Posts Tagged ‘Minnesota’

« Older Entries

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

May 14th, 2012

With most legislatures now out of session, the last month saw little activity on legislation dealing with bans on court use of sharia/international law, but what there was was all in the last week:

May 7: Kansas’ House approves unanimously (120-0)  SB 79 as amended by the House, a statute to ban the use of foreign or international law.

May 8: New Hampshire’s Senate Judiciary Committee recommended referring that state’s version (HB 1422) to an interim summer study.

May 9: Alabama’s Senate voted to indefinitely postpone and effective kill proposed constitutional amendment SB 84.

May 10: New Jersey’s AB 919, which the author had previously noted would be withdrawn, was formally removed from the legislature.

May 11: Kansas’ Senate approved SB 79 on a 33-3 vote. Proponents went out of their way during the debate to note the word “sharia” was not included in the bill, however news reports indicate that sharia was the focus of the bill when introduced and was specifically mentioned during debate.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

4 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Merit selection: comprehensive state-by-state review of efforts to create systems

April 11th, 2012

Yesterday I looked at efforts to get rid of or modify existing merit selection systems in the 30 states that have them for initial and/or interim judicial vacancies. Today, I’ll be looking at the efforts to get them into places/states that do not already have them 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.

Minnesota HB 1666 / SB 1465 – These constitutional amendments would establish a merit selection system with retention elections for judges. Terms of office would be extended from six to eight years. Additionally, a judicial performance commission would be formed, which must issue in the judge’s retention election year a retention evaluation of “well-qualified,” “qualified,” or “unqualified”. There was a hearing on the House bill in May 2011 and they were carried over into the 2012 session.

This is the 5th year in a row such a bill has been considered: prior iterations made it out of committee but never advanced beyond their chambers of origin. The closet was SF 3129 of 2008 which would have taken the existing merit selection system in place to temporarily fill interim vacancies in District Court and applied it to the appellate courts. It passed 55-12 in the Senate but failed to move in the House.

North Carolina HB 325 and SB 458 – There were several hearings in 2011 on the prospect of creating some sort of merit selection system in North Carolina, but instead of using retention elections providing that the person chosen and the person not selected by the governor would face off in an election after. For a review of the hearings, check out the coverage from Gavel Grab. In terms of actual legislation the two bills were introduced in 2011 and carried over into 2012.

Pennsylvania HB 1815 / SB 843 – These constitutional amendments and their corresponding statutory changes (HB 1816 / SB 842) would create a merit selection system with Senate confirmation for the state’s 3 appellate courts. The constitutional amendments also broadly describe the composition of the merit selection commission. A hearing was conducted in November 2011 and other in March 2012.

Wisconsin SJR 42 – Submitted in September 2011 for the 2012 session, the constitutional amendment, like the Minnesota example, gave no specificity as to membership of the commission that would submit names to fill appellate court vacancies to the governor. There were no hearings on the bill and it died when the legislature adjourned.

No comments »

Posted in Selection, Special Edition

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:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Activity in Missouri, Kansas tries to tie to Citizens United

April 9th, 2012

This post has been updated, click here.

The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen two notable pieces of activity.

The first was in Kansas. As noted in the last update SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia. The House changed the bill entirely, substituting the language of HB 2087 for the original bill. When brought to the full House, a further amendment was offered to, in effect, declare the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United void.

Except as expressly provided by law, no corporation shall be deemed to hold the same rights and privileges possessed by natural persons.

That amendment failed 46-74. The House substitute language was approved March 28 and sent to a House/Senate conference committee.

The second piece of activity was in Missouri. There, HB 1512 (the “Civil Liberties Defense Act”) was approved by full House on March 27. A similar Senate bill was approved in committee in February and could be taken up for a Senate floor vote as early as tomorrow (April 10).

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Activity in Missouri, Kansas tries to tie to Citizens United

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Minnesota judicial discipline legislation would allow appeals to legislative committee from Board of Judicial Standards

March 23rd, 2012

Details are starting emerge about possible legislative changes to the judicial disciplinary process in Minnesota. As I noted yesterday a strike all amendment was being offered today to an existing bill (SB 2205) that as originally drafted would have let a newly reconstituted Board of Judicial Standards, made up of only legislators, open any prior complaint against any judge “for any reason.”

The amendment removes all language regarding changes to the Board, creation of a legislatively enacted Code of Judicial Conduct, etc.

Section 1 does broach the issue of reopening existing complaints. It amends existing statutes (490A.02 Subd. 4) to add a new paragraph that reads

(b) Upon receipt of a referral from the Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Ethics, the board shall reopen a matter previously disposed of by the board.

Section 2 creates a Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Ethics, made up of the House Ethics Committee and Senate Rules and Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct. A person who field a complaint with the Board and remained dissatisfied with the Board’s decision could send it on to the Joint Committee, which would then have several options:

  1. they could determine the judge is “disabled, incompetent, has committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, or has otherwise violated the Code of Judicial Conduct or other law applicable to judicial administration or conduct” and refer the matter back to the Board
  2. they could determine grounds for impeachment exist and recommend the House in fact impeach the judge
  3. they could dismiss the complaint (though not explicit in the bill, the author stated this was an option at today’s hearing)

Joint committee meetings would be subject to the state’s open meetings law, but could be closed a majority vote of the Joint Committee at the preliminary stage only. If further proceedings were deemed warranted by the committee, the allegations or charges “must be open” unless:

  • a judge’s health records, a judge’s medical conditions, or other information not deemed publicly accessible under existing state law (Chapter 13) are discussed
  • non-publicly accessible information under the rules of the judicial branch is discussed
  • non-publicly accessible information under some other law regarding public access to records is discussed

Nevertheless, a judge could insist on an open meeting at any point in time.

The bill, as amended, was immediately tabled.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Rule Making Authority

Tags:

Minnesota Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety to look at judicial discipline tomorrow; as-yet unreleased strike all amendment to be offered

March 22nd, 2012

I’ve mentioned that over the course of the last year, indeed the last several years, the Minnesota legislature has had a keen interest in the state’s judicial disciplinary board (the Board of Judicial Standards) and has indicated an interest in creating a statutory Code of Judicial Conduct (rather than letting the state supreme court do so).

In the Minnesota Senate this effort has taken the form of SB 2205, itself the companion bill to HB 1568 which was introduced last year. As I noted when HB 1568 was introduced, the bills:

  1. Strips the Supreme Court of the power to suspend temporarily a judge during an investigation and transfers it to the Board exclusively.
  2. Strips the Supreme Court of the power to “retire” permanently a judge and transfers it to the Board exclusively.
  3. Allows the newly constituted Board to open any prior complaint against any judge “for any reason.”
  4. Gives the Board the power to enforce a new Code of Judicial Conduct enacted by the legislature

A meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, to which SB 2205 was referred, is set for tomorrow March 23. Interestingly, a revision has been made to the agenda, indicating an as yet unreleased “delete everything amendment will be considered for discussion… No public testimony will be taken at this time. The bill as amended will be discussed and then laid on the table. No final vote will be considered.”

The meeting is to start 9:00 local time and may have video streaming here.

 

1 comment »

Posted in Other, Rule Making Authority

Tags:

Minnesota bill would cut judicial funding for every dollar court orders state to pay

March 21st, 2012

Bills that would prohibit courts from ordering or directing the expenditure of state funds are nothing new. When courts have ordered increased funding, for schools for example, there has been anecdotal evidence that court budgets have been reduced in retaliation. Minnesota’s SB 2454, however, adds a new twist: direct and explicit fiscal retaliation against the courts for any such order.

The bill contains two provisions. The first is the general prohibition on the court ordering of expenditures.

A court may not: (1) order the governor, an executive branch agency, or the legislature to spend money or to otherwise incur a financial obligation; or (2) appropriate money unless pursuant to an enacted law.

The unique element is in the second clause.

Reduction in court budget; determination by commissioner of management and budget. If the commissioner of management and budget determines that money has been paid out of the state treasury as a result of a court order directing that money be spent to continue the operation of a state function in the absence of an appropriation, the commissioner shall reduce the current general fund operating budget appropriation to the court by the amount determined. If no operating budget for the court has been enacted, the commissioner shall make the specified reduction in the next enacted court budget.

The bill seems to stem from instances in 2011 and 2005. There, the state failed to pass a budget by the constitutional deadline, leading to partial government shutdowns. The courts were requested to step in and order at least some “essential services” be maintained. In 2011 this prompted several bills that would have defined “essential services” and curtailed the judiciary’s power to order some funding.

SB 2454 is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Creating court security fees in Minnesota

March 20th, 2012

The recent spate of courthouse shootings and attacks has brought the focus back to court security and specifically how to pay for it.

Several states provide for court security fees to be added to civil and/or criminal cases. Minnesota is considering such a plan, one that would allow counties that feel the need for such a fee to impose it up to $15.

This video is from the March 15, 2012 hearing on the bill (HF 2000) before the Minnesota House Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Salary & Budget, Video

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Bills withdrawn in Minnesota and New Jersey, Kansas House attaches ban to unrelated bill

March 20th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright.

Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV:

Before the bill was even introduced, the author, Republican Dave Thompson pulled it. “It was never my intent to introduce legislation that was being targeted to any one group,” said Thompson.

The second bill was New Jersey’s AB 919 (introduced in the 2010/2011 session as AB 3496). Introduced January 10 of this year, the bill was withdrawn last week. The NJ Assembly Republicans blog on March 13 quotes the bill’s author (GOP Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi):

In the climate of what has been transpiring in the Muslim community in New Jersey, they were concerned it would further, in their view, portray Muslims in a negative light. After sitting and listening to their concerns, I agreed to withdraw it.

The legislature’s website, however, does not yet show the bill has having been formally withdrawn. (No direct link to bill status page, follow this link and search for bill AB 919).

The other activity was in Kansas. SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia. Instead, it made a modification to an existing state program that helped courts recover fees/fines owed. That bill passed the Senate unanimously.

Yesterday (March 19) the House changed the bill entirely. The House substitute for SB 79 simply replicates the language of HB 2087, which the House had passed in 2011 and the Senate had declined to advance.

Readers may recognize this tactic on the part of the Kansas House. When the House approved bills to end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals, bills the Senate did not take up, the House started to add provisions to unrelated bills (see here, here, and here). The difference here is that rather than tacking on the new provision to the existing bill, this effort simply replaces the text of the bill entirely.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Bills withdrawn in Minnesota and New Jersey, Kansas House attaches ban to unrelated bill

3 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Should Minnesota judges be elected by county or by judicial district? Should they forfeit their retirement if they resign before their term is over?

March 14th, 2012

Discussions of judicial selection focus more often than not on the method: merit selection, nonpartisan, partisan, etc. Another key component, however, is the geographic basis for election. In sum, how small should the geographic area be electing a judge, especially when it comes to trial judges? Minnesota is debating that and, in the same bills, a great deal more.

First, some background.

Trial judges are generally chosen in multicounty districts/circuits, by county, or by towns/municipalities within a county (where applicable). There are instances where judges are chosen without regard to location (e.g. Delaware Superior & Chancery, Connecticut Superior) or by precincts within a county (e.g. Arizona Justice of the Peace, Illinois’s Circuit Court with respect to Cook County/Chicago). A full review can be found in State Court Organization, 2004 Table 6, located here.

Minnesota’s sole trial court (District) is elected in 10 districts for 87 counties, with two districts being single county entities (2nd = Ramsey; 4th = Hennepin).

This article in Minnesota Lawyer discusses the belief that more localized judicial elections would be fairer, a concept that has manifested in 2012 as HB 1474 & SB 1508.

Under the proposals judges would be elected by county or judicial election precinct within a county and provides for a transition mechanism.

What makes HB 1474 and SB 1508 stand apart from other such proposals introduced in other states is the added elements that have nothing to do with election-by-county.

The first provision would penalize judges for retiring before the end of their term. An incumbent judge or justice would not be allowed to run for re-election unless they make a signed “commitment” that they will remain in office until

  • the expiration of the term of office
  • the mandatory retirement date
  • the December of a general election year
  • the disability date
  • appointment to another office of government
  • inability to serve due to a compelling physical or personal reason (the reason must be approved by the Court of Appeals)

A judge or justice who retires for any reason other than those specified forfeits 25% of their retirement annuity.

Moreover, the bills create the judicial position formally entitled “placeholder” and provides a governor may appoint a “placeholder” to fill a judicial vacancy until a successor is elected and qualified.

Finally, the bill amends current judicial retirement law. Judges must now resign at the end of the month he or she 70; HB 1474 and SB 1508 would let them serve until the end of the year of a general election after the judge turns 70.

The House bill is pending in the Government Operations and Elections Committee, while the Senate bill is in the Local Government and Elections Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Selection, Structure Changes

Tags: