term.

New Jersey: 7 year initial term. Governor renominates. Senate reconfirms. Service until 70 for subsequent term.

New York (Court of Appeals, state’s court of last resort): 14 year term for Court of Appeals. Commission on Judicial Nomination resubmits names along incumbent’s to Governor. Governor renominates incumbent or nominates new person. Senate confirms or reconfirms.

NOTE: the state’s primary intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, has no role for the legislature in terms of reconfirmation. The Governor elevates and may reappoint to the Appellate Division from the judges elected locally in partisan elections to the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “Supreme Court”). For example, when his 14 year term in the trial court ended in 2011, the Hon. Henry J. Scudder had to run for re-election and then be reappointed back to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see story here).

Rhode Island: N/A (Serve for life)

South Carolina: 10 year term for the Supreme Court, 6 year term for the Court of Appeals. Judicial Merit Selection Commission evaluates incumbent judge and all others seeking position. Commission sends names to Legislature. Legislature jointly reappoints or appoints someone else. (See Title 2, Chapter 19 S.C. Code)

Virginia: 12 year term for the Supreme Court, 6 year term for the Court of Appeals. Legislature jointly reappoints or appoints someone else.

Utah: 3 year (at least) initial term. Yes/no retention election. 10 year subsequent term for Supreme Court, 6 year subsequent term for Court of Appeals.

But the question arises: why Senate confirmation? There’s the case for reference to the U.S. Senate and its role in federal judicial confirmations. And this was consistent when a) state senators were elected by counties to represent the county as a whole (as in New Jersey) or clusters of counties (as in New York) and b) trial judges (and occasionally appellate judges) were picked by districts made up of clusters of counties.

Thanks to one person/one vote decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years, the practice of Senate districts following county lines is over. The practice of appellate judges being chosen based on geography is also on the decline with only 10 states continuing to use the practice for courts of last resort and 17 of 40 states with intermediate appellate courts using district based selection (although Montana may buck the trend in 2012, Oregon voters rejected the idea 2-1 in 2006).

Moreover, as I noted in March, such proposals have fared much better in state senates than in state houses, and history bears this out. In short, when the power to confirm has been handed solely to the state senate, it has had mixed support in the state’s house. The only way it happens, normally, is when there is a litany of other issues in play.

When does Senate confirmation of appellate nominees come into a constitution?

• Conventions changing entire constitution: Delaware, Hawaii, and New Jersey
• Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Judiciary Article: Maryland (1970 attempt) and Utah
• Constitutional amendment changing judicial selection only: Maryland (1976), New York
• Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Executive Branch Article: Maine, Vermont

In the case of Maryland (1976) and New York (1977) the amendments to have Senate confirmation met with lower House approval as part of a package of bills related to the courts.

• Maryland’s 1976 attempt for merit-selection-with-Senate-confirmation was part of a package of bills that included constitutional amendments guaranteeing every county would have at least 1 circuit judge (House Bill 1048), giving District Court juvenile jurisdiction (SB 219), and giving the state’s Chief Judge the power to recall retired judges back into service (SB 817). Voters approved 16 different items on the ballot that year.
• Similarly, New York’s 1977 shift to end elections and have merit-selection-with-Senate-confirmation was one of four judiciary-related constitutional amendments, including a revamp of the state’s entire judicial governance structure and the creation of a commission on judicial conduct. The fourth item, changes to the jurisdiction of town, village and (most) city courts, was rejected.

This institutional inertia may explain some 2011 activity. Consider the following:

• The original Florida House proposal HJR 7111, introduced March 22, 2011 included nothing about Senate confirmation of justices of the planned modified supreme court with civil and criminal panels. The only mention of the Senate was a provision stripping the power of the court(s) to name their chief justice and giving it to the Governor with Senate confirmation. Six days later, SJR 1664 requiring Senate confirmation for the Supreme Court was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 5, the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee gave its approval of SJR 1664. By April 8, SCR 1046) and Oklahoma Senate (SB 621) did not fare as well. The Arizona bill went nowhere. The Oklahoma bill moved through the Senate and was not even brought up for a House committee hearing.

Roles of legislatures in appellate judicial selection

Both chambers

Connecticut: since the 1818 Constitution. An 1880 amendment (Article XXVI) allowed for the Governor to nominate, but still required confirmation by both chambers. A 1986 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission.

Rhode Island: since the 1842 Constitution and kept as part of the 1986 constitution. A 1994 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by an independent non-partisan judicial nominating commission.

South Carolina: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as a part of the 1778, 1790, 1861, 1865 and 1868 constitutions, plus a 1973 revision to the judiciary article. A 1997 constitutional amendment added merit selection allowing the legislature to elect only from those names submitted by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

Virginia: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as part of the 1850, 1861, 1864, 1870, and 1902 constitutions.

Senate only

Delaware: since the 1897 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution specified a joint ballot of both chambers of the general assembly and the “president” (i.e. governor) of the state. The 1792 and 1831 Constitutions placed the power of appointment solely in the hands of the Governor.

Hawaii: since the 1949 Constitution.

Maryland: since a 1976 constitutional amendment. The 1776 Constitution gave appointment to the Governor with the Council “for the time being” and put it solely in the hands of the Governor via an 1837 amendment. Maryland’s 1864 Constitution provided for direct election of the judges of the top court (Court of Appeals), but provided the Governor with Senate confirmation would select the chief judge. The 1867 Constitution made 7 of the 8 chief judges of the state’s judicial circuits the state’s top court and provided the Governor with the confirmation of the Senate would select the chief judge of the Court of Appeals. This practice continued until a 1943 constitutional amendment separated the roles of chief circuit judge from judge of the Court of Appeals but still required direct election. A 1960 amendment reaffirmed direct election, while changing the geographic boundaries.

It should be noted that the Maryland proposal was initially rejected in 1970 (1970 version) and included most courts in the state (judges of the Court of Appeals, intermediate courts of appeal, Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City), increased terms of office to 15 years, and made revisions to the power of the Commission on Judicial Disabilities which had just been created in 1966. The successful 1976 version focused exclusively on merit selection with Senate confirmation for appellate courts only.

New Jersey: since the 1844 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution made the Governor and Council the state’s top court (Court of Appeals). The current 1947 Constitution replicated the Governor-appoints-Senate confirms system of the 1844 Constitution, but with a significant change. Rather than being re-confirmed every 7 years, the justices would face only 2 Senate confirmations: one for their initial appointment and a second after 7 years. If reconfirmed a second time, they would remain in office until age 70.

New York Court of Appeals (state’s court of last resort): sporadically since the 1777 Constitution. Under the 1777 Constitution, a Council on Appointments made up of 4 Senators chosen by the Assembly, plus the Governor (to break ties) was used. The 1821 Constitution changed this to a Governor-appoints-Senate-confirms system. The 1846 Constitution created a bifurcated election system: 4 of the 8 judges would be elected by the statewide, the other 4 would be locally elected judges of the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “supreme court”) “having the shortest time to serve.” A new constitution was voted on, section by section, in 1869; the judicial article was the only one approved. That new article provided for statewide election. The 1894 Constitution and 1938 Constitution continued the statewide election system. A 1977 amendment that revamped much of the Judiciary Article created the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system.

10/24/11 update: Selection to the state’s primary intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, has no role for the legislature. The Governor alone elevates from the judges elected locally in partisan elections to the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “Supreme Court”).

Utah: since a 1984 constitutional amendment. The original 1895 constitution provided for statewide election. The 1984 amendment overhauling the entire Judiciary Article provided for the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system. A subsequent 1992 amendment increased the time for the Senate to consider nominations.

Vermont: since a 1971 constitutional amendment. The 1793 Constitution provide for joint election by the unicameral House and Executive Council, a practice that was continued when the Council was made the Senate via a 1836 amendment. An 1890 effort to shift this to the Senate alone was rejected by the Senate itself but was incorporated into the 1971 revision of the state’s entire Judiciary Article.

Hybrid

Maine: since a 1975 constitutional amendment (L.D. 25). The 1820 Constitution in place when Maine was separated from Massachusetts and became a state kept the Massachusetts practice of supreme court selection method of governor-appoints-and-executive-council-confirms. The 1975 amendment abolishing the Council created the current procedure for confirmation: the Governor nominates and a Joint House/Senate legislative committee recommends confirmation or rejection. That recommendation is binding unless the Senate overrides with 2/3 vote.

Florida HB 7067 / SB 1016 / SB 7018 Re-creates Indigent Civil Defense Trust Fund within Justice Administrative Commission without modification. Repeals provisions that would have terminated the trust fund in 2012. (see also HB 7065 / SB 1014 / SB 7016)

Florida HB 443 / HB 7199 / SB 170 Requires that each public defender implement a system to electronically file court documents with the clerk of the court. Requires Florida Public Defender Association report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by a specified date on the progress made in implementing the electronic filing system.

Georgia HB 238 Reconstitutes and vacates all currently serving members of the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council. Provides for appointing new members. Alters powers and duties of the council and council director, council’s responsibility to set policy and standards, and the director’s responsibility to develop rules and regulations to efficiently administer the provisions of the law related to public defenders. Provides director to appoint circuit public defenders and requires two-thirds vote of council to remove the chairperson of the council or to overturn the director’s decision regarding the removal of a circuit public defender. Requires certain annual reports be prepared by the director, rather than the council, and a copy sent to the Supreme Court.  Changes provisions relating to the circuit public defender supervisory panel. Changes provisions relating to appointing attorneys in conflict of interest cases.

Maryland SB 515 Specifies that an individual whose assets and net annual income are less than 100% of the federal poverty guidelines may be determined eligible for services from the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) without an assessment. Clarifies that the District Court, a Circuit Court, and the Court of Special Appeals are prohibited from appointing an attorney through OPD to represent an indigent individual if (1) there is a conflict in legal representation in a matter involving multiple defendants and one of the defendants is being represented by or through OPD; or (2) OPD declines to provide representation to an indigent individual entitled to representation.

North Carolina HB 243 Provides fee charged by clerk for certificates under seal is waived for appointed attorneys representing indigent clients.

Virginia SB 902 Permits retired justices or judges to appear as counsel in cases in courts of the Commonwealth if (i) the retired justice or judge has been retired for at least two years and is not authorized for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, (ii) the retired justice or judge is appearing as counsel, pro bono, for an indigent person in a civil matter, (iii) such civil matter is assigned or referred to the retired justice or judge by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar, and (iv) the retired justice or judge is not an employee, officer, or board member of such nonprofit legal aid program.

Active/Carried over into 2012

Georgia HB 648 Implements HR 977 (Constitutional Amendment). Creates trust fund for indigent defense dollars collected by clerks. Provides and specifies certain fees and assessments are dedicated to funding legal services for indigent persons accused of crimes and delinquent acts. Provides such funds are to be remitted to the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council.

Georgia HB 977 (Constitutional Amendment) Creates trust fund for indigent defense dollars collected by clerks. Provides and specifies certain fees and assessments are dedicated to funding legal services for indigent persons accused of crimes and delinquent acts.

Approved by one chamber

West Virginia HB 3067 / SB 549 Increases certain civil filings fees currently collected by circuit courts, and impose a new docketing fee for unspecified civil appeals including family court appeals but not including Workers’ Comp cases or, presumably, actions in the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction, to be collected by the Court and paid, at its discretion, to either Legal Aid of West Virginia (LAWV) or into the Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Accounts (IOLTA) fund. Approved by full House, died in Senate Finance Committee.

West Virginia SB 568 Clarifies that an attorney from the public defender office shall be appointed by a judge in all cases where an attorney-at-law is required to be appointed for an eligible client. Approved by full Senate, died in House Judiciary Committee.

West Virginia SCR 79 Requests Joint Committee on Government and Finance study need for authorizing executive director of Public Defender Services control over public defender corporations. Approved by full Senate, died in House.

Died in committee

North Carolina SB 596 Expands state’s office of public defender system to every county in state. Realigns public defender districts accordingly.

Virginia HB 1570 / SB 908 Increases from $10 to $14 fee on most civil actions filed in trial courts to pay for free civil legal representation provided for the poor by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar. Changes from $9 to $13 the amount that, from such additional fee, is to be credited to the Virginia State Bar’s Legal Aid Services Fund.

West Virginia SB 482 Requires public defender corporations of all the judicial circuits to be centralized under the executive director of Public Defender Services and grants executive director rulemaking authority.

HB 523 Requires the State Court Administrator to assess a $100 fee for the special admission of an out-of-state attorney and to pay $75 of the fee into the Janet L. Hoffman Loan Assistance Repayment Program.

SB 281 (Constitutional Amendment) ORIGINAL: Requires Orphan’s Court judges in Baltimore and Prince George’s County be attorneys. AMENDED: Removes reference to Baltimore County. Requires Orphan’s Court judges in Prince George’s County be attorneys. On November 2012 ballot.

HJR 7 Creates a Commission to Study Campaign Finance Law. Commission to examine various issues, including public financing of campaigns for judicial offices, including the costs and practical funding sources available outside of the State’s general fund. Requires interim report by December 31, 2011 & final report December 31, 2012.

Florida HB 347 / SB 514 Requires defendant who was arrested for leaving scene of crash involving death to be held in custody until brought before judge for admittance to bail in certain circumstances.

Florida HB 575 / SB 844 Authorizes court, in determining whether to require or set amount of bail, to consider likelihood that person will be imprisoned for violation of probation or community control.

Maryland HB 682 / SB 809 Prohibits a court that exercises criminal jurisdiction from refunding a forfeiture of bail or collateral at a specified time unless a private surety pays a forfeiture of bail or collateral within a specified time period after a defendant’s failure to appear. Requires a court to refund a forfeiture of bail bond or collateral that was not paid within a specified time period after a defendant’s failure to appear under specified circumstances.

North Carolina HB 649 Amends laws pertaining to grounds for revocation of licensure regulating bail bondsman and allowing a bail agent on behalf of a surety company to make written motions setting aside bail forfeiture and relief from final judgment of bail forfeiture under laws pertaining the criminal procedure.

Virginia HB 1713 Adds to the list of crimes charged for which there is a presumption against admission to bail, subject to rebuttal, obstruction of justice where a person threatens bodily harm or force to knowingly attempt to intimidate or impede a witness.

Virginia HB 2060 Provides that a magistrate who is to set the terms of bail of a person arrested and brought before him pursuant to a capias shall, unless circumstances exist that require him to impose more restrictive terms of bail, set bail in accordance with the order of the court that issued the capias if such an order is affixed to or made a part of the capias by the court.

Virginia HB 2106  / SB 925 Allows GPS for persons on secured bond.

Virginia HB 2437 Provides that a licensed bail bondsman shall not charge less than 10 percent or more than 15 percent of the amount of the bond for a bail bond premium and shall not loan money with interest for the purpose of helping another obtain a bail bond. Defines bail bond premium as the amount of money paid to a licensed bail bondsman for the execution of a bail bond.

Introduced with committee and/or floor approval

Florida HB 1379 Provides that a defendant is eligible to receive government-funded pretrial release only by order of the court after the court finds in writing, upon consideration of the defendant’s affidavit of indigence: That the defendant is indigent or partially indigent as set forth in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the defendant has not previously failed to appear at any required court proceeding. Prohibits defendants from participating in a pretrial release program if the defendant’s income is over 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines prescribed for the size of the household of the defendant by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, unless the defendant is receiving certain financial assistance. Requires that defendants who seek to post a surety bond pursuant to a bond schedule established by administrative order as an alternative to government-funded pretrial release be permitted to do so without any interference or restriction by a pretrial release program. Requires pretrial release programs certify annually, in writing, to the chief circuit court judge, that the program has complied with the reporting requirements in current statutes.

Florida HB 265 Requires court considering whether to release defendant on bail to determine whether defendant is subject to registration as sexual offender or predator and, if so, to hold defendant without bail until first appearance on case.

Florida HB 7089 Requires a court, when determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, to consider the defendant’s legal residency status in the United States.

North Carolina SB 756 Revises laws related to pretrial release programs. Eliminates unsecured appearance bond as a pretrial release condition. Provides no state funds may be appropriated for the support of a pretrial release program.

South Carolina HB 3895 / SB 795 Provides that an appearance bond is valid for a certain time period in circuit and magistrates or municipal courts under certain circumstances. Provides a procedure to relieve the surety of liability when the time period has run.

Virginia HB 2332  Provides if judicial officer concurs in the determination of police officer that defendant is present in U.S. illegally and finds probable cause to believe that the person will not appear for trial or hearing, the judicial officer may refuse to admit the person to bail.

Introduced with committee rejection

Florida SB 372 Requires each pretrial release program established by ordinance of a county commission, by administrative order of a court, or by any other means in order to assist in the release of a defendant from pretrial custody to conform to the eligibility criteria set forth by the act. Preempts any conflicting local ordinances, orders, or practices. Requires that the defendant satisfy certain eligibility criteria in order to be assigned to a pretrial release program, etc

Florida SB 494 Requires a court considering whether to release a defendant on bail to determine whether the defendant is subject to registration as a sexual offender or predator and, if so, to hold the defendant without bail until the first appearance on the case.

Maryland HB 272 Requires, notwithstanding any other law or Maryland Rule, that a court or a District Court commissioner ask a defendant to provide information on the defendant’s legal status in the United States before the court or a District Court commissioner authorizes the defendant’s pretrial release on bail or personal recognizance. Authorizes the court or a District Court commissioner to consider the information on the defendant’s legal status in deciding whether to authorize the pretrial release of the defendant.

Maryland HB 1264 Prohibits a District Court commissioner from authorizing the pretrial release of a defendant charged with causing abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult in the first or second degree.

Maryland HB 768 / SB 940 Allows a defendant in a circuit court or the District Court or a private surety acting for the defendant who posts a bail bond in an amount that is 10% of the penalty amount to deposit with the clerk of court half of the amount immediately and the other half within 6 months later.

Introduced with other or no activity

Georgia HB 32 Revises the requirements for releasing a person on his or her own recognizance.

Georgia HB 252 Add violations for which cash bonds can be accepted in lieu of bail and proceedings for failure to appear.

Georgia HB 288 Require as a condition of bail for certain offenses that DNA collection be performed on the person seeking bond.

Maryland HB 898 / SB 686 Provides that if a bail bondsman arranges to accept payment of a bail bond premium in installments, the installment agreement shall include information about the total premium amount owed, down payment made, and other terms of the installment contract. Requires that information about the bail bond premium installment payment agreement be included in an affidavit of surety. Requires bail bondsmen, if arranging bail bond premium installment agreements, to follow specified collection procedures.

North Carolina SB 740 Allows a bail agent on behalf of a surety company to make written motions setting aside bail forfeiture and relief from final judgment of bail forfeiture under laws pertaining the criminal procedure.

South Carolina SB 45 & SB 266 Provides Circuit Court to hear  motions regarding reconsideration of bond for general sessions offenses. Provides defense motions to reconsider may be heard by the circuit court only upon the defendant’s prima facie showing of a material change in circumstances.

South Carolina SB 267 Provides a person committing or attempting to commit a general sessions offense while on bail bond must be imprisoned five years in addition to the punishment for the principal offense.

West Virginia HB 2068 Provides certain specific statutory conditions of bond in cases involving crimes between family or household members in lieu of allowing the issuing authority to set conditions of bail.

In its 2011 session, the Maryland General Assembly considered raising the existing limit from $5,000 to $10,000. Although ultimately rejected, this video is testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on February 16, 2011 on the subject gives a fairly broad overview of the pros and cons.

Proponents’ Testimony

Opponents’ Testimony

This special edition of Gavel to Gavel released today looks at those items as well as those currently circulating for signatures.

While much attention has been paid to selection of judges, much activity occurred in 2011 on the subject of whether clerks should be elected and, if so, how. Bills in Arkansas (HB 1417), Maryland (HB 955), Oklahoma (HB 1307, SB 139, SB 181, SB 205, SB 327), Oregon (HB 3638), and South Carolina (HB 3134) all considering making the races for clerk of court nonpartisan elections.

The Maryland House Ways and Means Committee debated the subject on March 8 of this year, with both proponents and opponents of the bill making their cases. Video of the hearing is below.

One note on the video: Registers of wills are the clerks of Maryland Orphans‘ Courts under the state’s Constitution (Art. IV, § 41) and statute (Estates and Trusts Code 2-208).

Part 1 (Proponents)

Part 2 (Opponents)

Florida HB 1139 & SB 290 Provides after July 2011, all judges/justices are to receive judicial retirement credit of 2% (currently 3.33%) of average final compensation for each year of creditable service as a judge/justice.

Florida HB 1405 Changes employer contribution rates for judges/justices from 20.65% to 7.26%. Reduces the disability rate for justices and judges to one third of his or her monthly compensation. AMENDED: Changes employer contribution rates for judges/justices from 20.65% to 15.19%. Establishes additional employer contribution rates for the purpose of funding the unfunded actuarial liabilities: 0.39% (effective July 2011) and 12.05% (effective July 2012). Removes reduction and maintains the current disability benefit for justices and judges.

Georgia HB 250 Provides Georgia Judicial Retirement System member who rejected survivor’s benefits may elect such benefits by paying the actuarial cost. For those becoming members allows one-time election to convert the retirement allowance otherwise payable to him or her into a modified retirement allowance of equivalent actuarial value and designate a natural person to receive. Provides for the event of death or divorce of member of system and for the payment of the remainder of a member’s accumulated contributions.

Georgia HB 344 Provides juvenile court judges and other members of Georgia Judicial Retirement System may obtain creditable service for prior service as a full-time associate juvenile court judge.

Georgia HB 533 Permits transfer of funds from the Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia to the Georgia Judicial Retirement System by judges and to obtain creditable service. Expands transfer of funds authority to include juvenile court judges.

Georgia HB 542 Permits transfer of funds from the Georgia Judicial Retirement System to the Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia and to obtain creditable service. Expands transfer of funds authority to include juvenile court judges.

Kentucky HB 480 ORIGINAL: Requires members of the Judicial Form Retirement System and other specified retirement systems who are not subject to legislative or judicial branch code of ethics shall be subject to the executive branch code of ethics. Requires the audit of the Judicial Form Retirement System by the Auditor of Public Accounts at least once every five years and require the system to pay all costs of the audit. Prohibits members of the Judicial Form Retirement System from serving more than three consecutive terms of office on the board and prohibits the board chairman from serving more than six consecutive years as chairman. Prohibits assets of the Judicial Form Retirement System from being used to pay placement agents. Requires the Judicial Form Retirement System to make system expenditures and employee salaries available on a Web site. Establishes conflict-of-interest provisions applicable to trustees and employees of the Kentucky Judicial Form Retirement System. AMENDED: Deletes measures affecting the Judicial Form Retirement System board term limits, board chair term limits, expand or establish conflicts of interest requirements for board members and employees of the board; require the Auditor of Public Accounts to conduct the system financial audit.

Kentucky SB 2 Closes Judicial Retirement Plan to new members effective July 1, 2012. Allows those in Judicial Retirement Plan with less than 5 years of service to transfer their membership and account balance to the Public Employees Retirement System.

Maryland SB 6 Provides that, on or after July 1, 2011, an individual not already a member of the Judges’ Retirement System may not join.

Maryland SB 735 Provides that, on or after July 1, 2011, an individual not already a member of the Judges’ Retirement System may not join.

Mississippi HB 464 & SB 2154 Includes all remuneration or amounts paid (except mileage allowance) to Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals as “earned compensation” for retirement fund purposes.

Oklahoma HB 1005 Creates the Task Force on Pension Benefit Funding and Security to examine Judges and Justice Retirement System and other systems.

Oklahoma HB 1006 Creates Task Force on Pension Benefit Funding and Security to examine judge’s retirement system and other retirement systems.

Oklahoma HB 1010 AS AMENDED: Modifies provisions related to normal retirement age for members entering the Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges on or after January 1, 2012. Eliminates the provision whereby a member with 8 years of judicial service may retire when the sum of their age and years of service equals or exceeds 80. Decreases the multiplier used to calculate the retirement benefit for members entering  on or after January 1, 2012 from 4% to 2%.

Oklahoma HB 2057 Prohibits cost of living adjustment for Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges unless system has a funded ratio which equals or exceeds85%

Oklahoma HB 2132 Modifies judicial and other retirement systems funding ratios and cost of living adjustments. Changes the definition of a “nonfiscal retirement bill” by removing the provision that allows a cost-of-living increase to be considered nonfiscal. Stipulates that any retirement bill having a fiscal impact is subject to the statutory requirements related to concurrent funding.

Oklahoma SB 53 Eliminates provision allowing up to five years of prior military service to be entered as credit towards the Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges.

Oklahoma SB 310 Creates the Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges Reform Act of 2011 (placeholder).

Oklahoma SB 311 Creates the Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges Reform Act of 2011 (placeholder).

Oklahoma SJR 19 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires the Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges to have a funded ratio which equals or exceeds 90%.

South Carolina HB 3568 & SB 531 Closes state retirement system for judges and solicitors to future judges and requires they enroll in state’s retirement investment plan instead.

Tennessee HB 1622 &  SB 1498 Revises retirement provisions for general sessions judges from Group 1 to Group 4 level.

Texas HB 390 & SB 1223 Modifies service retirement annuity for appellate judges under the Judicial Retirement System Plan Two.

HB 930 and HB 1165 would require Orphans’ Court judges in Baltimore County (which is different and distinct from the independent city of Baltimore) be attorneys. Interestingly, while HB 930 is in the House Judiciary Committee, while HB 1165 is in the House Rules Committee.

On the Senate side, SB 832, which was limited to Baltimore County only, was withdrawn by its  sponsor on March 21. Instead, SB 281, which includes Baltimore and Prince George’s counties was approved unanimously by the Senate on March 8 and is set for a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee March 30.