Posts Tagged ‘Minnesota’

« Older Entries

Shifting some traffic cases out of Minnesota courts as a cost savings measure

May 30th, 2013

In many states traffic court is just that, a division of some court that hears traffic tickets and citations. In several states, however, traffic tickets are handled administratively, either by an administrative agency within the court or by a completely independent agency. Minnesota’s legislature has been debating moving towards the later for the last several years.

Minnesota’s current statute (169A.53) provides the current process for DWI cases: the driver is arrested and faces both criminal and civil sanctions. Among the civil penalties: driver’s license revocation and impoundment of the state issued license plate. Currently the civil side revocation/impoundment provisions allow for an appeal to the state’s trial court (District Court) however as a cost savings measure the state’s legislature has been debating a pilot program allowing appeals instead to the executive branch’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

The first such iterations were introduced in 2010, both as part of packages of cost savings measures (HB 3449 / SB 3134 and HB 3607 / SB 3229) as well as a stand alone bill (HB 3479 / SB 3010). The House standalone bill was approved by the House Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee but died in the House State & Local Government Committee.

The issue lay relatively dormant until this year when the bills were reintroduced as HB 858 / SB 416 and changed into a pilot project until 2016. The House version is pending in the Transportation Policy Committee while the Senate version is in the Judiciary Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other

Tags:

Merit selection update: TN still a mystery; repeal in OK appears dead for 2013; effort to adopt advances in MN; AZ increases number of names

April 9th, 2013

With legislatures starting to wind down for 2013, efforts to adopt, modify, or end merit selection are up against key deadlines

1) On April 5 Arizona’s governor  signed HB 2600, a bill to require the state’s merit selection commissions submit at least 5 names to the governor to pick from (the constitution provides at least 3 names must be given).

2) Minnesota’s SB 1082, an effort to adopt merit selection for all judicial offices (currently in place for interim appointments for trial court judges only), advanced in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 2.

3) The Oklahoma Senate’s effort to repeal merit selection (SJR 21) appears set to fail in the House for 2013.  Oklahoma House Rules require all Senate bills & joint resolutions, like SJR 21, be approved by the assigned House committee by April 11. However, the House Judiciary Committee has not put it on its agenda for today (April 9) and the House committee calendar for this week indicates the House Judiciary will not meet again before the April 11 deadline.

Death for SJR 21 in 2013 does not mean it is over for the Oklahoma legislature altogether. Under House Rule 6.9 SJR 21 will be back in the House Judiciary Committee at the start of the 2014 session.

4) It still remains unclear what, if anything, is going to happen in Tennessee, but whatever happens we’ll know in the next 24 hours.

I discussed the problem in depth here, in short the elements of the existing merit selection system: the nominating commission (JNC) and performance evaluation commission (JPEC) are set to expire. The JNC is set to end this year (June 30, 2012 + 1 year “wind down” period = June 20, 2013) and the JPEC in 2014 (June 30, 2013 + 1 year to “wind down”).

There are a great many moving parts, but the main sticking point occurred in March when an unrelated bill (SB 1058) was gutted and replaced with a major overhaul to the JPEC. Under the amendment the existing evaluation commission and all its members would be ended, a new JPEC installed and the new commission would have the power to not only change the criteria for “judicial performance” but allowed to block judges it deems not qualified from even getting on the ballot (currently the commission can recommend against retention but cannot actually stop the judge from trying). Proponents argue that because retention elections have failed to remove judges except one in the past, the JPEC should be allowed to do so.

Retention elections are set for November 2014 for all current Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals judges.

A list of all the Tennessee JNC/JPEC extension bills are below.

Bills Provisions Hearings/Status
HB 364 / SB 215 Extends the judicial nominating commission until June 30, 2015. Senate Government Operations on 4/10/13
HB 695 /SB 216 Extends the judicial performance evaluation commission until June 30, 2015. House Government Operations Committee hearing on 4/9/13; Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13
HB 796 Extends the judicial nominating commission until June 30, 2014. Approved as amended by full House 2/21/13.
SB 566 (counterpart HB 796 as originally introduced) Extends the judicial nominating commission until June 30, 2013. Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13
HB 835 /SB 567 Extends the judicial performance evaluation commission until June 30, 2014. Approved by full House 3/18/13. Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13.
SB 1058 (no House counterpart) AS AMENDED: Removes all judicial performance evaluation commission members. Replaces with 9 members, none of whom are judges (currently there must be 3 out of 9). Provides new JPEC allowed to rewrite any existing evaluation criteria (current criteria are set by Supreme Court Rule 27). Provides if JPEC recommends against judge, judge is not allowed to run for retention election (currently may run even if JPEC recommends against). Approved as amended by Senate Judiciary Committee 3/12/13. Senate Government Operations hearing on 4/10/13.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Minnesota debates merit selection, House committee advances constitutional amendment for 2014 ballot

March 13th, 2013

Yesterday’s hearing on bringing merit selection to Minnesota courts focused mostly on disagreements with a particular judge’s rulings in family and custody matters.

Minnesota HB 1083 is a constitutional amendment and statute that goes into effect if the amendment is approved. Creates merit selection system for all judges in state. Requires judges up for retention election be subject to judicial performance evaluation commission.

The testimony yesterday before the House Elections committee focused on just the retention election portion; the other provisions would be debated in other committees.

50 minutes of testimony was heard on the bill (audio is available here) from several people:

  • Representative Steve Simon, the lead sponsor of the bill (0:31-5:45): The impact on Republican Party of Minnesota v. White which struck down various restrictions on judge’s ability to make statements in campaigns. Cited to Wisconsin and other states where millions of dollars were spent on judicial elections.
  • Sarah Walker, President of the Coalition for Impartial Justice (5:45-10:30): Large amounts of money are coming into elections in other states and justice in Minnesota should not be for sale. 90% of Minnesota judges run unopposed; yes/no retention elections would mean elections 100% of the time.
  • Rep. Steve Simon (10:30-12:00): Oral amendment striking section 14 of the bill dealing with funding for judicial performance commission.
  • Tad Jude, 10th District Court Judge (12:00-15:30): Merit selection disenfranchises those who are not part of the establishment. There is no problem in Minnesota and there are states with retention elections with high-dollar campaigns.
  • Eric Magnuson, Chief Justice of Minnesota from 2008-2010, former chair of Commission on Judicial Selection (15:30-18:30): The system needs to change now before the public trust and confidence in the courts is eroded after White and Citizens United. The judicial performance evaluation system that is part of the bill will give voters information.
  • Sandra Grazzini, litigant in several domestic relations cases (18:30-22:00): Judicial elections mean judicial accountability. Recitation of complaints against family court judicial rulings against her.
  • Sherry Knute, League of Women Voter’s Minnesota (22:00-24:30): 2007 study by LWV. Need for accountability of judges, but also impartiality and balance. Support for merit selection, performance evaluation, and retention elections.
  • Andrea Rowe, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (24:30-26:30): The ability of people to vote is important and opposes premise that citizen’s are not qualified to pick their judges and removes judicial accountability to unaccountable political appointees.
  • Kate Johansen, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (26:30-28:45): Chamber supports “Quie Commission”, which recommended merit selection. Retention elections means less money and less pressure on judges. Judges should be arbiters, not advocates. Lower public confidence where there are contested elections.
  • Teresa Warner, Chief Judge for Ramsey County speaking for Minnesota District Judge’s Association (28:45-33:00): Judge’s Association was opposed to retention elections, now in favor if certain provisions are included in the bill, specifically 1) constitutionally created judicial performance evaluation commission not subject to control of other branches 2) uniform election system and mandatory merit selection for all judges 3) dedicated funding for performance evaluation that will not be used to influence evaluations. Was in favor on section 14 of the bill before it was removed.
  • Bonnie Roy, litigant in several domestic relations cases (33:00-36:30): Recitation of complaints against family court judicial rulings against her. Testimony focused on judicial discipline.
  • Dale Nathan, attorney (36:30-40:15): Concerns over judicial nominating commission. Claims commission will only approve judges who make decisions favoring the powerful. Comparison of commission to Hitler’s ascent in Germany, the Holocaust, China, and the Soviet Union.
  • Tom Prichard, Minnesota Family Council (40:15-42:15): Retention elections leads to unaccountable judiciary and abuse of power by judiciary. Judicial elections put in Minnesota constitution because of Dred Scott decision. Whatever negatives there are in contested elections are offset by need for accountability to people.
  • Tim Kinley, Our Kids Minnesota (42:15-45:00): Recitation of complaints against family court judicial rulings. Will never give up right to vote. Taking away only piece of accountability against judges. Comparison to voter ID laws: both keep people from voting. Buying access to nominating commission.
  • Greg Wersal, lead plaintiff in White cases (45:00-47:30): Retention elections will result in less qualified judges, won’t stop money from coming it. Use of merit selection in Minnesota will mean state losing its U.S. House of Representatives seats under Section 2 of the 14th Amendment as it deprives people of the right to vote. Lawsuit to be filed in Missouri based on this soon.
  • Rep. Steve Simon, sponsor (47:30-49:30): 90% of judges do not face opposition. If you want to hold judges accountable to voters, ensure voters have a chance 100% of the time to vote on a judge via yes/no retention elections.

The bill was approved on a voice vote and sent to the House Judiciary Finance and Policy Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Merit selection for judges: efforts to adopt it, extend it, end it or change it advance in 4 states in last 3 days UPDATE: 5 states

March 13th, 2013

The last 3 days in particular have probably been the most active 3 days for merit selection in decades, with efforts to end it, adopt it, extend it, or change it advancing in 4 states.

Adopt it: Minnesota HB 1083 is a constitutional amendment and statute that goes into effect if the amendment is approved. The amendment creates a merit selection system for all judges in state and requires judges up for retention election be subject to judicial performance evaluation commission. It was approved by the Minnesota House Elections Committee Tuesday.

Change it (1): Arizona’s HB 2600 would expand from the constitutionally established minimum of 3 to a minimum of 5 the number of names a governor must receive from a judicial nominating commission in the state. The increase, previously approved by the full House, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday.

Change it (2): Oklahoma SJR 24 would keep the merit selection system, but provide for no retention elections and a single, 20-year term  (see this post)

Extend it: I’ve noted in the past that Tennessee’s merit selection system is set to statutorily sunset this year, leaving no way for appellate judges to be elected. HB 835 would extend the state’s performance evaluation commission, a part of the merit selection system, until 2014. Coupled with HB 796 (previously approved by the full House in February) which extends the judicial nominating commission, merit selection would remain in place in the state until at least 2014. HB 835 was approved by the House Government Operations Committee earlier today.

End it (1): That 2014 date is important because Tennessee’s SJR 2 will be on the 2014 ballot and replace the state’s merit selection system with a quasi-federal one. SJR 2 passed the Hose with the required 2/3rds majority on Monday.

End it (2): The other legislature moving to end merit selection was Kansas. HB 2019, approved by the House Committee of the Whole Tuesday, would end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals only. A parallel effort to change it for the state’s Supreme Court, which would required a constitutional amendment, while obtaining the 2/3rds majority in the Senate earlier in the session does not appear to have the 2/3rds votes in the House.

UPDATE 3/14/13 End it  (3): Oklahoma SJR 21  would end merit selection for the state’s appellate merit selection system (see this post)

 

1 comment »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Minnesota bill would prohibit supreme court from issuing writ of mandamus against environmental agencies

February 7th, 2013

The writ of mandamus, in effect, orders a governmental agency or subordinate court to do some act. In some states it is has a constitutional basis (Virginia: “The Supreme Court shall, by virtue of this Constitution, have original jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition…”) but in others like Minnesota it is statutorily based. Minn. Stat. § 586.01 currently reads:

The writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.

Almost identical language can be found in Arizona (A.R.S. § 12-2021), California (Cal Code Civ Proc § 1085), Montana (Mont. Code Anno., § 27-26-102), Nebraska (R.R.S. Neb. § 25-2156), North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code, § 32-34-01), Oklahoma (12 Okl. St. § 1451), Oregon (ORS § 34.110),  and South Dakota (S.D. Codified Laws § 21-29-1). In none of these states are particular state agencies apparently exempted from the power of the writ.

Minnesota’s HB 48 of 2013, interestingly, would exempt two agencies from the Supreme Court’s power, amending Minn. Stat. § 586.01 to include the following:

The writ of mandamus may not be issued to the Department of Natural Resources or its commissioner or the Pollution Control Agency or its commissioner.

There is no indication why these two agencies would be exempted. The bill is currently before the House Civil Law Committee.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Minnesota Year in Review: court security, small claims limits

December 19th, 2012

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

HB 1607 Permits State Patrol to provide security and protection to Supreme Court justices for a limited period and within the limits of existing resources, in response to a credible threat on the individuals life or safety.

SB 506 Increases conciliation court claims from $7,500 to $10,000 in 2012 and to $15,000 in 2014.

 

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election

October 4th, 2012

Few if any state legislatures are in session, but one of those few is Michigan and that state’s House is set to come back into session November 27 to decide the fate of a bill that would ban the use of international law by the state’s judiciary.

Under Michigan  HB 4769 and SB 701

A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.

After initial bad press and rallies where the bills were introduced earlier this year the bills remained in their respective committees. However the House journal indicates a notice for a motion to discharge HB 4769 from the House Committee on Judiciary was filed by the bill’s primary sponsor September 11 and the motion made September 12. The vote on the motion was postponed until November 27, 2012.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: showdown vote in Michigan set for after November election

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: signed into law in Kansas, sent to study committee in New Hampshire, still technically alive in MI, NC, PA, & SC

May 29th, 2012

There were only two pieces of activity since the May 14 update:

  • New Hampshire’s Senate approved May 16 on a voice vote its Judiciary Committee’s recommendation to send (HB 1422) to an interim study committee, effectively killing the bill for 2012.
  • In Kansas, that state’s governor signed SB 79 on May 21. News reports are here, prior blog posts detailing provisions (including an attempt to tie it to Citizens United) here and here.

With adjournments already having occurred, and with Missouri set to formal adjourn May 30 (they informally adjourned May 18), only 4 states even have the theoretically potential to advance such legislation in 2012 (barring special sessions):

  • Michigan HB 4769 / SB 701: the legislature is likely not to formally adjourn sine die, thus the legislation remains at least technically alive until a new legislature is sworn-in sometime in 2013.
  • North Carolina HB 640: Legislation carries over from odd-numbered to even-numbered years and the legislature is now back in session as of May 16.
  • Pennsylvania HB 2029: the legislature is likely not to formally adjourn sine die, thus the legislation remains at least technically alive until a new legislature is sworn-in sometime in 2013.
  • South Carolina HB 3490 / SB 444: Adjournment is June 7, however neither bill has advanced out of committee since being introduced in early 2011.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: signed into law in Kansas, sent to study committee in New Hampshire, still technically alive in MI, NC, PA, & SC

4 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

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

This post has been updated. Click here.

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: